Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: E.R. Campbell on December 28, 2017, 07:38:04

Title: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 28, 2017, 07:38:04
Sure it does... debt all goes into the same lump and is "mostly" bad regardless of the party who created it.


Although he is still resting, quite comfortably, on top of the most recent polling, the last half of 2017 was less than kind to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and some of his ministers. Some people are suggesting that he and his government are looking a bit tattered ...

                    (https://coloneltedcampbell.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/20171014_amd001_0.jpg?w=318&h=179)

... but the news isn't any better for Andrew Who? Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh, neither of whom have managed to "connect" with Canadians, close the polling gaps or win any new seats in by-elections, all of which Justin Trudeau has done.

The economy is booming, well, moving along nicely at any rate even as the national debt climbs inexorably ... as someone else has pointed out it is the people, you and me, and the companies, large and small for which we work, that grow (or shrink) the economy while governments do (relatively) little in the short to medium terms. Governments make fiscal policies and they can have beneficial (or damaging) impacts in the medium to long terms. (Monetary policy is something else, again, but also important.) I'm going to suggest that a robust economic performance in 2017 owes next to nothing to Justin Trudeau, and whatever credit is due to any politicians goes to Stephen Harper, Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien.

Military matters have received short shrift from the Trudeau Liberals ... my suggestion is that you cannot find many ways to merge the military with the prevailing green, First Nations, feminist and "sunny ways" political agenda and, therefore, the Canadian Armed Forces are of little interest to this government. Absent something exciting from Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin that's unlikely to change in 2018.

NAFTA is looking a bit weak and flabby ... likely to go down for the count in 2018; if that's the case will the old Canada-US Free Trade arrangement kick in again or will that get shoved aside too and will we trade on WTO rules?  The CETA was signed, but that's Stephen Harper's deal ... had nothing to do with the Trudeau regime. Free(er) trade with Asia, which i would have thought might be a priority if NAFTA is going down the drain, took a sh!t kicking in late 2017 when the prime minister decided that "virtue signalling" to win by-elections in Canada was more important than global trade ... but that's only my opinion.

2018 should be a vital year for Team Trudeau ... Canadians are most likely to forget and forgive the bumbles and bungles in 2017 as the Liberals reshape themselves for the 2019 campaign (which, in fairness, began in November 2015). As things stand, IF Prime Minister Trudeau can stay out of trouble in 2018 ~ which might mean a cabinet shuffle ~ then he looks good to be re-elected in 2018 ... it's a big IF.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on December 28, 2017, 19:45:41
And how politics are done in the 21st century.

Facebook and the SNP

Quote
Facebook boasts of helping the SNP achieve victory with politics unit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/26/facebook-boasts-helping-snp-achieve-victory-politics-unit/

Twitter and the Labour Party

Quote
Revealed: Twitter admits how it helped Labour win the social media general election battle
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/27/revealed-twitter-admits-helped-labour-win-social-media-general/

But they weren't really biased donchano.....

The services could have been bought by the Tories too..... (if they had known about them?)

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on December 28, 2017, 19:56:47
The Tories aren't the ones missing meetings on TPP to hang out with the Facebook COO. Trudeau must be old friends with her, that absolves any ethics and lobbying conflict.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on December 28, 2017, 20:56:02
. . .
Military matters have received short shrift from the Trudeau Liberals ... my suggestion is that you cannot find many ways to merge the military with the prevailing green, First Nations, feminist and "sunny ways" political agenda and, therefore, the Canadian Armed Forces are of little interest to this government. Absent something exciting from Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin that's unlikely to change in 2018.
. . .
This isn't a Trudeau Minor issue but a Liberal Party issue in general for over half a century now.

Short CIA summary of Trudeau the Elder's reign.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 28, 2017, 21:12:59
This isn't a Trudeau Minor issue but a Liberal Party issue in general for over half a century now.

Short CIA summary of Trudeau the Elder's reign.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf (https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85T01058R000202840001-0.pdf)

 :cheers:

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The son is just like the father both in running up the deficit and doing as little as possible for the military.  You need to go back 60 years to see decent Liberal spending.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on December 29, 2017, 00:09:33
The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The son is just like the father both in running up the deficit and doing as little as possible for the military.  You need to go back 60 years to see decent Liberal spending.

To be fair, you'd have to go back almost as far to see any real decent conservative spending either. The current state of the CAF is a 2 party issue
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 29, 2017, 07:38:29
To be fair, you'd have to go back almost as far to see any real decent conservative spending either. The current state of the CAF is a 2 party issue

Agreed.

The last time we had any sort of "revolution" in the military was in the late very 1940s and very early 1950s when Louis St Laurent was the (Liberal) prime minister and Brook Claxton was the defence minister. They subscribed to the emerging "come-as-you-are" war theory and that meant that Canada's traditional reliance on a (mythical) strong reserve that could be quickly mobilized had to end and a tough, professional, "regular" military had to be created.

That was nearly 70 yers ago ... nothing much has changed since, except for lots and lots of cheese paring. No one has suggested a better basic model. All Paul Hellyer really wanted to do, 15 years St Laurent) was to make it, a professional, standing military, more cost effective.

Diefenbaker and Pearson subscribed to the St Laurent/Claxton doctrine but wanted to spend less and less on defence and more on social programmes; Pierre Trudeau really would have liked to disarm Canada but was persuaded to just cut deeply ~ way past the fat and into the muscle and bone; Mulroney didn't hate the military, but it wasn't a priority; Chrétien made further, deep, damaging cuts; Martin tried, briefly, to restore some strength; so did Harper ~ until 2012 when I think he just gave up on DND as a whole; Clark, Turner and Campbell didn't count.

It was a political wash, in my opinion. St Laurent was very good to, even, great on foreign and defence policy; the rest were fair to poor to god-awful (the Trudeaus, père et fils).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on December 29, 2017, 11:48:50
Some illuminating charts on the subject here: Canada - Military expenditure (https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/canada/military-expenditure)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jed on December 29, 2017, 16:19:10
Agreed.

The last time we had any sort of "revolution" in the military was in the late very 1940s and very early 1950s when Louis St Laurent was the (Liberal) prime minister and Brook Claxton was the defence minister. They subscribed to the emerging "come-as-you-are" war theory and that meant that Canada's traditional reliance on a (mythical) strong reserve that could be quickly mobilized had to end and a tough, professional, "regular" military had to be created.

That was nearly 70 yers ago ... nothing much has changed since, except for lots and lots of cheese paring. No one has suggested a better basic model. All Paul Hellyer really wanted to do, 15 years St Laurent) was to make it, a professional, standing military, more cost effective.

Diefenbaker and Pearson subscribed to the St Laurent/Claxton doctrine but wanted to spend less and less on defence and more on social programmes; Pierre Trudeau really would have liked to disarm Canada but was persuaded to just cut deeply ~ way past the fat and into the muscle and bone; Mulroney didn't hate the military, but it wasn't a priority; Chrétien made further, deep, damaging cuts; Martin tried, briefly, to restore some strength; so did Harper ~ until 2012 when I think he just gave up on DND as a whole; Clark, Turner and Campbell didn't count.

It was a political wash, in my opinion. St Laurent was very good to, even, great on foreign and defence policy; the rest were fair to poor to god-awful (the Trudeaus, père et fils).

I prefer fair to poor over god-awful any day of the week.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on December 30, 2017, 03:58:39
I prefer fair to poor over god-awful any day of the week.
By the end of the last CPC term we were heading into god awful territory.

Both parties are trash when it comes to support for the military. And there is one that would disband us altogether.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 30, 2017, 07:54:19
By the end of the last CPC term we were heading into god awful territory.

Both parties are trash when it comes to support for the military. And there is one that would disband us altogether.

But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters;it was a directive that was ignored (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/defence-figures-suggest-headquarters-not-cut-as-directed-1.1372007).

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

     1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

     2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on December 30, 2017, 09:35:26
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters; [http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/defence-figures-suggest-headquarters-not-cut-as-directed-1.1372007]it was a directive that was ignored[/url].

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

     1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

     2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.

 :goodpost:

I also think this is not an issue that belongs to any particular party.... each government / PM has not prioritized having any real military capability, which is an honest reflection of Canadian popular opinion quite frankly.

But, in it's current form, I also wouldn't support spending another dime on the DND / CAF until it sorts itself out. And I worry that Strong Secure Engaged will be nothing but wasted treasure... luckily I don't believe the money will actually be given to the DND.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on December 30, 2017, 13:35:22
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

I believe the answer lies in the a letter he wrote in the Spring of 2012 to then MND Peter MacKay ... it was a directive to cut "overhead," specifically in headquarters; [http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/defence-figures-suggest-headquarters-not-cut-as-directed-1.1372007]it was a directive that was ignored[/url].

I don't know how things are where you work, but in 37 years of soldiering and a decade in the private sector, in the tech community, I learned to recognize orders, even when they are given politely, and I learned that it was best to obey them.

What, I wonder, prompted Peter MacKay to ignore the prime minister's clear direction? Is (was) he the sort of fellow to go "off the reservation" like that? I don't think so ... I think the admirals and generals who surrounded him (and who, I have heard ~ rumours ~ had great influence over him) convinced him that:

     1. The PM was wrong, the CF's command an control superstructure was NOT bloated; and

     2. It would be a good idea to let them, the generals and admirals, manage things while he, MacKay, got out and met the troops in the field, which was something he seemed to honestly like doing.

I think you're on the right track, both parties have, indeed, ignored DND and Canada's legitimate defence needs, but cabinet is not solely to blame ... it might be that the military leadership needs to look in the mirror when it looks for the enemy.
or the war was over and we had out lived our photo op usefulness
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on December 30, 2017, 20:52:21
or the war was over and we had out lived our photo op usefulness

At least we got some kit while the photo op's were good. I'd rather get something if I've got to get #$%ed afterwards. Last guys gutted us for kit and personnel and still wanted the pictures. Didn't even get offered a smoke afterwards.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Editorial/Chretien/i-5Xs9XQG/0/02dbc941/XL/774707-XL.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on December 30, 2017, 21:11:38
But why? Why did Prime Minister Harper turn his attentions (and affections) away from the military and focus, instead, solely on deficit reduction? Some analysts believe that he could have done both: rebuilt the military, or, at least, not cut defence spending, and balanced the budget, but (and I'm agreeing with you) he decided to ignore DND and put all his efforts into balancing the budget.

Harper was nothing if not efficient.  They won elections with an extremely efficient vote spread almost ideally over the country to give them the seats they needed.  The CPC policies were specifically targeted to get maximum effect from small groups that could win in specific ridings and move them over to the CPC.  Policies like the GST cut (not very conservative cutting a consumption tax vs income tax), choice in childcare and the sports/music for your kids tax cuts.  Supporting the military would not move votes in strategic ridings.

The investment in the military was not paying off from the years previous and the war was not a popular subject.  I suspect "Harper the strategist" was frustrated by that.  So, doing what the Conservatives under him always did, they pivoted.  It wasn't like they were going to lose votes to the Liberals and NDP because they stopped supporting the military as it was obvious that the Liberals or NDP wouldn't do that either.  And it turns out that was exactly what happened; with the military (moral) support maybe even becoming a liability to them (Party of the Afghan war, F-35 sole source contract etc...).

I believe that he misjudged the demographics though.  The millenials are voting now.  And like most young adults who have nothing to protect they vote left.  It's a pretty standard voting pattern that you get more conservative as you get older.  There is also the increases in urban density and urban voters tend to vote more left as well.  And of course there was fatigue and the perception that the CPC were mean people (Canadian values...*facepalm*).

But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 30, 2017, 21:22:35


(https://photos.smugmug.com/Editorial/Chretien/i-5Xs9XQG/0/02dbc941/XL/774707-XL.jpg)

That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on December 30, 2017, 22:07:59
That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on December 30, 2017, 22:19:34
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.
Mr Harper visited Kandahar in 06. Either you listed a wrong year, or you missed a visit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on December 30, 2017, 22:22:02
But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.

Not certain that the NSPS / NSS is anything to brag about...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on December 30, 2017, 22:41:24
Mr Harper visited Kandahar in 06. Either you listed a wrong year, or you missed a visit.
Quick Google search, definitely wasn't a hard and fast list. Thanks for the catch. Its also interesting that he went in his first year in office, in a minority government.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on December 30, 2017, 23:19:36
That photo of him looking stupid with his helmet on backwards never gets old with me.  I can only hope the present selfie loving denizen will provide a similar faux pas one day.

I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on December 30, 2017, 23:22:43
Its also interesting that he went in his first year in office, in a minority government.

Not only that, it was his first foreign trip. (Mar 11-12, 2006)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 30, 2017, 23:33:13
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.

I have a photo of Harper handing me an IceCapp on the Boardwalk in 09 during his visit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 30, 2017, 23:38:40
I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.
Didn't fail me one little bit or make me feel shameful.  Leave me out of your "WE", thank you.  If he hadn't been such a crap to the military l might feel some pity.  But alas....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on December 31, 2017, 00:39:05
I know that I have said this before, but ALL of the shame in this picture lies with the military LdSH.  This should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should never have been photographed.  WE failed our government and our people on that day.

Agree with the sentiment against deliberate and unprofessional behaviour that only served to further the PM’s set against the military.  Those who set the PM up to look stupid, whether or not they (he) were (was) a fan of PMJC’s policies, knew full well what they/he were/was doing. :not-again:

:2c:

G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on December 31, 2017, 09:20:30
Agree with the sentiment against deliberate and unprofessional behaviour that only served to further the PM’s set against the military.  Those who set the PM up to look stupid, whether or not they (he) were (was) a fan of PMJC’s policies, knew full well what they/he were/was doing. :not-again:

:2c:

G2G

JC was a total arsehat towards the military and I still laugh at the picture but you are right is shouldn't of happened. Reminds me of a story about Paul Hellyer's visit to Bonnie. Supposedly when he was to be flown off, the pilot comes out to the aircraft acting like he's blind, deaf and dumb. Everyone else thought it was hilarious but many felt that the RCN in general and the RCN fixed wing community in particular sealed their demise with that stunt.

We in the military community love to play tricks on our fellow travellers but it seems that many of our political leaders have no ability to laugh at themselves. They have the power over us and we should tread carefully around their delicate sensibilities.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on December 31, 2017, 12:42:51
Harper was nothing if not efficient.  They won elections with an extremely efficient vote spread almost ideally over the country to give them the seats they needed.  The CPC policies were specifically targeted to get maximum effect from small groups that could win in specific ridings and move them over to the CPC.  Policies like the GST cut (not very conservative cutting a consumption tax vs income tax), choice in childcare and the sports/music for your kids tax cuts.  Supporting the military would not move votes in strategic ridings.

The investment in the military was not paying off from the years previous and the war was not a popular subject.  I suspect "Harper the strategist" was frustrated by that.  So, doing what the Conservatives under him always did, they pivoted.  It wasn't like they were going to lose votes to the Liberals and NDP because they stopped supporting the military as it was obvious that the Liberals or NDP wouldn't do that either.  And it turns out that was exactly what happened; with the military (moral) support maybe even becoming a liability to them (Party of the Afghan war, F-35 sole source contract etc...).

I believe that he misjudged the demographics though.  The millenials are voting now.  And like most young adults who have nothing to protect they vote left.  It's a pretty standard voting pattern that you get more conservative as you get older.  There is also the increases in urban density and urban voters tend to vote more left as well.  And of course there was fatigue and the perception that the CPC were mean people (Canadian values...*facepalm*).

But to be fair a there were some good things from the Harper gov't for the military.  We took delivery of new tanks; the LAV UP program went ahead; the NSPS now NSS was started; C-17, new Hercs and Chinooks were purchased.  Cyclone was kicked down the field despite the temptation to cancel it.  They kept the subs under similar temptations.

Good post but one point Underway.  The Afghan War was a Liberal venture in all respects that the CPC inherited upon election. 

It is often cited as a Conservative venture, much like the NVC.  Both of which, in actuality, lay squarely at the feet of the LPC.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on December 31, 2017, 13:37:58
Good post but one point Underway.  The Afghan War was a Liberal venture in all respects that the CPC inherited upon election. 

It is often cited as a Conservative venture, much like the NVC.  Both of which, in actuality, lay squarely at the feet of the LPC.

I agree that it was LPC venture however the Conservatives really didn't go out of their way to point that out did they.  They jumped in and supported the war with both feet tied together with yellow ribbons.  When he was Prime Minister was when the war got very hot as well (2006 onwards).  The majority of casualties happened when he was in charge. The Manley panel was an excellent way to ensure that the Liberals didn't get off scott free either (again a brilliant strategic decision by the Harper gov't) and ensure that the military got all those new tanks and aircraft needed without a big fight from the public or the opposition.

Rightly or wrongly I believe that the public perception of the Harper gov't was that the Conservatives through their own designs were the war party.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on December 31, 2017, 14:38:37
I agree that it was LPC venture however the Conservatives really didn't go out of their way to point that out did they.  They jumped in and supported the war with both feet tied together with yellow ribbons.  When he was Prime Minister was when the war got very hot as well (2006 onwards).  The majority of casualties happened when he was in charge. The Manley panel was an excellent way to ensure that the Liberals didn't get off scott free either (again a brilliant strategic decision by the Harper gov't) and ensure that the military got all those new tanks and aircraft needed without a big fight from the public or the opposition.

Rightly or wrongly I believe that the public perception of the Harper gov't was that the Conservatives through their own designs were the war party.

One has to remember the war heated up for Canada because we were moved from Kabul to Kandahar.  Which was a political move made by the LPC in power at that time. 

The CPC had no choice but to carry on now that we were in with both feet.   Alliances and external pressures and all.

But you are correct the public perception of the CPC as the instigators of our Afghan mission wholly incorrect.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on December 31, 2017, 17:23:35
This can go in US or Canadian politics.

QUOTE

Donald Trump becomes the first president in 40 years not to visit Canada in his first year
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/30/donald-trump-becomes-the-first-president-in-40-years-not-to-visit-canada-in-his-first-year.html

END QUOTE
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 01, 2018, 07:11:48
This can go in US or Canadian politics.

QUOTE

Donald Trump becomes the first president in 40 years not to visit Canada in his first year
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/12/30/donald-trump-becomes-the-first-president-in-40-years-not-to-visit-canada-in-his-first-year.html

END QUOTE


It takes two to tango ...

State visits, even head-of-government level visits are complex diplomatic and political thingies, each requiring both an invitation and an RSVP. President Trump cannot be blamed for not visiting Canada if he has not been invited. I recall, in the first blush of 2017, that there were rumours that President Trump would be invited to London, even <gasp> to address parliament ...  :blah: That fell by the wayside, too. The number of countries willing to invite Donald Trump for an official visit seems to be dwindling; he is NOT a political asset to many (most?) Western leaders ... he's always welcome in China because he always makes Xi Jinping look, in comparison, a little less like a serious threat to liberal-democratic values and interests.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 01, 2018, 23:14:38
Happy 2018 everyone!

You too, and may our disagreements and debates be polite and respectful into 2018
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on January 02, 2018, 09:44:59
.....may our disagreements and debates be polite and respectful ....

I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 02, 2018, 10:20:02
I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)

If we assume that philosophers know themselves, it's telling that Diogenes kept looking ;)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 02, 2018, 11:06:54
I keep hoping for "informed"... (kind of like Diogenes' search for an honest man, I guess)


I always find that some people consider “informed” being something that only conforms to their point of view and anything else is “uninformed”.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on January 02, 2018, 17:17:47
I always find that some people consider “informed” being something that only conforms to their point of view and anything else is “uninformed”.
Perhaps you misunderstand.  There are several people on this site, for example, who are ALWAYS mindlessly anti-Trump/Trudeau/etc or equally mindlessly pro-Trump/Trudeau/etc.  Sometimes they post sources for their views, which can be assessed for balance, veracity, relevance, etc.... but not often.  Quite frankly, I tend to dismiss most of those people out of hand.

By "informed" I mean the views of people who read widely (yes, even sources that are painfully biased in order to get opposing perspectives).  They then assess those readings based on the factors I just mentioned, plus history, cultural conditions, technology.... any relevant factors, then form their own informed opinion.

That I would much rather read, even if I'm prone to disagree based upon my own ever-revised thoughts.

YMMV
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Eye In The Sky on January 02, 2018, 17:54:46
Probably never catch Trudeau anywhere near a place that requires a helmet. Harper, on the other hand, visited Afg 3 times, 07, 09 and 11. Trudeau's been shepherding IMPACT for over 2 years and has yet to even visit Kuwait, let alone Iraq.

PM Harper not only went to Kuwait and ate with the troops etc he went to Erbil and not just to the Cdn location. He was in the city, close to the ISIS held ground.   He took it in with his own eyes and took time to share breakfast with the people there.  After the election the only visits were from talking heads who didn’t even understand what was happening.  We gathered at the HAS we worked out of to have the Div commander tell us we were a one of a kind asset in the coalition and no one else was doing what we were in a similar airframe.  Ironically he said all of this with an American P-3 AIP directly behind him as he faced us.  I always wondered if he wonder d what some of us were smirking about.  You don’t need a helmet on backwards to make yourself look stupid.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 02, 2018, 18:54:28
Maybe this is par for the course after a change in governments, I'm not sure because the former PM Harper was the only PM for literally all of my adult life up until Nov 2015.... but why is Harper the bar upon which we measure Trudeau? Why is the former PM Harper, who has not held the reigns for over 2 years now, still being brought up at all, especially by CPC supporters?

I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 02, 2018, 19:07:33
I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

For the first mandate after tossing out a prior government, everything bad is their fault, everything good is due to your brilliance.

For the second mandate, all good is due to you, and all bad is due to world economic or political considerations outside your control, but if you look with squinted eyes at some absurd metric that no one cares about, all is wonderful.

Entering the third election, you promise, well, essentially the same things you promised two cycles ago and never delivered on. The true believers will rejoice and shout down anyone who points out that it's the same stuff, eight years later.

Your experience may vary...

Quote
Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.

Good news!  Scheer isn't Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff or Jagmeet Singh, either.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jed on January 02, 2018, 19:13:12
Maybe this is par for the course after a change in governments, I'm not sure because the former PM Harper was the only PM for literally all of my adult life up until Nov 2015.... but why is Harper the bar upon which we measure Trudeau? Why is the former PM Harper, who has not held the reigns for over 2 years now, still being brought up at all, especially by CPC supporters?

I get irritated every time I hear the Liberals bring up the former CPC government's shortcomings, it makes me want to jump through the TV when PM Trudeau references Stephen Harper and essentially makes Stephen Harper the bar for his own performance... and it only makes it worse for the CPC party and their supporters* when they actually allow that kind frame to control the narrative, much less actively play that same card.

Sorry for the tangent, but it feels like we've spent pages comparing the two... again.

*of which, I'm not sure I can honestly say I identify with at this point in time. The only thing Andrew Scheer has that I like about him is that he's not Justin Trudeau... that's pretty weak.

I totally agree with all your comments up to the last sentence.

What is pretty weak is Justin Trudeau's proven record. You have to go far and wide to match the inane behavior and piss poor leadership coming from Canada's current Prime Minister. For people to deny the obvious are basic human flaws were they choose not to accept reality for their own reasons.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 02, 2018, 19:51:04
I totally agree with all your comments up to the last sentence.

What is pretty weak is Justin Trudeau's proven record. You have to go far and wide to match the inane behavior and piss poor leadership coming from Canada's current Prime Minister. For people to deny the obvious are basic human flaws were they choose not to accept reality for their own reasons.

Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I was not saying I like Trudeau better than Scheer... I was saying that so far Justin Trudeau (and all the qualities you point out) is Scheer's only redeeming quality for me.... which is not something that exactly qualifies you as the PM-in-waiting.

With the lack of quality, I'll be voting for a fringe party again...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 02, 2018, 20:24:40
Canada's Ambassador to Indonesia greeted the new year by tweeting his praise of Myanmar as a tourist destination... then quickly deleted it.  A journalist captured it.

https://twitter.com/DHamamdjian/status/948178356301959168
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 02, 2018, 20:44:05
Perhaps I worded it poorly, but I was not saying I like Trudeau better than Scheer... I was saying that so far Justin Trudeau (and all the qualities you point out) is Scheer's only redeeming quality for me.... which is not something that exactly qualifies you as the PM-in-waiting.

With the lack of quality, I'll be voting for a fringe party again...
I may have considered switching my vote if the Conservatives had chosen Bernier.

But they chose Scheer, so I think Trudeau has my vote again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 02, 2018, 20:58:56
I may have considered switching my vote if the Conservatives had chosen Bernier.

But they chose Scheer, so I think Trudeau has my vote again.

Not a set up to a partisan shot, but I am genuinely interested why you prefer Bernier to Scheer. And why that leads to a Liberal vote.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 02, 2018, 21:11:15
Not a set up to a partisan shot, but I am genuinely interested why you prefer Bernier to Scheer. And why that leads to a Liberal vote.
I'm not at all interested in social conservatism. I feel that Bernier would have been able to keep that part of the CPC in check. I do have some libertarian views, especially when it comes to deregulation. Seeing as how neither the LPC or CPC are really big on that, it's a wash between those two parties, which leads me to vote on social issues, in which case I'm far more aligned to the LPC than the CPC.

If Bernier was leader and was promising to get rid of things such as supply management and trade barriers between provinces I would have been tempted to see what he could do, especially if he the social conservative wing of the CPC was kept in check.

As it stands, I don't believe that is the case with Scheer, and I think he owes his current position to the very wing that I want no part of. If the Libertarian party of canada wasn't a joke and waste of a vote I wouldn't support the conservatives or the Liberals, but as it stands, I'll keep supporting the liberals.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 02, 2018, 21:57:54
I'm not at all interested in social conservatism. I feel that Bernier would have been able to keep that part of the CPC in check. I do have some libertarian views, especially when it comes to deregulation. Seeing as how neither the LPC or CPC are really big on that, it's a wash between those two parties, which leads me to vote on social issues, in which case I'm far more aligned to the LPC than the CPC.

If Bernier was leader and was promising to get rid of things such as supply management and trade barriers between provinces I would have been tempted to see what he could do, especially if he the social conservative wing of the CPC was kept in check.

As it stands, I don't believe that is the case with Scheer, and I think he owes his current position to the very wing that I want no part of. If the Libertarian party of canada wasn't a joke and waste of a vote I wouldn't support the conservatives or the Liberals, but as it stands, I'll keep supporting the liberals.

Thanks for that, Altair. I appreciate your opinion.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 02, 2018, 22:04:38
If Bernier was leader and was promising to get rid of things such as supply management and trade barriers between provinces I would have been tempted to see what he could do, especially if he the social conservative wing of the CPC was kept in check.

As it stands, I don't believe that is the case with Scheer, and I think he owes his current position to the very wing that I want no part of. If the Libertarian party of canada wasn't a joke and waste of a vote I wouldn't support the conservatives or the Liberals, but as it stands, I'll keep supporting the liberals.

Sounds like the same fear-mongering the Liberals and NDP used to target Harper with. 8 years with a majority and not a single social conservative motion passed in the Commons to force his views on anyone.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 02, 2018, 22:11:12
I'm not at all interested in social conservatism. I feel that Bernier would have been able to keep that part of the CPC in check. I do have some libertarian views, especially when it comes to deregulation. Seeing as how neither the LPC or CPC are really big on that, it's a wash between those two parties, which leads me to vote on social issues, in which case I'm far more aligned to the LPC than the CPC.

If Bernier was leader and was promising to get rid of things such as supply management and trade barriers between provinces I would have been tempted to see what he could do, especially if he the social conservative wing of the CPC was kept in check.

As it stands, I don't believe that is the case with Scheer, and I think he owes his current position to the very wing that I want no part of. If the Libertarian party of canada wasn't a joke and waste of a vote I wouldn't support the conservatives or the Liberals, but as it stands, I'll keep supporting the liberals.

I'll stand with you on Scheer isn't desirable but for me neither is Trudeau and his party.  I really hate feeling up against the wall for choice. 

As for your feeling towards what seems to be your true interest, the Libertarians, how do you expect them to gain traction and become a contender if you won't support them with your vote?   They won't become anything with support like that.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 02, 2018, 22:17:00
Sounds like the same fear-mongering the Liberals and NDP used to target Harper with. 8 years with a majority and not a single social conservative motion passed in the Commons to force his views on anyone.


I’m not sure I would call it fear mongering.  If the last leadership contest is any indication, the so-cons in the CPC are still very much a voice in that party.  Scheer may well follow Stephen Harper’s policy to steer clear of social issues though but there was just enough talk of it to turn me off as well.  My mind won’t be made up though until I see what the CPC chooses to run on and how much the Liberals screw up or not until the next tio .
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 02, 2018, 22:18:40
In considering the years beyond 2018, there's an interesting Globe and Mail article at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/multi-ethnic-mixed-race-canada-census-2016/article37475308/

As multi-ethnic population in Canada rises, complications arise

Navigating the many complications that come with a mixed identity, which range from political to sociological to health-related, is becoming more common across the country as an increasing swath of residents are reporting multiple ethnicities, according to data from the 2016 census.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 02, 2018, 22:26:32
I'll stand with you on Scheer isn't desirable but for me neither is Trudeau and his party.  I really hate feeling up against the wall for choice. 

As for your feeling towards what seems to be your true interest, the Libertarians, how do you expect them to gain traction and become a contender if you won't support them with your vote?   They won't become anything with support like that.
I do struggle with not voting for the libertarians, but the party is truly too small for me to vote for.  They only had candidates in 72 ridings in 2015.

I have considered giving them money every time the LPC emails me asking me for some.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 02, 2018, 22:50:42
I do struggle with not voting for the libertarians, but the party is truly too small for me to vote for.  They only had candidates in 72 ridings in 2015.

I have considered giving them money every time the LPC emails me asking me for some.

This last go around and probably the next, l wasn't going to vote for any of the usual suspects.  There was an independent candidate in my riding.  They got my vote for the reasons that l would be doing my civic duty by voting, l would give the usual suspects the finger by not supporting them and with any luck, the independent would get enough votes to get his deposit back.  A win-win-win, so to speak.

And again, if you don't stand up and give the Libertarians your support that's one less vote they'll miss out on towards becoming a serious party.  Your vote would not be wasted, rather it would have in my opinion more weight by your voting with your principals and heart.  Be an enabler instead of an anchor, there's enough sheep out there to vote Liberal anyhow.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 03, 2018, 01:11:48
When I said I'd probably be voting for a fringe party, it was the Libertarians I was speaking of. I hope they learned a lesson in 2015 after some internal strife that caused them to go from about 140 candidates to 72... I don't want to get into the inner-party drama but I think the leader, Tim Moen, did learn a good hard lesson out of that. I hope they do better in 2019, even though 2015 was technically a record year for them so that's something I guess...

As I said in another post when I was advocating for them back in 2015, there is empirical data to support that when 10% of a population adopts a principled / unshakeable belief, the rest of population quickly follows... in other words, 10% is somewhat of an ideological tipping point. So in voting for the libertarians, that really was the short-term goal. I'd rather support a party that not only represents my views, but also I can sleep relatively well knowing my voice was not only heard but that the reprehensible ones among them won't actually be able to do any harm since they won't be in power, for now.

If I vote CPC or LPC, I'm culpable for the idiocy that ensues. It's pretty catch 22.

8 years with a majority and not a single social conservative motion passed in the Commons to force his views on anyone.

Bill C-51? Which the Liberals argued against and then passed shortly after coming into government :facepalm: Tough on crime legislation which had minimum sentences that were unconstitutional? (and now, of course, the Liberals are still jailing people for marijuana... frig sakes, the people just can't win). Even something like income splitting is socially conservative. It is literally the government providing financial support to those who live the way the party has decided is in best interest of society. (i.e. married and with kids). I don't disagree with some social conservative values, but I don't want a government that actively legislates or supports it through taxpayers.

The CPC Facebook page just ran an ad about how PM Harper had passed twice as much legislation in the same time PM Justin Trudeau has been Prime Minister.... what kind of "small government" CPC is that exactly? It made me sick.

I think Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, and Andrew Scheer are the same disease (big intrusive government) masking each other as the cure for one another.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 04, 2018, 15:28:32
From the "next RCAF fighter" thread ...

He's waiting for the knives to come out after Scheer loses to Trudeau.

I agree ... but he's not the only one.

My guess (valid until end of the afternoon, only) is that Trudeau wins a minority in 2019 and both Scheer and Singh resign.

I have no views on who the NDP should select ... someone who doesn't alienate Quebecers for a start, I suppose.

The Conservatives need, in my opinion, to go young, female, bilingual and media savvy ... and there really aren't any obvious candidates, yet. Maybe one of Bernier or O'Toole is their best choice if:

     1. Scheer still cannot connect with Canadians in 2018; and

     2. Trudeau doesn't really, massively screw the pooch.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 04, 2018, 15:32:21
From the "next RCAF fighter" thread ...

I agree ... but he's not the only one.

My guess (valid until end of the afternoon, only) is that Trudeau wins a minority in 2019 and both Scheer and Singh resign.

I have no views on who the NDP should select ... someone who doesn't alienate Quebecers for a start, I suppose.

The Conservatives need, in my opinion, to go young, female, bilingual and media savvy ... and there really aren't any obvious candidates, yet.


Carolyn Mulroney.  She'll gain some experience provincially as an MPP then make the jump to federal politics when Scheer resigns and another drawn out leadership race starts up. young, female and media savvy plus has some family pedigree.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 04, 2018, 15:45:22
I expect the young Ms Mulroney will not hit the federal stage before 2023 or so; better to work out your mistakes on the provincial stage than the federal one.

Besides, when the Ontario Tories somehow inexplicably tank this year's Ontario election with their usual stream of unforced errors, she may be well positioned to take over the provincial party first...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 04, 2018, 16:02:28
I expect the young Ms Mulroney will not hit the federal stage before 2023 or so; better to work out your mistakes on the provincial stage than the federal one.

Besides, when the Ontario Tories somehow inexplicably tank this year's Ontario election with their usual stream of unforced errors, she may be well positioned to take over the provincial party first...

Not implausible but do the math.

She wins her seat provincially in 2018.  If Brown wins she'll likely get a cabinet post.  if Brown loses, my bet is someone more prominent than her will run.  Maybe a former federal CPC.  Anyways, we have a federal election in fall 2019.  Scheer loses and resigns.  Interim leader so and so takes over and leader (if history is any indication) is chosen in 2021 for a 2023 election.  I can see her make a run in 2023 with 2 years as the opposition leader and 3 years of cabinet work or as an opposition critic provincially.  She would have 5-6 years experience.  Trudeau had about 7 years before being elected PM.

   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 04, 2018, 18:49:20
Not implausible but do the math.

She wins her seat provincially in 2018.  If Brown wins she'll likely get a cabinet post.  if Brown loses, my bet is someone more prominent than her will run.  Maybe a former federal CPC.  Anyways, we have a federal election in fall 2019.  Scheer loses and resigns.  Interim leader so and so takes over and leader (if history is any indication) is chosen in 2021 for a 2023 election.  I can see her make a run in 2023 with 2 years as the opposition leader and 3 years of cabinet work or as an opposition critic provincially.  She would have 5-6 years experience.  Trudeau had about 7 years before being elected PM.

   
and she's a moderate.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 04, 2018, 18:52:48
From the "next RCAF fighter" thread ...

I agree ... but he's not the only one.

My guess (valid until end of the afternoon, only) is that Trudeau wins a minority in 2019 and both Scheer and Singh resign.

I have no views on who the NDP should select ... someone who doesn't alienate Quebecers for a start, I suppose.

The Conservatives need, in my opinion, to go young, female, bilingual and media savvy ... and there really aren't any obvious candidates, yet. Maybe one of Bernier or O'Toole is their best choice if:

     1. Scheer still cannot connect with Canadians in 2018; and

     2. Trudeau doesn't really, massively screw the pooch.

If Trudeau is reduced to a minority I can see Scheer staying on, particularly if the CPC came within striking distance of a minority.

I feel pretty confident Bernier will run again if there is another leadership contest. However, this time I think there are some prominent folks like Peter McKay that would run (God I hope not) and it would probably be a very contentious race, this time amongst some well-known people. Could Rona Ambrose return? I think, given her performance as interim leader (admittedly a much easier job than being the actual leader) and the fact that she is a woman would also make her a formidable option. If it can't be Bernier, I'd hope for Ambrose.

While it was happening, I thought she was doing a great job. Now that she's been replaced by Scheer, I just watched some YouTube clips of her and it really leaves you thinking how the Liberals would look now if they had been facing her every day in the HoC over the last few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3f4ts0Ob7o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVv2j7tbHsg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJZYLgy41o
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 04, 2018, 18:55:35
Could Rona Ambrose return? I think, given her performance as interim leader (admittedly a much easier job than being the actual leader) and the fact that she is a woman would also make her a formidable option.

Maybe that's her plan all along. Out of sigh, out of mind... for the time being. Distance herself from the old crowd and come back stronger than ever.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on January 04, 2018, 18:58:33
I agree ... but he's not the only one.

My guess (valid until end of the afternoon, only) is that Trudeau wins a minority in 2019 and both Scheer and Singh resign.

I have no views on who the NDP should select ... someone who doesn't alienate Quebecers for a start, I suppose.

The Conservatives need, in my opinion, to go young, female, bilingual and media savvy ... and there really aren't any obvious candidates, yet. Maybe one of Bernier or O'Toole is their best choice if:

     1. Scheer still cannot connect with Canadians in 2018; and

     2. Trudeau doesn't really, massively screw the pooch.

With identity politics the main discussion at this point I'm pretty sure the Conservatives will 18 wheeler it.  Is that tires screeching I hear?
http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/05/29/lgbt-conservatives-not-worried-scheer-wont-attend-pride.html (http://www.metronews.ca/news/ottawa/2017/05/29/lgbt-conservatives-not-worried-scheer-wont-attend-pride.html)

Of course events ...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2018, 21:19:51
I see our illustrious provincial leader is now taking on a Tim Horton's franchisee (in fact the original one) who has taken steps to even out her raise in the minimum wage by cutting back on benefits they had previously given their employees voluntarily.

Ontario premier calls Tim Hortons heir 'a bully' over wage actions
Kathleen Wynne reacts to CBC story uncovering compensation changes at franchise after minimum wage hike


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wynne-minimum-wage-1.4473156 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wynne-minimum-wage-1.4473156)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I'm not sure if she's just naive or thick as a post. We're already the province with the leading debt and she just keep piling on the cost of living for all of us in just another shameless ploy to get herself and her miserable party reelected.

Unlike Wynne who simply raises taxes or debt when she wants more money, business owners must either raise prices or take a cut in profits to meet rising wages. I wonder how long it will take her to change legislation so that the benefits this employer offered voluntarily become mandatory under our employment standards legislation? My guess: before the next election.

If she really wants "a province where everyone can get ahead" then she should just resign and take her moron party with her. :2c:

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 04, 2018, 21:45:24
I really do not want to see her or her party win.  But with all of these freebies she’s trying to Wynn the vote. 

Given that her current wage increase and free prescriptions affect mostly the younger demographic who traditionally have a lower voter turn out, I wonder if she’ll come up with something for the older demographic that might be feeling left out...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2018, 21:54:43
I really do not want to see her or her party win.  But with all of these freebies she’s trying to Wynn the vote. 

Given that her current wage increase and free prescriptions affect mostly the younger demographic who traditionally have a lower voter turn out, I wonder if she’ll come up with something for the older demographic that might be feeling left out...

The key, as usual, is Toronto and area (plus Ottawa) where all her strength is centred and which usually tosses the election to the Liberals. I also expect the public service unions will come out hard for her again because they just get one freebie after another.

I fear that as long as she keeps doling out the cash, she'll be unstoppable because those constituents don't care what the future debt burden will be.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 04, 2018, 23:28:29
From what I hear, the free prescriptions are not covering much.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 05, 2018, 00:20:40
I see our illustrious provincial leader is now taking on a Tim Horton's franchisee (in fact the original one) who has taken steps to even out her raise in the minimum wage by cutting back on benefits they had previously given their employees voluntarily.

Ontario premier calls Tim Hortons heir 'a bully' over wage actions
Kathleen Wynne reacts to CBC story uncovering compensation changes at franchise after minimum wage hike


http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wynne-minimum-wage-1.4473156 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/wynne-minimum-wage-1.4473156)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

I'm not sure if she's just naive or thick as a post. We're already the province with the leading debt and she just keep piling on the cost of living for all of us in just another shameless ploy to get herself and her miserable party reelected.

Unlike Wynne who simply raises taxes or debt when she wants more money, business owners must either raise prices or take a cut in profits to meet rising wages. I wonder how long it will take her to change legislation so that the benefits this employer offered voluntarily become mandatory under our employment standards legislation? My guess: before the next election.

If she really wants "a province where everyone can get ahead" then she should just resign and take her moron party with her. :2c:

 :cheers:

Or we could all pay 10 cents more for a cup of truly crappy coffee.......seeing as the collective we voted to raise the minimum wage.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 05, 2018, 00:28:47
Or we could all pay 10 cents more for a cup of truly crappy coffee.......seeing as the collective we voted to raise the minimum wage.

Are you proposing a government department to control coffee pricing, too?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2018, 00:52:14
Or we could all pay 10 cents more for a cup of truly crappy coffee.......seeing as the collective we voted to raise the minimum wage.

The "collective we" didn't vote for this. For those who voted Liberal, the Liberal platform in 2014 was to raise the minimum wage to $11.00 and then tie it to inflation.

http://strategycorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Ontario-Liberal-2014-Platform.pdf (http://strategycorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Ontario-Liberal-2014-Platform.pdf)

Since the 2014 election the increases took it to $11.40 for 2017 and then jumped to $14.00 this January. That's a 22.8% increase and greatly exceeds the rate of inflation. It's an election ploy, plain and simple.

By the way they also pledged to balance the budget by 2017/18 but only did that through a one-time Hydro One asset sale worth CA$3 Billion. The picture is bleak for the future.

http://torontosun.com/2017/06/01/ontarios-budget-a-house-of-cards/wcm/3f3290f7-4cdc-4c4a-8621-d19974b94f9d (http://torontosun.com/2017/06/01/ontarios-budget-a-house-of-cards/wcm/3f3290f7-4cdc-4c4a-8621-d19974b94f9d)

Agree with you as to quality of coffee - - but I truly love the apple fritters.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 05, 2018, 01:01:58
From what I hear, the free prescriptions are not covering much.

I'm not a pharmacist, but this may help,

What medications are covered

OHIP+ completely covers the cost of more than 4,400 drug products that are currently available through the Ontario Drug Benefit program, including:
•antibiotics to treat infections
•inhalers for asthma
•various insulins, oral diabetic medications and diabetes test strips
•epinephrine auto-injectors (e.g. EPIPENs®)
•drugs to treat arthritis, epilepsy and other chronic conditions
•medications to treat mental health conditions (e.g. antidepressants)
•attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drugs
•drugs to treat some childhood cancers and other rare conditions

Check medication coverage
Find out if your medication is covered through the Ontario Drug Benefit program, including OHIP+.
Type a medication name, ingredient or DIN
https://www.ontario.ca/page/check-medication-coverage/

The key, as usual, is Toronto and area (plus Ottawa) where all her strength is centred and which usually tosses the election to the Liberals.

The provincial Legislature passed the City of Toronto Act in 2006 in a 58-20 vote, with Liberals and New Democrats supporting it and Progressive Conservatives opposing it.

Prior to 2006, the mayor had to go to Queen's Park to ask for permission to install a speed bump.

Voters remember the party that opposed it at election time. Those who do not remember are reminded.

Province of Toronto? Where's the door!?  :)

I also expect the public service unions will come out hard for her again because they just get one freebie after another.

Our union has always supported the politicians we believe will improve our lives and livelihoods.

I expect most people vote the same way.

"they just get one freebie after another" reminds me of the "I pay your salary" types we used to run into on jobs.


 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 05, 2018, 09:32:05
"they just get one freebie after another" reminds me of the "I pay your salary" types we used to run into on jobs.

Under any other government I might agree with you.  Wynne has bought the unions though this time around for the election.  Even the unions acknowledge it.  7.5% increase and no conditions.  That's a freebie.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 05, 2018, 11:00:25
Wynne has bought the unions though this time around for the election. 

I retired nine years ago, but our union respected its members’ right to vote for whomever they chose.

Members were only asked to respect the union's right to endorse candidates, regardless of party, who demonstrated their support for our members and the emergency services.

After that, our union believed that every member had an absolute right to vote for the candidate that he or she feels best represented and embraced that individual’s views and political philosophy. No one, including our union, had a right to tell you how to vote.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 05, 2018, 11:21:37
I retired nine years ago, but our union respected its members’ right to vote for whomever they chose.

Members were only asked to respect the union's right to endorse candidates, regardless of party, who demonstrated their support for our members and the emergency services.

After that, our union believed that every member had an absolute right to vote for the candidate that he or she feels best represented and embraced that individual’s views and political philosophy. No one, including our union, had a right to tell you how to vote.

Ok, I'll rephrase.  She gave the unions a freebie in an attempt to buy their vote.   I'm not questioning how the membership chooses to vote or even if the unions tell its membership how to vote.  I am however stating that Wynne is handing out freebies to win votes. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 05, 2018, 13:35:30
I believe the term is extracting your money to purchase votes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 05, 2018, 14:45:44
Nothing more than class warfare. Do you think it's any accident that a Joyce owned franchise was singled out for condemnation?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2018, 15:37:09
I retired nine years ago, but our union respected its members’ right to vote for whomever they chose.

Members were only asked to respect the union's right to endorse candidates, regardless of party, who demonstrated their support for our members and the emergency services.

After that, our union believed that every member had an absolute right to vote for the candidate that he or she feels best represented and embraced that individual’s views and political philosophy. No one, including our union, had a right to tell you how to vote.

That's only because the union can't go into the voting booth with you to supervise how you vote. Take a look, however, at the ad campaigns that nurses and teachers and others run at the time of the elections. They are massively against the Conservative Party and usually much more negative than the Liberals' own advertising.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 05, 2018, 17:30:39
Or we could all pay 10 cents more for a cup of truly crappy coffee.......seeing as the collective we voted to raise the minimum wage.

Oh, we will.... and a proportionate amount on every other thing we purchase.

On one hand, gov'ts tell consumers they have too much debt and not enough savings... on the other hand they continue to cause massive inflation to make their own soaring debt cheaper... those who have net savings lose the value of their savings in exchange. This minimum wage increase is really just a clever tax.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 05, 2018, 17:47:03
Quote
really just a clever tax
Cue National Carbon Tax.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 05, 2018, 18:07:46
Take a look, however, at the ad campaigns that nurses and teachers and others run at the time of the elections. They are massively against the Conservative Party and usually much more negative than the Liberals' own advertising.

This is shows what it took to get PTSD presumptive / cumulative legislation passed in 2016.
It won't help my generation, but it will help present and future members,

QUOTE

"When first responders seek a response, they don’t give up until the government gives in."
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/02/18/how-firefighters-beat-politicians-at-their-own-game-cohn.html

On Thursday ( 2016 ), Queen’s Park will move forward on legislation recognizing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a “presumptive” hazard for firefighters and other first-responders (including police and paramedics).

The OPFFA’s ( Ontario Professional Firefighters Association ) campaign to win the hearts and minds of Liberal politicians turned heads in the 2007 election, when union members donned yellow T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, “Firefighters for McGuinty” — flanking the premier protectively at campaign stops.

Fanning out across the province, they served as photogenic backdrops at photo-ops — and helpfully blocked the shots of photographers when an anti-tax mascot dubbed “Fibber” stalked the premier. Again in the 2011 election, they deployed a yellow RV painted with a “Firefighters for McGuinty” banner, hitting more than 60 campaign stops and drowning out protesters when needed.

Belatedly, the opposition Progressive Conservatives and NDP are trying to crash the firefighters’ longstanding love affair with the Liberals.

END QUOTE


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2018, 23:14:52
Or we could all pay 10 cents more for a cup of truly crappy coffee . . .

Not to belabour the point but it seems the reason that franchisees are cutting benefits is because Tim Horton's parent organization, RBI, isn't allowing them to raise prices meaning that all the new labour costs have to either come out of the franchisee's profit margin or be on the backs of the employees one way or another.

Quote
The Great White North Franchisee Association, which says it speaks for a number of Canadian Tim Hortons franchise owners, has said it is facing a massive increase in labour costs and says it has cut costs because their parent company, RBI, has refused to raise prices.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tims-timhortons-minimumwage-wynne-liberals-ontario-1.4474836 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tims-timhortons-minimumwage-wynne-liberals-ontario-1.4474836)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 05, 2018, 23:29:25
All this attention paid to Tim Hortons is a red herring. The real issue is that small business has been hit with a 20% increase in labour costs. That can only translate in to cost saving initiatives such as reducing benefits, reducing the number of employees or not hiring new employees as planned, cutting hours etc, etc. Many small businesses provide for a comfortable, but not lavish life for the owners. To characterize all small business owners as robber barons is the same tactic the federal Liberals used to paint doctors as thieves. A tactic that backfired the last time it was used, I should point out.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on January 06, 2018, 13:31:11
... RBI isn't allowing [franchisees] to raise prices meaning that all the new labour costs have to either come out of the franchisee's profit margin or be on the backs of the employees one way or another.
Those are not mutually exclusive options. It is possible that store owners and employees both take a hits to increase the wages.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 06, 2018, 13:40:57
To my mind, there's a strong undercurrent of pettiness.  The incremental cost of a cup of coffee is negligible, yet the owners are now stating "you can't take a cup as you leave (in your own cup) any more".  While other measures may include genuine attempts to save money (making all breaks unpaid, charging for uniforms etc), taking away a departure double-double seems just a petty way for owners to lord over employees.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on January 06, 2018, 14:26:39
To my mind, there's a strong undercurrent of pettiness.  The incremental cost of a cup of coffee is negligible, yet the owners are now stating "you can't take a cup as you leave (in your own cup) any more".  While other measures may include genuine attempts to save money (making all breaks unpaid, charging for uniforms etc), taking away a departure double-double seems just a petty way for owners to lord over employees.

Possibly, or perhaps there was in fact a cost analysis conducted (at the franchise level?) that resulted in a previously acceptable (within total revenue/expenses framework) 'perk' to employees now being less acceptable because the Ontario Minimum Wage now eats a much greater share of revenue than it did previously.  As well, would not the Federal Government's recent take on taxable benefits also mean that the employees would have to claim as income (or be deducted at source by the employer) the value of the coffee provided to an employee at the end of a shift?  You know, helping the middle class live a better quality of life than they did under the previous Fed/Ont Govt mix?

 ???

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jed on January 06, 2018, 14:29:34
To my mind, there's a strong undercurrent of pettiness.  The incremental cost of a cup of coffee is negligible, yet the owners are now stating "you can't take a cup as you leave (in your own cup) any more".  While other measures may include genuine attempts to save money (making all breaks unpaid, charging for uniforms etc), taking away a departure double-double seems just a petty way for owners to lord over employees.
So pettiness only works one way?  The government / unions are not being petty?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on January 06, 2018, 14:44:36
Funny - Did Tim's labour costs go up in New Brunswick or Alberta?  Tim's is running a national organization.  Its customers expect the experience, including prices, to be broadly similar - if not the same - all across Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 06, 2018, 14:54:01
Funny - Did Tim's labour costs go up in New Brunswick or Alberta?  Tim's is running a national organization.  Its customers expect the experience, including prices, to be broadly similar - if not the same - all across Canada.

Only the corporate part of Tims is a national venture. The franchises are independently owned and operated (only 29 outlets were owned by the corporation as of 31 Dec 16). The corporation governs the sales prices, so the 20% still has to come out of the owners' hides.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on January 06, 2018, 15:09:09
Petty, not really.. Using round numbers, price on a large double double is 2.00.  Profit would be approximately forty cents.  Forty cents is equivalent to a nickle an hour for an 8 hour shift.  It is a small re-capture but not insignificant.  Paid breaks means that the employer has to cover all the costs of staffing one extra body in order to ensure breaks.  For two breaks that is another dollar an hour cost to the employer that he has been paying to this point.  Since he can't raise prices and he can't afford to run a charitable programme, where else is he going to cover a 20% increase?  Wynn needs to take a basic management course!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 06, 2018, 15:40:45
Funny - Did Tim's labour costs go up in New Brunswick or Alberta?  Tim's is running a national organization.  Its customers expect the experience, including prices, to be broadly similar - if not the same - all across Canada.
Yeah, funny that.

Alberta and NB both raised the minimum wage and you didn't hear these stories.

Ontario does it in a election year and suddenly it's an issue.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 06, 2018, 15:58:03
Yeah, funny that.

Alberta and NB both raised the minimum wage and you didn't hear these stories.

Ontario does it in a election year and suddenly it's an issue.

There was and still is plenty of opposition to it in Alberta (I live here now). I also lived and worked in Alberta when it had close to the lowest minimum wage in the country ($7 at the time, ~2005-07) and yet Burger King was paying $15/hr for a part-time 16 year old to flip burgers. Everyone from places with shitty economies like Nfld would ask me "what's minimum wage" because they thought minimum wage was standard of living indicator, and I'd tell them, "I don't know, it's never been mentioned." Imagine that, an actual strong economy was the best cure for low wages....

New Brunswickers are barely capable of governing themselves (I lived there from May 2012 - Aug 2017), you only know the provincial government is doing something good there if the voting public is complaining about it. I am from Newfoundland which I would say the same thing about.

Minimum wage has to be one of the most frustratingly stupid issues. Long-term, it literally does nothing good or bad for anyone.... except inflation, which is good for the government and bad for anyone with positive net worth.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 06, 2018, 16:15:03
Yeah, funny that.

Alberta and NB both raised the minimum wage and you didn't hear these stories.

Ontario does it in a election year and suddenly it's an issue.


It’s also the size of the increase and the short time frame.  Add to that new employment rules, crippling hydro rates and taxes and you have a recipe for putting small to medium businesses out of business.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Dimsum on January 06, 2018, 16:32:43
Yeah, funny that.

Alberta and NB both raised the minimum wage and you didn't hear these stories.

Ontario does it in a election year and suddenly it's an issue.

Let's be serious - if ON does pretty much anything, no matter how small, the national news will make it an issue.  It has almost 40% of the country's population, and most of it centred around the GTA.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 06, 2018, 16:38:40
It has almost 40% of the country's population, and most of it centred around the GTA.

"Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver — are now home to more than one-third of all Canadians with a combined population of 12.5 million, with almost one half living in Toronto and its suburban neighbours."
http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/02/08/census-2016-canada-s-big-cities-home-to-big-share-of-35-million-canadians.html
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Baden Guy on January 06, 2018, 16:50:44
Some more info on the context of this story:

"Even before the latest minimum-wage meltdown, Tim Hortons was a brand in crisis"

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/01/06/even-before-the-latest-minimum-wage-meltdown-tim-hortons-was-a-brand-in-crisis.html
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on January 06, 2018, 17:17:50
"Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver — are now home to more than one-third of all Canadians with a combined population of 12.5 million, with almost one half living in Toronto and its suburban neighbours."
http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2017/02/08/census-2016-canada-s-big-cities-home-to-big-share-of-35-million-canadians.html

Indeed.  Time for Toronto to have its own seat at the United Nations where its brilliance can be truly appreciated.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 06, 2018, 17:21:05
Indeed.  Time for Toronto to have its own seat at the United Nations where its brilliance can be truly appreciated.

No. But, in my opinion, time for an urban secession to split the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario into a new Canadian province.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 06, 2018, 20:24:27
No. But, in my opinion, time for an urban secession to split the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario into a new Canadian province.
I only want a split if they take the Ontario debt with them.  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 06, 2018, 20:37:19
Kathleen 'Ontario Hydro' Wynne calling Tim Hortons bullies, that's rich.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 06, 2018, 23:23:31
Indeed.  Time for Toronto to have its own seat at the United Nations where its brilliance can be truly appreciated.

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 06, 2018, 23:27:41
Indeed.  Time for Toronto to have its own seat at the United Nations where its brilliance can be truly appreciated.

Alphabetically, somewhere between North Korea and Zimbabwe.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 06, 2018, 23:38:49
Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario would be good enough for me.  :)

#GTAexit

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 07, 2018, 00:44:37
That would make for a dangerous precedent.

Montreal would ask for the same treatment, and imagine Quebec without the urban multicultural cosmopolitan of Montreal in it.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 07, 2018, 01:14:52
Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario would be good enough for me.  :)

#GTAexit
Why?  What's to gain?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on January 07, 2018, 01:25:00
Why?  What's to gain?

Transfer payments.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 07, 2018, 07:50:21
There was and still is plenty of opposition to it in Alberta (I live here now). I also lived and worked in Alberta when it had close to the lowest minimum wage in the country ($7 at the time, ~2005-07) and yet Burger King was paying $15/hr for a part-time 16 year old to flip burgers. Everyone from places with shitty economies like Nfld would ask me "what's minimum wage" because they thought minimum wage was standard of living indicator, and I'd tell them, "I don't know, it's never been mentioned." Imagine that, an actual strong economy was the best cure for low wages....

New Brunswickers are barely capable of governing themselves (I lived there from May 2012 - Aug 2017), you only know the provincial government is doing something good there if the voting public is complaining about it. I am from Newfoundland which I would say the same thing about.

Minimum wage has to be one of the most frustratingly stupid issues. Long-term, it literally does nothing good or bad for anyone.... except inflation, which is good for the government and bad for anyone with positive net worth.

+300 'cause you're exactly right!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 07, 2018, 11:02:26
Quote
No. But, in my opinion, time for an urban secession to split the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario into a new Canadian province.

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 07, 2018, 11:32:58
Why?  What's to gain?

That the government of the GTA would belong to and be responsible to the local citizens who elected it, not the provincial government.

eg: City Hall not having to get permission from Queen's Park to install a speed bump.

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.

Make Canada a one-party ( ie: Conservative ) state?

That would put us in the same category as: China, North Korea, Cuba...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 07, 2018, 11:36:31
Make Canada a one-party ( ie: Conservative ) state?

That would put us in the same category as: China, North Korea, Cuba...

 :facepalm:

You win the Internet today for stupid hyperbole, MM....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 07, 2018, 11:40:07
:facepalm:

You win the Internet today for stupid hyperbole, MM....

Sorry you feel that way.

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.

Sounds like a one-party ( Conservative ) state to me.

Current one-party states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-party_state#Current_one-party_states
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 07, 2018, 13:02:41
That the government of the GTA would belong to and be responsible to the local citizens who elected it, not the provincial government.

eg: City Hall not having to get permission from Queen's Park to install a speed bump.

EHealth scandal
Gas plants scandal
Ornge scandal

I think I can see why Toronto leadership needs to ask permission to spend money on a speed bump ;)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 07, 2018, 14:19:16
mariomike:
Quote
Sounds like a one-party ( Conservative ) state to me.

Do you really think that? You think no one in the ROC would cast a vote for the LPC? Lots of people in the ROC love his hair and selfies.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 07, 2018, 17:38:58
So I saw some of the effects of the minimum wage increase. I go to the same place for breakfast/brunch with the wife every Sunday.  I noticed the new menus and new pricing.  Everything went up 1 to 3 dollars.  The owner didn’t want to lay off or cut back any hours so raised his prices.  Says he’ll see how that works in the coming months. 

Now his prices have been the same for the last three years and they are already low so not too much a hit on my wallet but it makes me think twice if I consider ordering something more expensive from time to time.

My wife however commented on how maybe we should just have brunch at home more often and maybe limit our brunch there to every two weeks.  She is much more frugal than me. 

I guess it all depends on what people are willing to accept.  Increased prices or lower service.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 08, 2018, 00:53:55
Relax.  The same process will repeat that has repeated before: min wage goes up, prices and wages adjust (recalibrate) accordingly.  A new equilibrium will be reached, at which the new min wage will have about as much purchasing power relative to the new price/wage structure as the old min wage had relative to the old price/wage structure.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 08, 2018, 01:43:55
Relax.  The same process will repeat that has repeated before: min wage goes up, prices and wages adjust (recalibrate) accordingly.  A new equilibrium will be reached, at which the new min wage will have about as much purchasing power relative to the new price/wage structure as the old min wage had relative to the old price/wage structure.
What! You mean politicians cannot legislate supply and demand?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 08, 2018, 08:04:19
Relax.  The same process will repeat that has repeated before: min wage goes up, prices and wages adjust (recalibrate) accordingly.  A new equilibrium will be reached, at which the new min wage will have about as much purchasing power relative to the new price/wage structure as the old min wage had relative to the old price/wage structure.

You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 08, 2018, 09:05:54
You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.
Now we can all be just as poor as those trying to live off minimum wage. Wealth distribution, Comrade.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on January 08, 2018, 09:35:34
Relax.  The same process will repeat that has repeated before: min wage goes up, prices and wages adjust (recalibrate) accordingly.  A new equilibrium will be reached, at which the new min wage will have about as much purchasing power relative to the new price/wage structure as the old min wage had relative to the old price/wage structure.

Maybe.  But the amount raised in such a short time is what is different plus add in all the other employment rules like vacation leave, guaranteed hours or pay for shift cancellations is what is a bit different. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 08, 2018, 10:44:20
I think I can see why Toronto leadership needs to ask permission to spend money on a speed bump ;)

To paraphrase Mayor LaGuardia, there is no Liberal or Conservative way of fixing a sewer. 

Having spent my career as municipal employee, I was/am thankful that these party politcs "discussions" began at the provincial level. :)

Do us a favor and become your own country.

Likewise.

ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.

Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win.










Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 08, 2018, 10:59:44
I am sorry to have to say so: That is one of the least thought through argument I have seen in along time.

How on earth could Toronto becoming it's own province make Canada a single party country ?????????

They would still have federal ridings ... and very likely the same number of ridings. So how the hell would that change Canada !!!!

As for the remaining Ontario province, if it is so "conservative", I am willing to bet that, after being "freed" from them Libs, they would fracture into the "very conservatives" vs "less conservatives", etc. etc.

One of the consequences of having a real Parliamentary democracy is that it always creates a two party system at the least.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 08, 2018, 11:11:11
How on earth could Toronto becoming it's own province make Canada a single party country ?????????

They would still have federal ridings ... and very likely the same number of ridings. So how the hell would that change Canada !!!!

My reply was to this,

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on January 08, 2018, 11:38:54
That is one of the least thought through argument I have seen in along time.
True, but it's a welcome break from his turning every discussion into a collection of ambulance stories.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 08, 2018, 11:53:19
OK, fair on the "country" thing. But it still doesn't work in making Canada into a single party state:

Take the 7 millions souls of the GTA out of the Canadian equation and Quebec's importance in the new mix becomes 30% and BC becomes 17%. Neither of these two provinces are exactly conservative lands. Add the maritime provinces, which are pretty Liberal, and you can still have a good alternation of the two major parties (with Quebec dictating which way it goes in most cases, thus acquiring an even greater influence on federal affairs and causing more alienation of the prairies provinces).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 08, 2018, 11:57:20
OK, fair on the "country" thing.

Thank-you. That is what I was replying to,

"Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes."

But it still doesn't work in making Canada into a single party state:

I said,

"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 08, 2018, 12:28:44
"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."

Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MilEME09 on January 08, 2018, 12:31:08
Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Thus electoral reform never went through, to much to loose for the libs
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 08, 2018, 12:32:04
It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario would be good enough for me.  :)

#GTAexit

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.

My reply,

"Sounds very close to a one-party state to me. Where Liberals can always run, but Conservatives will always win."

Or, as someone else put it,

I am willing to bet that, after being "freed" from them Libs, they would fracture into the "very conservatives" vs "less conservatives", etc. etc.


"Secession of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) from the province of Ontario."  :)



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 08, 2018, 12:33:41
Thus electoral reform never went through, to much to loose for the libs

It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MilEME09 on January 08, 2018, 12:37:41
It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.

Ah right, I almost forgot about that, considering most Canadians and the opposition favored proportional rep
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Furniture on January 08, 2018, 12:41:38
You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.

This is the part I am surprised more people aren't upset by. The rest of us have essentially taken a pay cut so that the Liberals can buy votes in the upcoming election. This posting can end any day now, I'll gladly sail every month to leave this province...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Brad Sallows on January 08, 2018, 14:35:53
Electoral reform is elusive because:
1. The Liberals, as the "centre" party, favour a transferable vote.
2. The NDP, as a not-centre party without enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour proportional rep.
3. The CPC, as a not-centre party with enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour FPTP.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on January 08, 2018, 14:41:36
You forgot ...and everyone else who didn't get a 20% raise will see their purchasing power decrease.

And that's the real issue. The reality is the middle class are the ones squeezed by raises in the minimum wage.

Thsee are just attempts at making equality of outcome vice equality of opportunity. But... it's cheaper than properly funding schools   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on January 08, 2018, 18:45:18
Electoral reform is elusive because:
1. The Liberals, as the "centre" party, favour a transferable vote.
2. The NDP, as a not-centre party without enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour proportional rep.
3. The CPC, as a not-centre party with enough support to win a majority under FPTP, favour FPTP.

Indeed. The last poll I can find indicates that 48% of Canadians want electoral reform while only 35% don't, with the remainder in the unsure category. So, the majority would presumably be weighted in favour of change from the FPTP system, which is in line with the 63% of Canadians who voted for parties who wanted electoral reform. One point though- I would argue that the CPC is in fact a centre party, though centre-right. Canadians are very heavily centrist (77% support either liberal or CPC at the moment) with the, in reality, slight differences between conservatives and liberals making the difference between the two.

Personally, I believe in one person one vote and making an actual choice vice the ranked ballot system which essentially allows one to have their cake and eat it too. The best way to get representation then, to me, is the FPTP as though in principle the proportional representation model is the most fair in that each vote counts no matter the location, it kills any sort of party accountability to the voters. It also effectively creates a permanent minority government, which isn't beneficial. I would have preferred that there be an elected senate like in the US to allow for effective breaking of the current "elected dictatorship" that exists in a majority government.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2606/one-half-see-need-for-electoral-reform/

It didn't go through because the media finally caught on that electoral reform was a thinly veiled attempt to restore the natural ruling party to Canada. The Liberals favoured any ranked system that would get them consistently elected as no Tory supporter would rank NDP 2nd, or vice versa.

Disagree with this though. I think that the real issue was that 65% of Canadians polled wanted a referendum on any electoral reform system, and the Liberals weren't interested in going down that road. In reality, with a majority the Liberals could have simply passed an electoral reform bill but acquiesced. I would suggest then that the likely requirement for a referendum created a "juice not worth the squeeze" sort of scenario. Naturally each party will do what is best for their party- that's why the CPC supports FPTP so heavily as they wouldn't have a chance of a majority in a ranked ballot and would be in a permanent minority situation in proportional.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 08, 2018, 19:37:11
Just remember which party leader has "an admiration for the basic dictatorship in China". It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

Oh, oh...I know this one.

Is it Donald Trump?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 08, 2018, 20:22:07
that's why the CPC supports FPTP so heavily as they wouldn't have a chance of a majority in a ranked ballot and would be in a permanent minority situation in proportional.

That really depends on how the ranked ballot is set up.

I kind of think a ranked ballot is the best representation of a population's sentiment. However, we recently saw a ranked ballot experiment in Canada which failed, in my opinion, to represent it's constituents and it made me think twice of daring to play with electoral reform.

I'm talking about the CPC leadership election. Now, full disclosure, I was and am 100% behind Maxime Bernier. I don't think the thoughts I've had on this are centred around sour grapes but to deny that sour grapes could affect my ability to be objective would just be dishonest with myself; it's certainly possible.

However, the CPC leadership election used a rank ballot, and what I thought was really poorly thought out and really resulted in a leader who I think does not have the support of the party from the get go, was the fact that a 12th place vote, in the end, was valued the same as a 1st place vote. This really doesn't make sense, since a 1st place vote means you at least, more than anyone, represented the voter's views. A 12th place vote means the voter clearly did not connect very well with you, doesn't have much support for your views, and didn't think you very worthy of their vote... yet, in the CPC election, that 12th place vote was valued the same as a 1st place vote. I can't believe anyone actually even filled out their ballot all the way to 13 candidates to be honest.... they clearly didn't think very highly of that candidate.

*Thought Experiment*
In the federal system, there are only a few parties that really have a platform at all to connect with voters (changing more and more with social media). A third or fourth place vote being worth the same as a 1st place vote, we might as well just put them on a roulette wheel. But I could see something like 2nd place votes being worth 33.3% of a first place vote.... If you can get 39% of first place votes, and 37% of second place votes, I can see how you have the support to govern with majority power. However, if you have 38% of first place votes, but no second place votes.... you'd have to govern with a minority because clearly the other 62% of the population don't have much support for you.

This way, we kind of get the benefit of FPTP in which majorities are attainable and we give the government the leash it needs to do it's job.... but we also ensure a party that is despised by half the population doesn't get that same length of leash.
[/Thinking out loud]

But like I said, after the CPC election, I'd hesitate to dare playing with electoral reform...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on January 08, 2018, 20:55:37
That really depends on how the ranked ballot is set up.

I kind of think a ranked ballot is the best representation of a population's sentiment. However, we recently saw a ranked ballot experiment in Canada which failed, in my opinion, to represent it's constituents and it made me think twice of daring to play with electoral reform.

I'm talking about the CPC leadership election. Now, full disclosure, I was and am 100% behind Maxime Bernier. I don't think the thoughts I've had on this are centred around sour grapes but to deny that sour grapes could affect my ability to be objective would just be dishonest with myself; it's certainly possible.

However, the CPC leadership election used a rank ballot, and what I thought was really poorly thought out and really resulted in a leader who I think does not have the support of the party from the get go, was the fact that a 12th place vote, in the end, was valued the same as a 1st place vote. This really doesn't make sense, since a 1st place vote means you at least, more than anyone, represented the voter's views. A 12th place vote means the voter clearly did not connect very well with you, doesn't have much support for your views, and didn't think you very worthy of their vote... yet, in the CPC election, that 12th place vote was valued the same as a 1st place vote. I can't believe anyone actually even filled out their ballot all the way to 13 candidates to be honest.... they clearly didn't think very highly of that candidate.

*Thought Experiment*
In the federal system, there are only a few parties that really have a platform at all to connect with voters (changing more and more with social media). A third or fourth place vote being worth the same as a 1st place vote, we might as well just put them on a roulette wheel. But I could see something like 2nd place votes being worth 33.3% of a first place vote.... If you can get 39% of first place votes, and 37% of second place votes, I can see how you have the support to govern with majority power. However, if you have 38% of first place votes, but no second place votes.... you'd have to govern with a minority because clearly the other 62% of the population don't have much support for you.

This way, we kind of get the benefit of FPTP in which majorities are attainable and we give the government the leash it needs to do it's job.... but we also ensure a party that is despised by half the population doesn't get that same length of leash.
[/Thinking out loud]

But like I said, after the CPC election, I'd hesitate to dare playing with electoral reform...

In the proposed system, each first place vote would be counted as such and if a majority of constituents voted for one candidate he or she woukd be the winner regardless of subsequent votes. Only if less than 50% of people voted for one candidate woukd a run off occur where the number of second ranked ballots woukd be counted to see if a majority occurred, and so on. In the CPC election example noted, this would have led to a more equitable result.

Tbh, I don't all out disagree with proportional.  My support for FPTP or proportional is rooted in a belief that people need to make choices. Liberal or NDP? CPC or Liberal? Proportional kind of allows a cake and eat it too situation to me, but with potentially interesting results- for example, I think more liberal voters would see CPC rather than liberal as the better second choice and many NDP would see green, not liberal as a second choice. To many left and right voters there isn't a big difference between CPC and Liberals.

Edit to add- Under the proportional system many believe that the predicted outcome based on voting trends would have seen a closer election result as follows:

- Liberals at 135 seats
- CPC at 108 seats
- NDP at 67 seats
- BQ 16
- Green 12

Under the preferential ballot, the 308 site predicted the following:

- Liberals at 224
- CPC at 61
- NDP at 50
- BQ at 2
- Green at 1
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 08, 2018, 20:57:12
2 of 3 ethics investigations for the Finance Minister have cleared him. The investigation into C-27 sponsorship is still ongoing, however it will be with the new appointee Mario Dion.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ethics-czar-clears-morneau-over-sale-of-shares-1.3750558 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ethics-czar-clears-morneau-over-sale-of-shares-1.3750558)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on January 08, 2018, 21:05:25
It's not the Tories/Tory supporters who want a one-party state.

You're wrong here- all partisans, left or right, want a one party state and can be seeing their various rantings. For each "libtard" there's a "redneck". The right is as guilty as the left.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 08, 2018, 21:33:42
The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 338 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 08, 2018, 21:40:12
In the proposed system, each first place vote would be counted as such and if a majority of constituents voted for one candidate he or she woukd be the winner regardless of subsequent votes. Only if less than 50% of people voted for one candidate woukd a run off occur where the number of second ranked ballots woukd be counted to see if a majority occurred, and so on. In the CPC election example noted, this would have led to a more equitable result.

I'm not sure I follow... if you are saying what I think you are saying, that *is* what happened in the CPC election... and it led to, I believe, a result that does not represent the true sentiment of the voters.

The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 330 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.

I like the idea of a representation by population (FPTP) in the HoC for all 338* ridings, however, legislators are not able to be very independent
 and actually represent their constituents in our system.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on January 08, 2018, 21:40:26
The whole electoral reform movement misses the basic fact that we don't have one election, rather we have 330 individual elections. FPTP in each riding is the most direct representation of voter intent we have. The fact that the aggregate number of ridings accruing to one party or another allows them to form the government is completely secondary.

I don't believe it misses this point in 2 of 3. In ranked ballots it's still at a riding level and the rankings only matter if there isn't a majority on the first ballot itself. This system only changes the specifics of how riding ballots are counted, not the system per set,  since it's really still FPTP for a majority
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 08, 2018, 21:43:36
You're wrong here- all partisans, left or right, want a one party state and can be seeing their various rantings.

Do us a favor and become your own country. ON and Canada will appreciated the the loss of Liberal votes.



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Furniture on January 09, 2018, 08:21:09
I like the idea of a representation by population (FPTP) in the HoC for all 338* ridings, however, legislators are not able to be very independent
 and actually represent their constituents in our system.

Changing how we elect our MPs won't make them any more or less tightly controlled by their party masters. It's the nature of the party beast that we will see our MPs forced to follow party policy or be forced out of the party.

My concern with changing from FPTP is that the more complications we add to the system the more people are likely to be confused by it and not trust the results. People that don't trust their electoral system don't trust their governments, and  that results in foolishness like #notmypresident.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on January 09, 2018, 08:23:26
Changing how we elect our MPs won't make them any more or less tightly controlled by their party masters. It's the nature of the party beast that we will see our MPs forced to follow party policy or be forced out of the party.

My concern with changing from FPTP is that the more complications we add to the system the more people are likely to be confused by it and not trust the results. People that don't trust their electoral system don't trust their governments, and  that results in foolishness like #notmypresident.


Or we end up like Germany........months after the election and still no government........


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2018, 12:54:18

Or we end up like Germany........months after the election and still no government........


Cheers
Larry

Or Belgium (589 days with no elected government: What happened in Belgium) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/?utm_term=.f215a935f247

Or Italy (Why is it so hard to form a government in Italy?) https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-8

Or Ireland (Ireland still without government after third failure to pick taoiseach) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/ireland-government-taoiseach-kenny-martin

Governments are ephemeral but the bureaucrats go on forever.

Another problem the EU has with the UK - They have a bureaucrat (Barnier) negotiating with politicians (Davis & May).  Bureaucrats expect clarity.  Politicians thrive on obscurity.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 09, 2018, 13:15:40
It's interesting that all the discussions seem to focus on the House of Commons; with a bicameral legislature, is there room to leverage the existence of a second house to provide a different form of representation?

(Yes, that's the sound of me rolling "Senate Reform" into "Electoral Reform").
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 09, 2018, 15:29:54
I think it's because the provinces feel the Senate is their purview. We saw how well the invitation for provinces to hold senate elections went.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 09, 2018, 16:45:16
And the Supreme Court ruled that any change to the senate requires a constitutional amendment. At that point, everything goes backing the table for negotiation...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 09, 2018, 16:50:00
It's interesting that all the discussions seem to focus on the House of Commons; with a bicameral legislature, is there room to leverage the existence of a second house to provide a different form of representation?

(Yes, that's the sound of me rolling "Senate Reform" into "Electoral Reform").
anyone willing to reopen the constitution to do this? Anyone?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MilEME09 on January 09, 2018, 17:17:37
anyone willing to reopen the constitution to do this? Anyone?

Doing that would take strong political leadership, courage, and a bit of luck, haven't seen that in politics in my life time. Especially after watching the ethics committee meeting today, blows my mind to think that the liberals think that question period is good enough for the PM to answer other parliamentarians over his 4 breaches of the conflict of interest act. Question period is a joke, no one gives answer, no wonder faith in our system is low.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on January 09, 2018, 17:26:07
....blows my mind to think that the liberals think that question period is good enough for the PM to answer other parliamentarians ....
Well, according to CBC, PMJT is going on a "listening tour" to hear Canadians' views.... but he only wants to talk about economics (which, to be fair, Canada is doing OK notwithstanding the Timmies/wage crisis).  In other words he wants to hear Canadians say nice things, to try and get his narrative back on track.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 09, 2018, 19:12:42
Doing that would take strong political leadership, courage, and a bit of luck, haven't seen that in politics in my life time. Especially after watching the ethics committee meeting today, blows my mind to think that the liberals think that question period is good enough for the PM to answer other parliamentarians over his 4 breaches of the conflict of interest act. Question period is a joke, no one gives answer, no wonder faith in our system is low.
That was my main gripe against the Harper conservatives as well, where nobody would answer questions in question period, and things have not improved in that regard.

The fact is, question period remains political theater to score partisan points and not about the opposition holding the government to account and the government being forthright and honest about what it is doing.

As for the constitution, nobody is touching that again, it's a lose lose for everyone.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on January 09, 2018, 21:31:19
Or Belgium (589 days with no elected government: What happened in Belgium) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/10/01/589-days-with-no-elected-government-what-happened-in-belgium/?utm_term=.f215a935f247

Or Italy (Why is it so hard to form a government in Italy?) https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/04/economist-explains-8

Or Ireland (Ireland still without government after third failure to pick taoiseach) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/ireland-government-taoiseach-kenny-martin

Governments are ephemeral but the bureaucrats go on forever.

Another problem the EU has with the UK - They have a bureaucrat (Barnier) negotiating with politicians (Davis & May).  Bureaucrats expect clarity.  Politicians thrive on obscurity.

Thanks for that, was not aware of a couple of those stats.....IIRC Italy has been to the polls on average every 18 months since 1946.....seeings how the different regions of this country seem to get along so well together, I'm sure we would not see that if we went beyond FPTP ;)

Yeah, bureaucrats can keep they day to day going, however how does any new legislation get past when there is no government.......


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on January 09, 2018, 21:32:51
Some could argue that the introduction of cameras into the House has merely enhanced the theater and reduced the utility - exactly as the opponents of televising the House predicted.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 09, 2018, 22:16:01
Some could argue that the introduction of cameras into the House has merely enhanced the theater and reduced the utility - exactly as the opponents of televising the House predicted.
yeah, i would take them out.

Who sits around and watches question period anyways? That and every politician is looking for the best 10 second clip to make the evening news
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 09, 2018, 22:54:02
yeah, i would take them out.

Who sits around and watches question period anyways? That and every politician is looking for the best 10 second clip to make the evening news

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMOHiQtuSuo
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 09, 2018, 22:54:46
The Speaker needs either more power or better rules to enforce proper questions that aren't thinly veiled insults and answers that actually answer the question instead of sounding like a campaign leaflet/blame the last government.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 10, 2018, 01:07:23
Changing how we elect our MPs won't make them any more or less tightly controlled by their party masters. It's the nature of the party beast that we will see our MPs forced to follow party policy or be forced out of the party.

Our electoral system greatly affects whether party discipline is strong or not? Proportional representation has the least amount of individual accountability... the system the US has / the rules in place really makes party discipline quite ineffective.

If you mean whether or not it's a ranked ballot, then sure, in isolation, that won't affect party discipline, but there are a whole bunch of other things between rules / procedures within parliament and the electoral system that can.

The Speaker needs either more power or better rules to enforce proper questions that aren't thinly veiled insults and answers that actually answer the question instead of sounding like a campaign leaflet/blame the last government.

Agreed... I appreciate the UK tradition in which the speaker quits his party for the duration of his appointment... even if it is just a symbolic gesture.

The speaker asked someone to leave for heckling several weeks ago, it was the first time that's happened in 15 years... I'm not sure what other real sanctions the Speaker has at his disposal. It's also a dangerous game to give him too much control because he is, at the end of the day, a partisan politician.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Furniture on January 10, 2018, 09:11:33
Our electoral system greatly affects whether party discipline is strong or not? Proportional representation has the least amount of individual accountability... the system the US has / the rules in place really makes party discipline quite ineffective.

If you mean whether or not it's a ranked ballot, then sure, in isolation, that won't affect party discipline, but there are a whole bunch of other things between rules / procedures within parliament and the electoral system that can.

I think we are arguing the same point.

My point is that in Canada the political parties control how their people vote in the commons. As it stands now they should always represent the best interests and views of their constituents, but often times have to vote along party lines or be kicked out of the party whether their constituents agree with the party or not. We pretend we elect individuals, but in reality elect parties.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on January 10, 2018, 13:02:24
I think we are arguing the same point.

My point is that in Canada the political parties control how their people vote in the commons. As it stands now they should always represent the best interests and views of their constituents, but often times have to vote along party lines or be kicked out of the party whether their constituents agree with the party or not. We pretend we elect individuals, but in reality elect parties.

The only way to do that is to separate the party leadership from the MP's.  If the Party Leader didn't have control over who was a member then it might be harder to enforce voting a certain way.  That would be dangerous in Canada IMHO.  With no solidified national culture and large amounts of regional intrests it would be difficult to create any form of consensus.

In the US system you only have to declare yourself a member of a party to be one.  There is no formalized county spanning organization that creates, tracks or issues memberships.  The result is that American political parties have weak central organizations and thus a consensus based ideology.  You can change parties just by stating this out loud.  Most Canadians (and Americans it seems) forget this.  The US could literally be a single party state if all the Democrats in the Senate and Congress suddenly declared themselves Republicans tomorrow.

There is one more thing I'd like to add here that people seem to be missing regarding our voting system.  Canadians DO NOT elect a government.  We elect a parlament to represent us who then choose the government.  Tradition is for the largest party to form the government but if parlament wanted they could have any combination of parliamentarians form the government.  Hence coalitions and minority governments.  It's important to remember this when discussing changes to voting.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Dimsum on January 10, 2018, 15:53:04
The only way to do that is to separate the party leadership from the MP's.  If the Party Leader didn't have control over who was a member then it might be harder to enforce voting a certain way.  That would be dangerous in Canada IMHO.  With no solidified national culture and large amounts of regional intrests it would be difficult to create any form of consensus.

In the US system you only have to declare yourself a member of a party to be one.  There is no formalized county spanning organization that creates, tracks or issues memberships.  The result is that American political parties have weak central organizations and thus a consensus based ideology.  You can change parties just by stating this out loud.  Most Canadians (and Americans it seems) forget this.  The US could literally be a single party state if all the Democrats in the Senate and Congress suddenly declared themselves Republicans tomorrow.

There is one more thing I'd like to add here that people seem to be missing regarding our voting system.  Canadians DO NOT elect a government.  We elect a parlament to represent us who then choose the government.  Tradition is for the largest party to form the government but if parlament wanted they could have any combination of parliamentarians form the government.  Hence coalitions and minority governments.  It's important to remember this when discussing changes to voting.

:goodpost:

I might end up sharing that on a subreddit or three.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 10, 2018, 16:31:47
I don't exactly agree with Underway here.

First thing, in the US, the party's are electoral machines primarily, and political philosophy straight-jackets a far second. Their purpose is to get you on the bulletin and then, raise funds for the campaign to get you elected. That's why  the party don't have a platform applicable to all "per se".

In Canada, we let the party's bureaucrats take over the process of naming the candidates, and we let the party leaders take over the parties from the base (as counter intuitively as it may seem) when we adopted the American practice of leadership conventions that took away from the elected MP the power to appoint or remove the party leader.

In a true British parliamentarian system, it is not the leader of the party with the most seat (though it usually ends up being the one) who becomes PM, it is the person - any person - asked to put a government together by the Monarch and who happens to be able to obtain, and retain, the support of the majority of elected MPs. That is why the caucus of a given party used to be the one appointing their party leader, a situation where it is for the leader to obtain the support of his/her caucus and maintain it at all time. In such system, the leader needs to get that support from the real elected representatives: the MPs.

By having the appointment of leaders, and their removal, moved to the members of the party at large, either by conventions or vote at large in the party, it reverses the whole system and now, it is the future MP's who now owe their standing to the leader who is imposed on them, with the leader holding power over their heads instead of the other way around.

Our current system may give the illusion of democracy since the "PM" is "elected" by  larger number of people (the party faithfuls) than just his caucus, but in practice, it does the reverse and basically puts in place a temporary dictatorship of four to five years by someone (the PM) that, in the end, few people had a hand in selecting. At least, even if the number was smaller when the leaders were selected by their caucus, the MP's made their choice as an expression of the will of their (the MP's) electorate - and in the end actually represented a much larger portion of the population.
   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 11, 2018, 18:20:05
This is American but I thought it was relevant to the conversation we were having about raising minimum wage in Canada.


Quote
The economy under President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress is firing on all cylinders. Immediately following the passing of the GOP tax plan in the House, numerous businesses announced plans to grow their companies and compensate their employees with bonuses and higher wages due to the newly freed-up cash.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25725/trumponomics-walmart-hikes-wages-shells-out-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Could we not have done something similar?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 11, 2018, 18:36:15
This is American but I thought it was relevant to the conversation we were having about raising minimum wage in Canada.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/25725/trumponomics-walmart-hikes-wages-shells-out-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Could we not have done something similar?

Liberals? Cut Taxes?   :rofl:

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 11, 2018, 18:46:51
This is American but I thought it was relevant to the conversation we were having about raising minimum wage in Canada.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/25725/trumponomics-walmart-hikes-wages-shells-out-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Could we not have done something similar?
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-bill-impact-economy-business-debt-income-2017-12

Quote
The "static" score of the bill — the amount of projected debt added when economic growth is not factored in — shows that the deficit would grow by about $1.5 trillion in the decade after the bill is implemented.

Republicans argue that the new economic growth from the bill will in turn generate more revenue, since larger incomes mean more taxes to collect.

Even so, experts do not believe the bill will totally pay for itself, as GOP leaders have claimed.

The most optimistic assumption by the Tax Foundation estimated that even with new growth, the bill would increase the deficit by $448 billion over 10 years. The JCT said the bill would add around $1 trillion to the deficit, while the TPC estimated that number would be a little under $1.3 trillion.
I thought people hated adding on more debt.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 11, 2018, 18:55:12
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-gop-tax-reform-bill-impact-economy-business-debt-income-2017-12
I thought people hated adding on more debt.

Not this guy.

But all that to say if we gave a tac credit orowered income taxes we'd be billions more in debt? We should be more careful where we spend money I guess.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on January 11, 2018, 19:53:11
448 billion over 10 years.  Didn't Obama do that in less than 1 year?  Just asking.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on January 11, 2018, 20:21:20
448 billion over 10 years.  Didn't Obama do that in less than 1 year?  Just asking.


https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127136.msg1515883.html#new


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 11, 2018, 21:34:29
This is American but I thought it was relevant to the conversation we were having about raising minimum wage in Canada.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/25725/trumponomics-walmart-hikes-wages-shells-out-amanda-prestigiacomo?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


Could we not have done something similar?

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1)

What?  Close 63 stores and lay off thousands of workers?  Then cover that up by announcing a raise that was likely coming anyway due to over-employment in the US? 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 11, 2018, 22:30:23
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1 (http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-suddenly-closes-sams-club-stores-2018-1)

What?  Close 63 stores and lay off thousands of workers?  Then cover that up by announcing a raise that was likely coming anyway due to over-employment in the US?

Nope! Definitely wasnt going for that angle. I was even going to say I'm surprised considering Walmart's past behavior but I guess we know why.  Easy to imagine Walmart's pay increase and benefits come from those other sub stores closing.

Quote
After a thorough review, it became clear we had built clubs in some locations that impacted other clubs, and where population had not grown as anticipated," Furner said in the email. "We will be closing some clubs, and we notified them today. We'll convert some of them into eCommerce fulfillment centers - to better serve the growing number of members shopping with us online and continue scaling the SamsClub.com business."
Maybe a bit like our target and sears stores.

Still couldn't we have lowered income tax for low income people instead?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 11, 2018, 22:36:37
Still couldn't we have lowered income tax for low income people instead?

I would be all for that - even if it meant raising taxes for me, or reducing "tax expenditures" elsewhere.  I would not however suggest going full hog into deficit spending like the Americans have (even though I think that our national fetish for balanced budgets does more harm than good).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 11, 2018, 22:47:24
448 billion over 10 years.  Didn't Obama do that in less than 1 year?  Just asking.
he definitely did.

However, this is taken just by itself. Whatever the regular budget deficit would be over 10 years, tack that on to it.

With all the heat the LPC gets for deficit spending I doubt they would be making many friends by cutting taxes and making the budget deficit even bigger.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 12, 2018, 00:27:40
I would be all for that - even if it meant raising taxes for me, or reducing "tax expenditures" elsewhere.  I would not however suggest going full hog into deficit spending like the Americans have (even though I think that our national fetish for balanced budgets does more harm than good).

National fetish for balanced budgets?

In what jurisdiction? near as I can tell, only BC has a budget surplus and that is looking pretty shaky.

A what point does the combined borrowing of all but one province, plus the federal government begin to threaten Canada's future?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 12, 2018, 01:51:04
National fetish for balanced budgets?

In what jurisdiction? near as I can tell, only BC has a budget surplus and that is looking pretty shaky.

A what point does the combined borrowing of all but one province, plus the federal government begin to threaten Canada's future?
you forgot Quebec.

They have had one for a three years now I think. A liberal government too, go figure.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 12, 2018, 02:30:46
you forgot Quebec.

They have had one for a three years now I think. A liberal government too, go figure.

I did not forget Quebec. When you get 11 billion per year in equalization from the federal government, unless your surplus is greater than that, you are not really running a surplus....

Realizing how nasty that sounds, I hasten to add- good on them for improving dramatically their fiscal situation from how it used to be.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Thucydides on January 12, 2018, 02:51:14
A what point does the combined borrowing of all but one province, plus the federal government begin to threaten Canada's future?

A long time ago, actually. We also have $500 billion+ in unfunded liabilities (pensions and benefits, mostly), so Canada is well over a trillion dollars in the hole. The problem is multifold, either we are no longer able to cover our debt obligations and stiff bondholders and pensioners, or continue to paper over the issue and risk inflation, or see the debt overhang drag us back into a 2008 style economic crash (the biggest one before that happened in 1929....). The remarkable thing is we can even see some or all of these things happen together (remember "Stagflation" in the late 1970's, or Japan's lost decade of the 1990's?). So as Instapundit often says, things only continue until they no longer can.

Some combination of market shock, political event or black swan (i.e a west coast earthquake)might be the trigger, or simply the growing realization that, hey, you're never going to get that pension, your benefits will be gone and your prospects of getting ahead in the wage and job market reaches a tipping point.

Now the government may be forced to take action prior to a meltdown (Paul Martin did this with some pretty ruthless spending cuts in the 1990's when Canada's dollar was being mocked as the Northern Peso), or we may be lifted with someone elses rising tide (Canada's unexpectedly robust job figures recently are no surprise when you remember that 70%+ of our exports go to the United States, and their economy is now rapidly gathering steam), which gives us more time if we actively take advantage of these events.

Looking at things like Ontario's spiking minimum wages, or the Federal governments commitment to strangle the energy industry, or raising taxes and regulations counter to the Americans makes me believe that, like Von Moltke's "Industrious and Stupid" officer, we are spinning our wheels for the foreseeable future rather than actively taking advantage of the events.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 24, 2018, 13:23:04
The discussion above about the perceived or real evils of political parties, and of the various systems for getting them into office, reminded me of George Washington's prescient words in his 1796 Farewell Address (below). Much of what he had to say is (IMHO) applicable in both the US and Canada today. I've highlighted a couple of phrases which seem very relevant today:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.


While I understand that running a country without parties might not be practical (or at least be more difficult than it is now), I wonder when and how politicians are able to strike a balance between party advantage and dogma, and the good of the nation.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 24, 2018, 23:14:31
Kathleen Wynne's hidden acts of ritual human sacrifice have apparently paid off.  (I can't think of any other explanation...)


Head of Ontario PC Party accused of sexual misconduct.  The PC Campaign manager, Brown's chief of staff, and deputy campaign manager (Strategy) have all quit.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-1.3774686#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=q3hAGjQ
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on January 24, 2018, 23:17:19
not a surprise
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on January 24, 2018, 23:21:57
not a surprise

Why, please, with documentation? Not questioning your integrity, but asking for information.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on January 24, 2018, 23:41:17
I shouldn't say for assault or even harassment as everything I'm aware of would be consensual but its always been an open secret that his behaviour wasn't very "family values". I think in Canada the parties must not internally vet their candidates that well. I would expect this to only be the beginning to be honest now that it is out there, and have been waiting for it to break since he was elected leader, always thought that photos would be published with two weeks to go in the election. It's disappointing if this turns out the way I think that the Ontario PC's will have shot themselves in the foot 3 times running, I always preferred another at least partially for this reason.

Having said all that two peoples interpretations of events can be widely different and maybe both valid so i'm a little leery of the #metoo  movement turning into this huge witch hunt without any due process.

Even with what I've heard alleged I'm not sure it should disqualify one as a MP,MPP, PM, Premier.
How much of a private life is one entitled too in politics?
How much of a bearing does your relationship choices have on your ability to govern?
I guess in the end that is up to each individual voter. To be honest I've always been impressed when I've heard Patrick Brown speak but he was a bad choice from the beginning and I do expect this to snowball
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 24, 2018, 23:44:35
This is the only really important part of the article:

Quote
None of the allegations have been proven in court.

That being said, he's probably undetectable now. The accusation is as powerful as a conviction.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 24, 2018, 23:52:44
Ontario isn't the only province with a PC leader going down in flames today.  Jamie Baillie thundered in earlier today as leader of the NS PCs.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/jamie-baillie-resigns-inappropriate-behaviour-1.4501742
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 25, 2018, 00:00:41
This is the only really important part of the article:

That being said, he's probably undetectable unelectable now. The accusation is as powerful as a conviction.

FTFY  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on January 25, 2018, 00:17:45
10 years later, story provided directly to media and not police, sure smells like a smear campaign. Not surprising considering Wynne's 16% approval rating and double digit polling deficit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 25, 2018, 01:28:46
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 25, 2018, 05:46:49
https://www.ontariopc.ca/statement_from_ontario_pc_leader_patrick_brown

And he's done.

Quote
These allegations are false and have been difficult to hear. 

“However, defeating Kathleen Wynne in 2018 is more important than one individual.  

“For this reason, after consulting with caucus, friends and family I have decided to step down as Leader of the Ontario PC Party. I will remain on as a MPP while I definitively clear my name from these false allegations.  

 
#metoo strikes again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on January 25, 2018, 07:07:08
Caroline Mulroney's time has come?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Scott on January 25, 2018, 07:18:44
Jamie Baillie in Nova Scotia done as well.

https://haligonia.ca/jamie-baillie-leader-of-the-nova-scotia-pc-party-asked-to-resign-over-allegations-of-inappropriate-behaviour-227700/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=haligonia
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 25, 2018, 08:34:19
I'm of two minds over this.

I watched Brown's agonized resignation speech early this morning, and I felt genuinely sorry for him. I don't know exactly what he is alleged to have done, or the seriousness of the alleged acts,  (beyond what is in the public domain), but I didn't really feel like gloating.

Obviously, his campaign team and the Ontario Caucus were pretty convinced that something bad had taken place, because they cut the anchor lines before the media had even woken up to the story. So, attempts to blame this one particular case on #metoo or the media are, in my opinion, misdirected. That said,  I think there are grounds for serious concern over a certain feeding frenzy effect that appears to be developing in general, much beyond this one case.

On the one hand, I have a wife, a daughter and many other female relatives. They should all be able to lead their lives as best they can, free of fear from idiots who can't keep their hands  (or other parts) to themselves. They should never have to chose between a job, a promotion or anything else and having to let somebody grope them.  I don't ever want to find out that some POS has treated them in that way.

On the other hand, sexual assault is a serious crime. Sexual harassment is perhaps less serious in terms of the scale of punishment, but it is equally ruinous. As it should be, if the accused is truly guilty. And that is my point: if they are truly guilty.

Years ago, I was a member of a group of individuals in a unit who were maliciously and falsely accused of sexual harassment. The process to deal with it was lengthy and complex, and quite frightening as it was clearly tinged with a presumption of guilt. It took at least two years before it was over. Fortunately there were no NDA or CCC charges laid, but I would never want to go through that again. And, more importantly, I don't wish it on anybody.

If we generally adhere to the idea of innocence until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for other crimes, why does it seem to me that an accusation of sexual harassment  carries an immediate penalty of guilt by association?  One that you will probably never, ever shake off no matter what the real outcome is?

I see two very bad results arising from this. First, people who may not be guilty at all, or not guilty of an offence of the magnitude accused, will be ruined, with no legitimate chance to fight back or to restore their name. Justice will not be served by this. "Justice", as opposed to "vengeance" which IMHO is too often the meaning assigned to the word "justice".

Second, like all excessive public behaviours and practices, it risks provoking a backlash. This backlash, (no doubt exploited by the usual gang of suspects who want women barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen) will call into question all these sorts of cases and undermine those people who are truly struggling to deal with the actions of real abusers. Sort of a "cry wolf" situation, or similar to those low-lifes who fake PTSD symptoms for their own gain, thus undercutting real sufferers. Another terrible outcome.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 25, 2018, 10:04:18
While I understand that running a country without parties might not be practical (or at least be more difficult than it is now), I wonder when and how politicians are able to strike a balance between party advantage and dogma, and the good of the nation.

I wonder the same thing.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 25, 2018, 13:58:39
And Kent Hehr, former Veterans' Affairs Minister, has been accused of something similar (https://globalnews.ca/news/3986503/kent-hehr-sexual-harassment-allegations/) ~ back when he was an Alberta MLA.

As John Ibbiton says, in the Globe and Mail (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/powerful-men-laid-low-by-the-hour-metoo-is-remaking-society-literally-overnight/article37728029/), "Too often, movements of social protest force themselves on public consciousness, own the moment for a time, then fade from what used to be called the front page. Occupy. Idle No More. Even Black Lives Matter. But not #MeToo, which is transforming our society literally overnight."

Well, maybe, I'll suggest that the jury is still out in the case of #MeToo and that we may see repeats of the "fake attack on Muslim for for wearing hijab" story (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/scarborough-hijab-attack-1.4487716) which may bring #MeToo into disrepute.

But, for now: Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on January 25, 2018, 14:44:21
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required but the entire system is being subverted on rumour and that is a very bad thing.  We are permitting rumour to be accepted as fact and taking action as if it were fact and thus we are potentially subverting democracy on nothing more than salacious gossip.  Innocent until proven guilty is a good concept but the legal system moves too slowly to protect an individual from slander.  Even should Brown be totally innocent the damage has been done and it cannot be undone.  We have entered a stage whereby the very whisper  of potential sexual misconduct is sufficient to damn a person beyond all hope of restoration.  Regardless of the outcome of a trial Brown will always be the X leader  of the Ontario Conservatives.  How do we balance the true right of the accuser to come forward without fear of repercussion with the right of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty?  Innocent means just that.  The individuals name and reputation must remain unsoiled until proven otherwise.  Without that we have a scenario where the party that produces the best rumour against the other is the winner and that is not democracy.

 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 25, 2018, 15:08:26
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required but the entire system is being subverted on rumour and that is a very bad thing.  We are permitting rumour to be accepted as fact and taking action as if it were fact and thus we are potentially subverting democracy on nothing more than salacious gossip.  Innocent until proven guilty is a good concept but the legal system moves too slowly to protect an individual from slander.  Even should Brown be totally innocent the damage has been done and it cannot be undone.  We have entered a stage whereby the very whisper  of potential sexual misconduct is sufficient to damn a person beyond all hope of restoration.  Regardless of the outcome of a trial Brown will always be the X leader  of the Ontario Conservatives.  How do we balance the true right of the accuser to come forward without fear of repercussion with the right of the accused to remain innocent until proven guilty?  Innocent means just that.  The individuals name and reputation must remain unsoiled until proven otherwise.  Without that we have a scenario where the party that produces the best rumour against the other is the winner and that is not democracy.
This is just the over correction happening.

For years women struggled to get justice for sexual assaults and sexual harassment in the court system,  with the conviction rates for such offenses being incredibly low.  When two people are in private and it its a he said,  she said,  its hard to convict without reasonable doubt.

Now with the #metoo women don't need to meet the burden of proof,  they can just ruin people with the accusation, and while it is a overreach and honestly mob justice, don't forget that it stems from years of women feeling that the court system will never get them justice for the abuse they have suffered.

Bill Cosby and Harvey weinstein have never been convicted of sexual assault or rape,  but who here honestly believes that they have never done it?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on January 25, 2018, 15:52:44
Quite frankly, I am deathly afraid.  This £metoo movement has the capability of totally subverting justice.  If the allegations levelled are true than definitely action is required  . . . is being subverted on rumour . . .   . . . permitting rumour . . . nothing more than salacious gossip.  . . . best rumour  . . . .

While I understand (or at least I think I do) what you were trying to convey, I do take exception to your continued suggestion that "rumours" are at the heart of the difficulties facing these public (political) figures. Though neither are proven, there is a big difference between a rumour (gossip of third parties) and an accusation by an involved party (even when that involved party is not yet publically named).  In the case of Mr. Brown, apparently there may have been rumour (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127116.msg1517568.html#msg1517568) before the allegations were brought forward by media.  Personally, I'm not afraid for democracy (or what passes for democracy these days).  Even without movements or causes de jours or social media (though that one does concern me WRT political process), this is nothing new for politicians, even in Canada.  They have always had to be concerned for their behaviour (good or bad, public or private) being reported.  Of course, the consequences of sexual peccadillos have not always been consistent;  the Munsinger Affair barely affected the political careers of the MPs involved while "leaving your Coates at Tiffany's" was essentially the end for the Minister.  It is just that the recent climate makes it easier for skeletons to come out of the closet.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 25, 2018, 16:07:19
Personally, I'm not afraid for democracy (or what passes for democracy these days). 

You should be. I am just back from a quick shopping trip and on the radio news, was presented with Trudeau jr.'s statement to the press whereby he "fully supports" the women who came out against Mr. Brown and condemns him, but almost immediately after, waffles an "I have not had the chance to review that situation and can't comment" when a journalist just brought out the fact that exact similar accusations have now been levelled against one of his minister, the Minister for Sports Kent Herr.

In the words of Yoda, to someone claiming not to be afraid: "You will be!"  :nod:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on January 25, 2018, 16:25:58
My advice to political parties for the time being is to select only female candidates to hopefully protect from the likelihood of a potential scandal.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 25, 2018, 16:36:39
Brian Banks.
Quote
In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.[17][18] According to Banks, his lawyer told him that he stood no chance at trial because he would be tried by an all-white jury who would automatically assume that he was guilty because he was "a big, black teenager."[19]
Confession of false accusation

In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted in the presence of an attorney that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson's confession, but she later refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn't have to return the money she and her family had won in court.[18]


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 25, 2018, 16:37:11
It has been outstanding and conclusive precedent under the law that "a ten year delay in filing a criminal complaint for assault or sexual harassment renders it null and void on the basis of acquiescence and consent." Wynne has lots of illegitimate backers in the intelligence community like people who obtain their largesse from a hostile spy agency. Just look how communistic (not only socialist) her dole outs are. Empowered by the Communist Party of Canada. I represent myself as Intelligence Chief, Communist Party of Canada in the press. Nobody among its leaders are belying this instead they regale on this representations. But of course, my loyalty goes to Canadian Forces.

I'm sorry??? Could you verify any (or even just one...) of the things you posted?  Surely as Int Chief for the Communist Party of Canada you must have some good sources?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on January 25, 2018, 16:41:51
You should be. I am just back from a quick shopping trip and on the radio news, was presented with Trudeau jr.'s statement to the press whereby he "fully supports" the women who came out against Mr. Brown and condemns him, but almost immediately after, waffles an "I have not had the chance to review that situation and can't comment" when a journalist just brought out the fact that exact similar accusations have now been levelled against one of his minister, the Minister for Sports Kent Herr.

In the words of Yoda, to someone claiming not to be afraid: "You will be!"  :nod:

The antics of the Prime Minister is not "democracy" but "politics".  Eventually, the population will tire of him and another idiot will take his place (frankly, I have little respect for any politician, of any stripe or party).  Time, that is the secret sauce of democracy; sooner or later, the electorate decides it's time for someone else.  In the case of Mr. Brown, it is likely that he has run his course; whether it is fair or not matters not in politics.  In the case of Mr. Hehr, that may still to be decided but it will likely be that he too is done, though playing the disability card may lessen the impact.  After all, while he is accused of crude behaviour, so far I've not seen anything similar to one of the accusations against Mr. Brown in which it is alleged that one of his accusers performed oral sex and perhaps not entirely consensually.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 25, 2018, 16:42:41
It has been outstanding and conclusive precedent under the law that "a ten year delay in filing a criminal complaint for assault or sexual harassment renders it null and void on the basis of acquiescence and consent." Wynne has lots of illegitimate backers in the intelligence community like people who obtain their largesse from a hostile spy agency. Just look how communistic (not only socialist) her dole outs are. Empowered by the Communist Party of Canada. I represent myself as Intelligence Chief, Communist Party of Canada in the press. Nobody among its leaders are belying this instead they regale on this representations. But of course, my loyalty goes to Canadian Forces.

Have you seen my new umbrella, comrade?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 25, 2018, 16:44:30
This is just the over correction happening.

For years women struggled to get justice for sexual assaults and sexual harassment in the court system,  with the conviction rates for such offenses being incredibly low.  When two people are in private and it its a he said,  she said,  its hard to convict without reasonable doubt.

Now with the #metoo women don't need to meet the burden of proof,  they can just ruin people with the accusation, and while it is a overreach and honestly mob justice, don't forget that it stems from years of women feeling that the court system will never get them justice for the abuse they have suffered.


My earlier reservations aside, there is a good bit of truth to this, as my female relatives are quick to remind me.  There was a time in this country (now thankfully gone) when men could do just about anything they wanted to their wives, daughters or female employees/subordinates and nothing would ever have been done about it. Kind of like Russian society still today. This reaction we see in #metoo, etc. is another example of backlash against excessive and bad behaviour, with all the blind damage and anger that goes along with backlashes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 25, 2018, 17:01:12
I wonder the same thing.

And, for the views of another great General (and Prime Minister), here is the Duke of Wellington on party politics:

"...I never felt any inclination to dive deeply in party Politics; I may be wrong but the conviction in my mind is that all the misfortunes of the present reign, the loss of America, the success of the French revolution etc, etc., are to be attributed in a great degree to the Spirit of Party in England;& the feeling I have for a decided party politician is rather that of contempt than any other. I am very certain that his wishes & efforts for his party very frequently prevent him from doing that which is best for the Country; & induce him to take up the cause of foreign powers against Britain, because the cause of Britain is managed by his party opponents..."

Both Washington and Wellington were great commanders and leaders of their nations. Were they right? Would democracy be better off if members voted solely for their conscience, or the wishes of their constituents, and not for the platform of a party?


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 25, 2018, 17:04:55
Welcome to the new McCarthy era of the 20 teens.  Everything old is new again.  Men will be running scared for some time to come.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on January 25, 2018, 17:20:31
Welcome to the new McCarthy era of the 20 teens.  Everything old is new again.  Men will be running scared for some time to come.

I seem to recall the CAF in the late 90's early 2000's was a bit like this.

Our Prime Minister virtue signalling, again, isn't helping. Again he should wait for a bit of clarity before getting involved. ie Boyle ie hijab cutting hoax.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 25, 2018, 17:30:35
And, for the views of another great General (and Prime Minister), here is the Duke of Wellington on party politics:

"...I never felt any inclination to dive deeply in party Politics; I may be wrong but the conviction in my mind is that all the misfortunes of the present reign, the loss of America, the success of the French revolution etc, etc., are to be attributed in a great degree to the Spirit of Party in England;& the feeling I have for a decided party politician is rather that of contempt than any other. I am very certain that his wishes & efforts for his party very frequently prevent him from doing that which is best for the Country; & induce him to take up the cause of foreign powers against Britain, because the cause of Britain is managed by his party opponents..."

Both Washington and Wellington were great commanders and leaders of their nations. Were they right? Would democracy be better off if members voted solely for their conscience, or the wishes of their constituents, and not for the platform of a party?

Or, to paraphrase LaGuardia, there is no Liberal or Conservative way of fixing a sewer.  :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on January 25, 2018, 17:48:21
I for one was accepting some of their largesse with no criminal intent. I give them to charity. One hostile spy agency course their "payments" through los cubanos. It gets deposited in a bank. We tempt DGSE to steal them. Then CSIS steals them from DGSE. They all go to charity. But I cannot name names! Do you want me to die? Moderator, the question was answered candidly. I have no way going about not answering the question. Before I forget, sir, there is an administrative case against me for insubordination in CSIS. Why? "Stoop down to our level, DV. You can disguise yourself as a transgender like me"- "rank and file" of the Communist Party of Canada.

Has someone stopped their meds against medical advice?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 25, 2018, 17:52:55
Kent Hehr has resigned from cabinet.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 25, 2018, 18:31:29
Kent Hehr has resigned from cabinet.

Ah well, he didn't have a leg to stand on.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on January 25, 2018, 19:55:07
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.


Weell, maybe not...
Quote
Out of an awful situation, the party has an opening to equip itself with a stronger, more likable candidate
....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/patrick-brown-resignation-1.4503051

Time will tell after all, I believe someone up thread mentioned Caroline Mulroney......

Interesting times indeed....


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 26, 2018, 10:51:12
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/trudeau-defends-ambassador-under-fire-for-china-trade-comments/article37741264/

Trudeau defends ambassador under fire for China trade comments 23 Jan 18

Extract: 1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is defending his envoy to Beijing who says Canada now has more in common with China's authoritarian regime than with the United States under President Donald Trump."In some important policy areas such as the environment, global warming, free trade, globalization, the policies of the government of Canada are closer to the policies of the government of China than they are to U.S. policies," Mr. McCallum said Sunday during a visit by Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard.

             2. Conservative foreign-affairs critic Erin O'Toole called the Canadian ambassador's comments rash, saying they risk straining relations with the U.S. government during a difficult renegotiation of the North American free-trade agreement. "To suggest we have more in common with China than the United States at a time when we are trying to remind the U.S. of the special relationship is reckless," Mr. O'Toole said.

             3. NDP MP Nathan Cullen described Mr. McCallum's comments as facile, saying the average Canadian might be taken aback to hear a government representative saying this country is more in line with "Communist China than our American cousins." The political direction and policies across 50 American states are far closer to Canada's than China's, he argued. "We can't go from best buds because Obama is in office to the U.S. is worse than China because Trump takes over. ... America is a lot more than Donald Trump," Mr. Cullen said.



Meanwhile, as POTUS is seeking new business for the USA at Davos, our PM is up to his usual boring shtick. At least he wore a jacket occasionally instead of rolled sleeves, loose tie.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/01/23/how-justin-trudeau-missed-his-moment-at-davos.html

How Justin Trudeau missed his moment at Davos
- 23 Jan 18

Extract: 1. While the prime minister opened his remarks with trade, and offered a nod toward “progressive values in the context of globalization,” he then veered into a montage of greatest hits on gender parity, diversity, the imbalance of corporate boards, single mothers, the Canada child benefit, future women’s summits, the need for women in STEM, the urgency to create more well-paying middle class jobs. And much more.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 26, 2018, 11:27:38
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/trudeau-defends-ambassador-under-fire-for-china-trade-comments/article37741264/

Trudeau defends ambassador under fire for China trade comments 23 Jan 18

Extract: 1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is defending his envoy to Beijing who says Canada now has more in common with China's authoritarian regime than with the United States under President Donald Trump."In some important policy areas such as the environment, global warming, free trade, globalization, the policies of the government of Canada are closer to the policies of the government of China than they are to U.S. policies," Mr. McCallum said Sunday during a visit by Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard.

             2. Conservative foreign-affairs critic Erin O'Toole called the Canadian ambassador's comments rash, saying they risk straining relations with the U.S. government during a difficult renegotiation of the North American free-trade agreement. "To suggest we have more in common with China than the United States at a time when we are trying to remind the U.S. of the special relationship is reckless," Mr. O'Toole said.

             3. NDP MP Nathan Cullen described Mr. McCallum's comments as facile, saying the average Canadian might be taken aback to hear a government representative saying this country is more in line with "Communist China than our American cousins." The political direction and policies across 50 American states are far closer to Canada's than China's, he argued. "We can't go from best buds because Obama is in office to the U.S. is worse than China because Trump takes over. ... America is a lot more than Donald Trump," Mr. Cullen said.



Meanwhile, as POTUS is seeking new business for the USA at Davos, our PM is up to his usual boring shtick. At least he wore a jacket occasionally instead of rolled sleeves, loose tie.

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/01/23/how-justin-trudeau-missed-his-moment-at-davos.html

How Justin Trudeau missed his moment at Davos
- 23 Jan 18

Extract: 1. While the prime minister opened his remarks with trade, and offered a nod toward “progressive values in the context of globalization,” he then veered into a montage of greatest hits on gender parity, diversity, the imbalance of corporate boards, single mothers, the Canada child benefit, future women’s summits, the need for women in STEM, the urgency to create more well-paying middle class jobs. And much more.
Lets break it down
Quote
In some important policy areas
Some policy areas, not government type
Quote
such as the environment
China is in the Paris accord, USA is not, fair enough
Quote
, global warming
China accepts that it's happening, current US administration not so much
Quote
, free trade
China is looking to expand their trade deals, as is Canada, the USA walked away from TPP, started the whole NAFTA re negotiations, and they will be the ones to walk away from the current deal, fair point
Quote
  globalization
Not buying that one, that's a miss
Quote
, the policies of the government of Canada are closer to the policies of the government of China than they are to U.S. policies
Seems like they are, policy wise.

Still not the smartest thing to say while NAFTA talks are going on, but on the other hand, when the president is tweeting that the deal is the worst ever and he will probably tear it up all the while imposing duties on softwood, airplanes, newsprint and the like and pretty much engaging in a trade war before the deal is even dead, I really don't think anything the ambassador to china says really moves the needle all that much.

As for the PM in Davos versus trump, I'll look at it this way. Trump is there looking for new business for the USA, Canada is set to sign a deal that will give Canadian business access to 500 million people, shortly after signing another deal that gave Canadian business access to a additional 500 million people. Actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 26, 2018, 12:28:11
I agree somewhat with Altair here. While we definitely need to be wise and careful in our dealings with the US on free trade ( a vital national interest for us, IMHO), we are a sovereign nation and we should act like one. We have known for decades that we would do well to diversify our trade away from total dependency on the US: now with a fickle and apparently ill-informed President in office, that makes even more sense.

Dealing happily with questionable regimes is realpolitik and pragmatism: the US is and has often been one of the world's greatest practitioners of this. Instead of silly moralizing finger-wagging at tge Chinese(who don't really GAF what we think anyway) we should be figuring out to engineer the best possible deal for  Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 26, 2018, 12:37:32
A sovereign nation protects it's self and does not rely on another sovereign nation for protection.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 26, 2018, 13:10:05
A sovereign nation protects it's self and does not rely on another sovereign nation for protection.
And "protecting" ourselves economically is how we can pay for protecting ourselves militarily. The economy is the engine of everything.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 26, 2018, 14:05:37
It's the economy stupid. Realize that. Look at the economy of occupied Europe in the Second World War. Who did that benefit? No free country; no free economy.

A sovereign nation protects it's self and does not rely on another sovereign nation for protection.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on January 26, 2018, 14:12:19
From Trading Economics. Com  Canada's trade deficit increased to CAD 2.5 billion in November of 2017, widening from CAD 1.6 billion in the previous month and above market expectations of a CAD 1.2 billion deficit. Imports went up 5.8 percent month-over-month and exports rose 3.7 percent, both due largely to increased activity in the automotive industry. Balance of Trade in Canada averaged 1387.84 CAD Million from 1971 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 8524.80 CAD Million in January of 2001 and a record low of -4127.40 CAD Million in September of 2016. 

What is the good of having a free trade agreement when it is all one way?  If we keep losing manufacturing jobs the only thing that we will have left to trade is intellectual property and that will only last until off-shore enterprises finish their catch-up.  Notice I said finish, they have already started.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 26, 2018, 14:14:37
It,s the economy stupid. Realize that. Look at the economy of occupied Europe in the Second World War. Who did that benefit. No free country; no free economy.

A sovereign nation protects it's self and does not rely on another sovereign nation for protection.
funny how few trully sovereign nations there are in the world  ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 26, 2018, 16:30:48
Canoe News service has just reported that Bombardier has won before the US Commerce tribunal by a unanimous decision against Boeing and that it has cancelled completely the approx. 300% tariff that was imposed by the lower authority.


Does this mean we'll see those pesky Super-Hornets soon ?   ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on January 26, 2018, 18:19:08
Canoe News service has just reported that Bombardier has won before the US Commerce tribunal by a unanimous decision against Boeing and that it has cancelled completely the approx. 300% tariff that was imposed by the lower authority.


Does this mean we'll see those pesky Super-Hornets soon ?   ;D

From the Canadian Press:

Quote
Bombardier wins resounding victory against Boeing over C Series jet

By Ross Marowits — Jan 26 2018

MONTREAL — Bombardier Inc. won a resounding victory Friday when the U.S. International Trade Commission eliminated nearly 300 per cent in duties on its C Series commercial jet by unanimously voting against a petition filed by Boeing Co.

Commissioners voted 4-0 that Boeing didn't suffer harm from prospective imports of C Series planes.

"Today's decision is a victory for innovation, competition, and the rule of law," the Montreal-based manufacturer said in a news release moments after the vote was announced.

The decision was a surprise for some observers who expected the commission would side with Boeing even though they believed the company sustained no harm. Even one government official said it wouldn't be surprised by a loss.

The decision caused Bombardier's stock to shoot up to its highest level in three years. Shares gained nearly 15 per cent to $3.52 after the ruling.

Bombardier also called it a victory for U.S. airlines and the American travelling public.

"With this matter behind us, we are moving full speed ahead with finalizing our partnership with Airbus," it added.

Chicago-based Boeing said it is disappointed by the decision but will review the commission's detailed opinions when they are released in the coming days.

"We are disappointed that the International Trade Commission did not recognize the harm that Boeing has suffered from the billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies that the Department of Commerce found Bombardier received and used to dump aircraft in the U.S. small single-aisle airplane market," it said in a statement.

"Those violations have harmed the U.S. aerospace industry, and we are feeling the effects of those unfair business practices in the market every day."

Boeing said it will continue to document any harm to Boeing from illegal subsidies and dumping pricing.

"We will not stand by as Bombardier's illegal business practices continue to harm American workers and the aerospace industry they support. Global trade only works if everyone adheres to the rules we have all agreed to. That's a belief we will continue to defend."

Boeing launched the trade case last April, arguing that governments in Canada and Britain subsidized the plane's development and allowed Bombardier to sell it at unfairly low prices.

Follow @RossMarowits on Twitter.

Companies in this story: (TSX:BBD.B)

Ross Marowits, The Canadian Press

 Article Link (https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/01/26/u-s-trade-agency-to-vote-today-on-massive-duties-on-c-series-imports/#.WmuX0q6nGUk)

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 26, 2018, 18:27:04
Retired AF Guy:

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127284.0.html
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 26, 2018, 18:32:59
Canoe News service has just reported that Bombardier has won before the US Commerce tribunal by a unanimous decision against Boeing and that it has cancelled completely the approx. 300% tariff that was imposed by the lower authority.


Does this mean we'll see those pesky Super-Hornets soon ?   ;D
This is great news, if very surprising. I assume Trump will soon be tweeting threats against the US International Trade Commission over this.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 26, 2018, 18:40:56
It's the economy stupid. Realize that. Look at the economy of occupied Europe in the Second World War. Who did that benefit? No free country; no free economy.

A sovereign nation protects it's self and does not rely on another sovereign nation for protection.
Yes it certainly is the economy (I don't know who the "stupid" is you're talking to...). It's the economy that pays for everything. If I was the Liberal Govt right now, I would immediately slash corporate taxes below US levels, even if we suck up some initial and temporary fiscal pain. Then, I would do everything I could to encourage the  growth of business both large and small, while still providing reasonable protection for workers and the environment. I am NOT talking about turning the clock backwards.

If we want to provide more opportunities for women, aboriginals and new Canadians (all excellent goals IMHO) then we have to have a vibrant economy to allow that to happen. No economy, no opportunities.

Canada is an excellent place to live, and it can be a very good place to do business, if the Govt of the day keeps its eye on the economic ball first, and social goals later.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 26, 2018, 19:05:18
And, the Carbon Tax??????

PBI:
Quote
(I don't know who the "stupid" is you're talking to...).

It's the expression. For sure not aimed at you .
Quote
"It's the economy, stupid" is a slight variation of the phrase "The economy, stupid", which James Carville had coined as a campaign strategist of Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 26, 2018, 19:34:28
And, the Carbon Tax??????

PBI:
It's the expression. For sure not aimed at you .
:facepalm: :facepalm: OK, now I remember. Too many aluminum messtins, I guess.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on January 27, 2018, 18:19:35
This is great news, if very surprising. I assume Trump will soon be tweeting threats against the US International Trade Commission over this.

Perhaps surprising if one didn't consider the influence of a number of key state leaders, including Kay Ivey (R-AL).  :nod:

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 28, 2018, 00:32:48
As for the PM in Davos versus trump, I'll look at it this way. Trump is there looking for new business for the USA, Canada is set to sign a deal that will give Canadian business access to 500 million people, shortly after signing another deal that gave Canadian business access to a additional 500 million people. Actions speak louder than words.

Great....we now expect our businesses to compete against slave labour on a free trade even plane?   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 28, 2018, 01:33:54
Great....we now expect our businesses to compete against slave labour on a free trade even plane?
we do it now with Mexico. Canada has done fine.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 28, 2018, 07:55:47
we do it now with Mexico. Canada has done fine.
Sure we have.  Just ask all those workers at Caterpillar etc whose jobs went down to Mexico.

 :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 28, 2018, 14:29:31
Great....we now expect our businesses to compete against slave labour on a free trade even plane?
My concern also, although in general I'm in favour of Free Trade because we need to be able to sell our products as widely as we can. I have some family members who work in manufacturing in Ontario and I wonder what is going to happen to them.  I live in Eastern Ontario, which is a region that has suffered a serious loss of manufacturing in the last few decades. Trenton, Brockville, Kingston, Smith Falls, Napanee, Prescott and Cornwall all come to mind. Around here you can see what happens when a plant shuts down and goes to West Virginia or Arkansas or Mexico.

I don't think we can compete against the low-end industrial jobs where low-skilled foreign workers making peanuts (by our standards) are cranking stuff out. Canadian (and American) workers aren't prepared to live on those wages, nor should they be. But, at the same time, are  we prepared to pay 100 bucks more for an item in order to keep our fellow Canadians in industrial jobs? Or would we all rather go to Walmart or shop cross border and get it at half the price? There is lots of blame to go around.

Our target (I think) has to be more like the Germans: quality over quantity. This will require some investments in education and training but I don't see too many other options.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on January 28, 2018, 14:53:46
The current Canadian unemployment rate is 5.7%.  We have not seen a rate this low in almost 45 years. With all the jobs we have lost to developing and under-developed nations (lower paying jobs), we have gained in higher paying jobs.  It is sad that hard working Canadians and their families suffer when factories close and move, however there are provincial and federal programs to assist with re-training and income subsidization. These programs help those who have been affected to re-enter the labour force at a higher wage.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 28, 2018, 15:06:52
The current Canadian unemployment rate is 5.7%.  We have not seen a rate this low in almost 45 years. With all the jobs we have lost to developing and underdeveloped nations (lower paying jobs), we have gained in higher paying jobs.  It is sad that hard working Canadians and their families suffer when factories close and move, however there are provincial and federal programs to assist with retraining and income subsidization. These programs help those who have been affected to reenter the labour force at a higher wage.

Well that sounds good but I think the statistics might be somewhat blunt instruments.  First, I might ask, what sort of jobs? Jobs that can keep towns and cities alive and vibrant, with people buying homes and cars and stuff? Next, I might say "Higher paying jobs for whom?" The people who lost it all when the mill shut down? Or a select group in larger centres?
Then, I wouldn't say that it's "sad" that "..hard working Canadians and their families suffer when factories close and move..." I'd say it's a tragedy that has far reaching consequences from declining municipal tax bases to increased social problems to soaring rates of substance abuse, and not forgetting the political alienation of a whole class of otherwise solid people (the US equivalent of which which boosted Trump into power)

Finally, it is well to speak of helping these people through various government programs (and I do support them in principle) but all that great government largess has to be paid for by something. In my limited (and admittedly unschooled...) understanding, that thing is a solid, diverse economy which includes all Canadians, not just a few.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 28, 2018, 15:23:00
pbi:
Quote
But, at the same time, are  we prepared to pay 100 bucks more for an item in order to keep our fellow Canadians in industrial jobs?


Not exactly industrial jobs, but think of all dairy and poultry products, Canadians already pay the extra.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on January 28, 2018, 15:24:13
Well that sounds good but I think the statistics might be somewhat blunt instruments.  First, I might ask, what sort of jobs? Jobs that can keep towns and cities alive and vibrant, with people buying homes and cars and stuff? Next, I might say "Higher paying jobs for whom?" The people who lost it all when the mill shut down? Or a select group in larger centres?
Then, I wouldn't say that it's "sad" that "..hard working Canadians and their families suffer when factories close and move..." I'd say it's a tragedy that has far reaching consequences from declining municipal tax bases to increased social problems to soaring rates of substance abuse, and not forgetting the political alienation of a whole class of otherwise solid people (the US equivalent of which which boosted Trump into power)

Finally, it is well to speak of helping these people through various government programs (and I do support them in principle) but all that great government largess has to be paid for by something. In my limited (and admittedly unschooled...) understanding, that thing is a solid, diverse economy which includes all Canadians, not just a few.

PBI you raise some interesting points.  I would like to point out that the majority of Canadians are better off now than 10, 20 or even 50 years ago.  I mentioned the unemployment rate in my last post.  I would also like to point out that home ownership has increased from 60.3 to 69.0 from 1971 until 2011. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-014-x/2011002/c-g/c-g01-eng.cfm   Do we as a society have issues that we need to address? Sure.  Are we addressing such issues.  Yes. Will Canadian society continue to get better? Yes.  In fact, I would argue that there is a positive relationship between economic growth and social wellness. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 28, 2018, 15:42:47
I think your home ownership is going to take a serious nosedive.  The new rules and outrageous home prices in numerous markets are going to close out many a new home buyer.  My co-workers whom are from Esquimalt have been discussing the present state there.  It doesn't look good.  And to add insult to injury, the vacancy rate is pretty well zero.  Even if you could afford the rent.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: AbdullahD on January 28, 2018, 16:07:09
I think your home ownership is going to take a serious nosedive.  The new rules and outrageous home prices in numerous markets are going to close out many a new home buyer.  My co-workers whom are from Esquimalt have been discussing the present state there.  It doesn't look good.  And to add insult to injury, the vacancy rate is pretty well zero.  Even if you could afford the rent.

With Toronto and the lower mainland real estate sales easing, potentially rising interest rates that could bankrupt a lot of over leveraged home owners.. I would not be surprised to see a nose dive in home ownership too and possibly a ripple effect to a pull back in the TSX due to less new construction, reits potentially under water, bankruptcies etc...

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 28, 2018, 16:58:25
The same arguments about free trade ruing our standard of living are the same arguments used to assert that automation / technology are going to ruin our standard of living.

Both raise our standard of living.

The problem is, while it's easy to quantify the jobs lost due to free trade or automation, and they catch your eye and pull at your heartstrings, it's much harder to quantify the jobs gained from heightened consumer spending power and competitive industries who benefit from the lower cost of doing business now that they can get inputs for cheaper. This is because the numbers of job gains are spread out across various industries and occur over time as an adaptation to the new prevailing conditions.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on January 28, 2018, 17:07:02
Yup.....McJobs
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PPCLI Guy on January 28, 2018, 17:22:43
But, at the same time, are  we prepared to pay 100 bucks more for an item in order to keep our fellow Canadians in industrial jobs? Or would we all rather go to Walmart or shop cross border and get it at half the price? There is lots of blame to go around.

For the win.  Much easier to blame "the government" or "free trade" than to own any of it ourselves.  How many union workers take Uber instead of a cab?  How any people "scoop" music, videos etc off the internet rather than pay the full price.  How many will pay contractors off the books to save some money?  How many industrial workers by finished products at Walmart?

It is, essentially, a closed system....and the system now reaches from Cornwall to China, from Trenton to India.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on January 28, 2018, 17:31:42
Yup.....McJobs

What, is everybody entitled to be a doctor now too? You're assertion is probably incorrect although I haven't seen any solid/convincing empirical data one way or another.

Anything Canada is competitive in, it is never on costs. Someone losing their job at Caterpillar is still a skilled person and those industries that remain competitive and are now more competitive require skilled labour and require more in order to take advantage of the new conditions. There will always be low-paying jobs, because we will always want low-skilled labour to cook us hamburgers. We'll have more of those too in an economy that is efficient, which is also a good thing.

I wish someone would have tracked those 3000 workers at Caterpillar and could report in 10 years "where they are now." I'd be wiling to be it's not McDonald's.

But you're probably right, I don't know why we don't just close up our borders completely and go at it alone, supply manage all commodities, the whole nine yards. I'm sure that would be great for our standard of living. I already love paying 300% of the market price for dairy and eggs.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Eaglelord17 on January 28, 2018, 18:14:29
I would argue the change in homeownership rates is more directly caused by the slacking off of the Mortgage requirements than anything else. Many people are barely affording their houses because of the lessened requirements and the large debt economy we now have (also why as mentioned they are tightening up the standards again). All it takes is the interest rate to go up one or two percent and many will be unable to afford their houses.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 28, 2018, 18:21:58
What, is everybody entitled to be a doctor now too? You're assertion is probably incorrect although I haven't seen any solid/convincing empirical data one way or another.

Anything Canada is competitive in, it is never on costs. Someone losing their job at Caterpillar is still a skilled person and those industries that remain competitive and are now more competitive require skilled labour and require more in order to take advantage of the new conditions. There will always be low-paying jobs, because we will always want low-skilled labour to cook us hamburgers. We'll have more of those too in an economy that is efficient, which is also a good thing.

I wish someone would have tracked those 3000 workers at Caterpillar and could report in 10 years "where they are now." I'd be wiling to be it's not McDonald's.

But you're probably right, I don't know why we don't just close up our borders completely and go at it alone, supply manage all commodities, the whole nine yards. I'm sure that would be great for our standard of living. I already love paying 300% of the market price for dairy and eggs.
Some people like taking a dump over new developments.

I'm sure these were the same arguments made when NAFTA came into effect and I think most can agree we are better off with NAFTA than without it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Thucydides on January 28, 2018, 19:29:49
I think your home ownership is going to take a serious nosedive.  The new rules and outrageous home prices in numerous markets are going to close out many a new home buyer.  My co-workers whom are from Esquimalt have been discussing the present state there.  It doesn't look good.  And to add insult to injury, the vacancy rate is pretty well zero.  Even if you could afford the rent.

Part of the problem is induced by interference in the markets by government. I sat in a London City council meeting where they referenced the Ontario Government's plan of "up and in" (paraphrase, but the Ontario Liberals have operated for several years encouraging cities to build high rises in the core rather than suburbs). This was actually in reference to an issue involving a shared water treatment resource, several councillors were indignant that the small centre outside London might build another 200 units and attract buyers looking for houses rather than living in the city. And development permits are being squeezed since the amount of subdivisions being allowed has drastically declined. Fewer houses artificially increases demand and prices of the remaining ones.

Sadly, this situation might continue for decades until the Boomers die off and the number of new buyers is lower than the number of existing houses and units.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on January 28, 2018, 20:29:04
Part of the problem is induced by interference in the markets by government. I sat in a London City council meeting where they referenced the Ontario Government's plan of "up and in" (paraphrase, but the Ontario Liberals have operated for several years encouraging cities to build high rises in the core rather than suburbs). This was actually in reference to an issue involving a shared water treatment resource, several councillors were indignant that the small centre outside London might build another 200 units and attract buyers looking for houses rather than living in the city. And development permits are being squeezed since the amount of subdivisions being allowed has drastically declined. Fewer houses artificially increases demand and prices of the remaining ones.

Sadly, this situation might continue for decades until the Boomers die off and the number of new buyers is lower than the number of existing houses and units.

Just when you figure out what's going on they change the rules on you.

"City taking bloom off highrise boom?"

http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/26/city-taking-bloom-off-highrise-boom (http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/26/city-taking-bloom-off-highrise-boom)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 28, 2018, 23:03:03
The current Canadian unemployment rate is 5.7%.  We have not seen a rate this low in almost 45 years.

I saw this,

"Employment gains were concentrated in part-time work"
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate
Canada Unemployment Rate  1966-2018

I do not know the statistics - so, I could be wrong - but it seemed to me it was more common 45 years ago to join an employer full-time immediately after graduation. And stay there for your whole career.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on January 29, 2018, 01:39:21
I saw this,

"Employment gains were concentrated in part-time work"
https://tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate
Canada Unemployment Rate  1966-2018

I do not know the statistics - so, I could be wrong - but it seemed to me it was more common 45 years ago to join an employer full-time immediately after graduation. And stay there for your whole career.
For full disclosure here is the whole article.

The unemployment rate in Canada fell to 5.7 percent in December of 2017 from 5.9 percent in November and well below market consensus of 6 percent. It is the lowest jobless rate since comparable data became available in January 1976, as the economy added 79,000 jobs. Employment gains were concentrated in part-time work (54.9 thousand) while 23.7 thousand full-time jobs were added. Unemployment Rate in Canada averaged 7.68 percent from 1966 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 13.10 percent in December of 1982 and a record low of 2.90 percent in June of 1966.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Thucydides on January 29, 2018, 01:47:34
Just when you figure out what's going on they change the rules on you.

"City taking bloom off highrise boom?"

http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/26/city-taking-bloom-off-highrise-boom (http://www.lfpress.com/2018/01/26/city-taking-bloom-off-highrise-boom)

 :cheers:

This city council is giving us whiplash. I can only hope for the best when voters go to the polls this fall, but am expecting the worst.....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 29, 2018, 10:56:18
There are so many good points posted above that if I did "Quotes" it would be three pages long.  Some of them certainly made me think about my own position. So I have tried to rationalize my thoughts:

-I'm not a Luddite. I benefit from technology as much as any other middle class Canadian. I get it that technology marches on and that industry and business are driven primarily by the profit motive,. Roger so far;

-I also understand that there is evidence that in some cases robotics can increase  the number of people who have jobs at that particular company. I have a person in my family circle who has been directly involved in such a case;

-what I worry about is the impact on tens if not hundreds of thousands of working Canadians who must, for a number of reasons, make their living and feed their families doing what we may dismiss as "Mcjobs", or service jobs. These are the people whose jobs are the low-hanging fruit for robotic or digital replacement and who are, I think, least equipped to adapt. Given the likely pace of any change that is driven by maximization of profit, what happens to them?; and

-is anybody thinking seriously about the impacts on real people and the communities they live in? Or is it just "All Hail Technology"? (Ok now I do sound like a Luddite)




Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 29, 2018, 15:25:58
Ontario isn't the only province with a PC leader going down in flames today. 

Saw this on CPtwenty-Ford at noon.

Doug ( Ford Nation ) to the rescue.
https://twitter.com/CP24/status/958023955041931264

January 28, 2018

Ontario PC Party president Rick Dykstra resigns after sexual assault accusation
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/ontario-pc-party-president-rick-dykstra-resigns-after-sexual-assault-accusation/

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 29, 2018, 15:36:19
This is a train wreck.

Wynne has got to be the luckiest politician in Canada.

She and the OLP can run Ontario intothe dirt and she will still get re-elected.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on January 29, 2018, 16:11:07
This is a train wreck.

Wynne has got to be the luckiest politician in Canada.

She and the OLP can run Ontario intothe dirt and she will still get re-elected.
that says more about the Ontario PCs and NDP than it does about the liberals.

I still think mulrooney beats wynne though. Whether mulrooney can win the leadership is another question
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 29, 2018, 16:23:27
that says more about the Ontario PCs and NDP than it does about the liberals.

I still think mulrooney beats wynne though. Whether mulrooney can win the leadership is another question

Then perhaps she could move over Federally and take out Trudeau once Scheer thunders in like a lawn dart.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Brihard on January 29, 2018, 16:28:19
Then perhaps she could move over Federally and take out Trudeau once Scheer thunders in like a lawn dart.

She could emerge as a player. My money is still on McKay reappearing.

And Ford for Ontario PC? Ugh, no. The PCs bloody well better be able to do better than that.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on January 29, 2018, 16:46:55
And Ford for Ontario PC?

A rich man's son slamming the elites to announce a Conservative leadership run from Mom’s basement.

Last week he was running for Mayor of Toronto ( again ). This week he wants to be Premier.




Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on January 29, 2018, 16:51:45
There are rumblings in the Ontario PC party to just let Wynn win the election.  This is because of a belief in a turn in economic fortunes (between housing increases, NAFTA issues, US tax reductions etc...), and thus it might be better to be the party to come in a clean up the mess then inherit the mess and pay the piper for someone else's mistakes.  Wish I could find the article I read that in.... sorry no ref.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on January 29, 2018, 18:16:02


QUOTE

A rich man's son slamming the elites to announce a Conservative leadership run from Mom’s basement.

Last week he was running for Mayor of Toronto ( again ). This week he wants to be Premier.

My sentiments exactly. I don't know why principled, rational conservatism has this terrible tendency to drift into the swamp of bumper-sticker populism instead of holding some kind of high ground. It should not be hard to defeat the Liberals without pitch fork waving and acting like a 19 year old at a tailgate party.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on January 29, 2018, 18:23:38
On the plus side, with legalization looming, at least with Doug Ford at the helm we could be reasonably certain that the LCBO will turn a profit on weed...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 01, 2018, 19:22:54
Speaking of the LCBO, I'm starting to dig the Liberals style.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/400-bottles-of-wine-on-the-plane-federal-politicians-have-access-to-limitless-alcohol-on-government-flights

Quote
During Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s week-long official trip to China last December, more than $2,200 worth of alcohol — 121 bottles of wine and 241 cans of beer — was consumed on flights. That amount translates to about two bottles of wine and four cans of beer for each of the roughly 56 passengers for the flights to and from China.

If they carried whiskey I'd consider signing up.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 01, 2018, 19:46:57
Speaking of the LCBO, I'm starting to dig the Liberals style.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/400-bottles-of-wine-on-the-plane-federal-politicians-have-access-to-limitless-alcohol-on-government-flights

If they carried whiskey I'd consider signing up.

TFTFY.... ;)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 01, 2018, 19:57:06
I believe the accompanying media was responsible for most of the consumption considering the haze that envelops most of their reporting of the PM and socks. Either a cunning plan by the LPC or the media living up to it's reputation.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 01, 2018, 19:59:36
Looks like my prediction is partially correct... Caroline Mulroney and Christine Elliott have announced their intentions to run for leadership of the Ontario PCs. I have to admit that if I were forced to choose I wouldn't know which way to turn. I might give the edge to Ms Elliott, given her experience. So, as of now we have:

Christine Elliott
Caroline Mulroney
Doug Ford
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 01, 2018, 20:00:33
I believe the accompanying media was responsible for most of the consumption considering the haze that envelops most of their reporting of the PM and socks. Either a cunning plan by the LPC or the media living up to it's reputation.

Both groups need to be careful. I'm not convinced there's a sufficient amount of surplus brain cells in either one.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 01, 2018, 21:45:13
Well this looks interesting  :pop::
NDP MP Erin Weir fears harassment allegation against him 'politically motivated'
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-mp-erin-weir-fears-harassment-allegation-against-him-politically-motivated-1.3785396

Of course it's politically motivated, sheesh! 




Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 02, 2018, 18:04:35
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/02/sickening-trudeau-says-veterans-asking-able-give-right-now/

Quote
Trudeau Says Veterans Are “Asking For More Than We Are Able To Give Right Now”

Yup. Liberals have screamed fiscal conservatism since they took power.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 02, 2018, 22:36:21
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/02/sickening-trudeau-says-veterans-asking-able-give-right-now/

Yup. Liberals have screamed fiscal conservatism since they took power.

Guess you run out of money fast when you give $10 million to terrorists.  :tsktsk:

 [cheers]
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 02, 2018, 23:03:10
No credit for the PM walking into BC and tell them that the pipeline is getting built?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on February 02, 2018, 23:32:16
No credit for the PM walking into BC and tell them that the pipeline is getting built?
How's that going to work, another Oka? Cutting transfer payments? Legal challenges to take a decade and millions of dollars?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 00:13:32
How's that going to work, another Oka? Cutting transfer payments? Legal challenges to take a decade and millions of dollars?
simply declare the Trans Mountain pipeline a work for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 03, 2018, 01:10:19
Ok- lets see that then.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 03, 2018, 01:16:23
Quote
...what was promised in the party’s 2015 election platform.

... the campaigning Liberals implied that local communities have a veto over such projects, in addition to maintaining that the public needs to trust the regulators that review them.

“While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission,” the platform stated.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/federal-governments-social-licence-for-pipelines-permission-cuts-out-communities
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2018, 08:45:56
simply declare the Trans Mountain pipeline a work for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 12:31:48
:rofl:
Well,  the man did go into hostile territory and told a hostile audience that it was getting built,  too bad,  so I don't see why the idea is so far fetched.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2018, 12:38:58
Well,  the man did go into hostime territory and told a hostile audience that it was getting built,  too bad,  so I don't see why the idea is so far fetched.

Because you make it sound like he only needs to utter phrases and the waters will part as they did for Moses and it will lead everyone of us, willingly, to the promised land.  It's like a fairy tale ending whenever he speaks, eh?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 12:50:56
Because you make it sound like he only needs to utter phrases and the waters will part as they did for Moses and it will lead everyone of us, willingly, to the promised land.  It's like a fairy tale ending whenever he speaks, eh?
BC pulled this nonsense last week,  maybe it will be a good idea to give the federal government some time to

A)  talk BC down,  letting them know this approach isn't going to work

B) Consult the experts in how best to assert federal authority in the matter.  Nothing worst than rushing to do something only to have done it poorly and having to back down.

He also needs to do this in a way that won't result in BC becoming a new Alberta for the liberal party.  You know,  a place devoid of any liberal supporters for a generation.

There really is no rush,  BCs move only limits the amount of oil that can be transported by pipeline,  not the building of the pipeline itself,  so there really is no rush to do anything until the pipeline is built.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 03, 2018, 13:56:40
BC pulled this nonsense last week,  maybe it will be a good idea to give the federal government some time to

A)  talk BC down,  letting them know this approach isn't going to work

B) Consult the experts in how best to assert federal authority in the matter.  Nothing worst than rushing to do something only to have done it poorly having to back down.

He also needs to do this in a way that won't result in BC becoming a new Alberta for the liberal party.  You know,  a place devoid of any liberal supporters for a generation.

There really is no rush,  BCs move only limits the amount of oil that can be transported by pipeline,  not the building of the pipeline itself,  so there really is no rush to do anything until the pipeline is built.

Why would you want to remove from the list of available remedies the federal Liberal party's Standing Operating Procedure?

 ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 14:11:43
When caught between two difficult choices, generally with varying degrees of his own creation, his reaction seems to be dither, misdirect, and/or pull an artificial emergency out of his lowest orifice that requires an expensive solution as in the continuing F35 farce or the Khadr payout.

In this case, he has to break a promise to either Alberta or British Columbia. Where will he lose the most votes?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 15:37:59
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-canadians-want-a-kinder-gentler-trump-step-forward-andrew-scheer

"With a federal election in Canada coming in less than two years, the fundamentals look good for Scheer. Despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s celebrity and Scheer’s obscurity, the Liberals are barely three per cent ahead of the Conservatives - 37 per cent to 33.8 per cent - according to the latest Nanos poll, just above the margin of error. As important, while the U.S. electorate is split between two dominant parties, Canada’s electorate has a major third party, the NDP, that has the potential to bleed votes away from the Liberals, particularly as Trudeau’s star has waned with many of the millennials and lefties that put him in power. In a three-way race, Scheer may not need many more voters than his base to win the next election. But he may get them, as Canadian voters reflect on the boons their counterparts received south of the border.

"Trump won big in the U.S. against all odds. Now that Trump has shown the way, the soft-spoken Scheer has the odds in his favour - a wind at his back thanks to Trump’s proven policies, and without the liability of Trump’s braggadocio."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 03, 2018, 16:09:38
Well,  the man did go into hostile territory and told a hostile audience that it was getting built,  too bad,  so I don't see why the idea is so far fetched.

Yup that's true. And looking a wounded war vet in the face and saying vets are asking for more than the government is willing able to give while dishing out money for isis reintegration  was ballsy too.


Trudeau's Canadian tour of duty reminds me of a platoon/company commanders hour when they're hit with a barage of serious issues and complaints and they close their notebook and just start nodding their head looking at their watch.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 03, 2018, 18:17:53
Because you make it sound like he only needs to utter phrases and the waters will part as they did for Moses and it will lead everyone of us, willingly, to the promised land.
Not speaking specifically  about ANY politician or political party, in any country, but......

People who believe religious dogma as...well, gospel.... seem very similar to people who believe unquestioningly (unthinkingly) in various political dogma.

    :pop:


Again, maybe read stuff you don't believe in..... then think about it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 03, 2018, 18:28:28
Thou shalt not believe in God.

(Like that, you mean?)  ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: AbdullahD on February 03, 2018, 18:45:20
Oh what I wouldn't do for a conservative PM again. I think a large minority conservative government would be best for Canada due to needing to work with the NDP and Liberals on different issues.. but then again the inability to make snap decisions is not good..

I didn't like Harper but this new chap seems promising.. or well at least better then trudeau imo but that's a low bar. Trudeau is far to "multicultural" even if it puts Canadians at risk.. something I can't stomach.

Abdullah
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 18:57:48
When caught between two difficult choices, generally with varying degrees of his own creation, his reaction seems to be dither, misdirect, and/or pull an artificial emergency out of his lowest orifice that requires an expensive solution as in the continuing F35 farce or the Khadr payout.

In this case, he has to break a promise to either Alberta or British Columbia. Where will he lose the most votes?
He has never made a promise to not build pipelines,  thus he has no promise to break with BC.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 19:05:34
Yup that's true. And looking a wounded war vet in the face and saying vets are asking for more than the government is willing able to give while dishing out money for isis reintegration  was ballsy too.


Trudeau's Canadian tour of duty reminds me of a platoon/company commanders hour when they're hit with a barage of serious issues and complaints and they close their notebook and just start nodding their head looking at their watch.
That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 03, 2018, 19:16:53
That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.

Fantino was a very poor choice as VA minister but there was improvement starting under O'Toole.
The Liberals have the ball now and the PM's response at the town hall was pretty cold blooded for a man who is cries at the drop of the hat at every perceived injustice.

I've said this many a time, the mandarins at VA want you to come back from a deployment one of two ways; not a scratch on you in mind, body and soul or atomized on the battlefield or lost at sea so that they don't have to even pay to get your carcass back to Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 19:32:11
Fantino was a very poor choice as VA minister but there was improvement starting under O'Toole.
The Liberals have the ball now and the PM's response at the town hall was pretty cold blooded for a man who is cries at the drop of the hat at every perceived injustice.
Harper,  Trudeau,  Fantino O'Toole,  Herr, O'Regan,  all have been battling vets in courts over lifetime benefits.  One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.
Quote

I've said this many a time, the mandarins at VA want you to come back from a deployment one of two ways; not a scratch on you in mind, body and soul or atomized on the battlefield or lost at sea so that they don't have to even pay to get your carcass back to Canada.
I imagine they hope for the former but the latter is rather more efficient from their standpoint.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 03, 2018, 19:36:14
Harper,  Trudeau,  Fantino O'Toole,  Herr, O'Regan,  all have been battling vets in courts over lifetime benefits.  One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.

The ball is in the current governments court. The PM's response does not give me much hope things will improve under this government either.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2018, 19:42:52
One can focus on Trudeaus response all they want,  both parties are guilty of penny pinching here.

But only one party and leader made promises to get elected that he has no intention of honouring. I suppose, because he has none himself.  And it isn't Harper.

Too bad he doesn't have the same time for us as he does for the Khadr's, Boyle's and returning terrorists.  As long as they're taken care of and paid off... ;)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 19:59:10
But only one party and leader made promises to get elected that he has no intention of honouring. I suppose, because he has none himself.  And it isn't Harper.

Too bad he doesn't have the same time for us as he does for the Khadr's, Boyle's and returning terrorists.  As long as they're taken care of and paid off... ;)
I remain hopeful the courts side with vets at the end of the day and force the government to do the right thing.

But at the end of the day,  he has to own it, his broken promise.  At the same time,  he isn't the only one here guilty of screwing over vets.  Its largely a team effort.

CPC and LPC both support the new legislation  to bring in the new rules.

CPC starts the fight with the vets fighting for a return to lifelong pentions

LPC continues to fight vets once they take power.

Doesn't really matter who is in power,  vets are getting the crap end of the stick either way.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 20:04:56
I would like to point out that the majority of Canadians are better off now than 10, 20 or even 50 years ago.

I'd say, as one who can remember "even 50 years ago", that it is not so. My father had a decent but not-unusually-well-paid job. We owned a house (the first was a modest standard row house in England until we moved in 1965; two on that street are on the market for the equivalent of $1.22 million right now) in Stratford in a new subdivision, lacked nothing, and my mother did not have to work. She later took a part-time job because she wanted to buy her own car. My father also had a decent company pension. How many can say the same thing today?

"Better off" may be illusory and fragile:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-household-debt-to-income-ratio-hits-record-high/article37324237/

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/canadas-household-debt-levels-higher-than-any-other-country-report-says.html

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/14/canadian-household-debt-hits-record-high-as-net-worth-declines_a_23307418/

http://business.financialpost.com/business/canadas-economic-growth-has-come-at-a-price-its-debt-level-is-now-highest-in-the-developed-world

Our current underwhelming prime minister (cbuh) is racking up debt like mad. What happens when interest spikes as it did in the late eighties? I bought my first house in Chalk River in 1989 with an 11.75% mortgage. Fortunately, I only paid $54000.00 for it. I bought my next house in Newmarket for $158000 three years later. Similar houses in the same neighbourhood have recently sold for around $750000.

Paul Martin raided RCMP, PS, and CF pension funds to reduce the federal deficit not so long ago. But nobody would ever do that again when the consequences of his wild spending hit, would he?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 03, 2018, 20:14:43
That was Trudeaus excuse,  what was Harpers?

If I remember correctly,  both leaders have had a jolly ole time screwing wounded vets.

Butwhataboutharper

Harper doesn't need an excuse, he's not in office right now. Nor is he paying 35 million dollars for rapists and murders to get poetry lessons and back rubs. Nor being found guilty ethics breaches. 


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 20:15:13
I'd say, as one who can remember "even 50 years ago", that it is not so. My father had a decent but not-unusually-well-paid job. We owned a house (the first was a modest standard row house in England until we moved in 1965; two on that street are on the market for the equivalent of $1.22 million right now) in Stratford in a new subdivision, lacked nothing, and my mother did not have to work. She later took a part-time job because she wanted to buy her own car. My father also had a decent company pension. How many can say the same thing today?

"Better off" may be illusory and fragile:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canadas-household-debt-to-income-ratio-hits-record-high/article37324237/

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/24/canadas-household-debt-levels-higher-than-any-other-country-report-says.html

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/12/14/canadian-household-debt-hits-record-high-as-net-worth-declines_a_23307418/

http://business.financialpost.com/business/canadas-economic-growth-has-come-at-a-price-its-debt-level-is-now-highest-in-the-developed-world

Our current underwhelming prime minister (cbuh) is racking up debt like mad. What happens when interest spikes as it did in the late eighties? I bought my first house in Chalk River in 1989 with an 11.75% mortgage. Fortunately, I only paid $54000.00 for it. I bought my next house in Newmarket for $158000 three years later. Similar houses in the same neighbourhood have recently sold for around $750000.

Paul Martin raided RCMP, PS, and CF pension funds to reduce the federal deficit not so long ago. But nobody would ever do that again when the consequences of his wild spending hit, would he?
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/we-are-not-heading-to-fiscal-crisis/amp/

Quote
The ultimate measure of the sustainability of fiscal policy is the debt-to-GDP ratio. This ratio compares the size of the debt to our collective ability to pay for it. When this ratio rises, we can get into a spiral where interest costs drive the debt higher, which then leads to more interest costs and we end up in a crisis. Back in 1995, Canada was very close to such a crisis. We had annual deficits around five per cent of GDP, which drove the debt-to-GDP ratio over 65 per cent. With the yield on long-term government bonds then exceeding eight per cent, debt servicing cost grew to a very large six per cent of GDP. The infamous 1995 budget turned the corner by chopping billions from federal spending and raising taxes until budget balance was reached in 1997.

The current scenario is very different. The 2016 budget projects a deficit of 1.5 per cent of GDP, which will push our debt to GDP ratio up to 32.5 per cent. With today’s long bonds yielding less than two per cent, public debt charges are only 1.3 per cent of GDP. If the Liberal government is able to hold to their plan, the deficit will fall to 0.6 per cent of GDP by 2021 and the debt to GDP ratio will recede to 30.9 per cent. As Stephen Gordon points out, that’s a big “if.” Meeting these Budget 2016 targets will require the Liberal government to have a steely spine and keep tight control of spending.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 20:16:35
Butwhataboutharper

Harper doesn't need an excuse, he's not in office right now. Nor is he paying 35 million dollars for rapists and murders to get poetry lessons and back rubs. Nor being found guilty ethics breaches.
True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 03, 2018, 20:23:42
Altair:
Quote
....how silly of me.

You said it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 03, 2018, 20:24:19
True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 03, 2018, 20:25:50
True,  this whole fighting vets in court started the second Trudeau was elected,  how silly of me.
His breaking election promises started the minute he was.  Yes, very silly of you to such a fanboy apologist.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 20:32:22
He has never made a promise to not build pipelines,  thus he has no promise to break with BC.

Perhaps not, technically, but others don't seem to see it quite as technically:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3097871/fact-check-justin-trudeau-break-promise-approving-pipelines/

"Throughout last year’s election campaign and his government’s first year in office, Trudeau has championed the environment, promised to work with First Nations communities and revamp the review process for energy projects.

"He reneged on some of those."

"But in the same breath, Trudeau approved two other projects: Enbridge’s Line 3 (carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin) and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain line (carrying bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast).

"Those approvals provoked cries of betrayal, dishonesty and political pandering from environmental groups across the country and opposition MPs in Ottawa, given some promises he’s made."

"Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Trudeau “betrayed” British Columbians, many of whom fiercely protested oil conduits running through their province and onto their shores."

"During the election campaign, Trudeau said he would overhaul the National Energy Board and change the process for reviewing energy proposals. He also pledged to work with and consult indigenous communities. He painted himself as a defender of the environment. And he frequently said to voters it’s the communities that grant permission - the government can only grant permits*.

"It’s those promises that have the critics up in arms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pipelines-campaign-promises-1.3874933

"New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair says Trudeau broke a "solemn promise" to Canadians that no pipeline would be approved under the National Energy Board review system put in place by the previous Conservative government."

* Permit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/permit?s=t

noun

8. an authoritative or official certificate of permission; license: a fishing permit.
9. a written order granting special permission to do something.
10. permission.

- He therefore contradicts himself. Nice hair, though.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 20:34:37
His breaking election promises started the minute he was.  Yes, very silly of you to such a fanboy apologist.
Politicians break promises. I have yet to find one who doesn't. Have you?

Maybe I just temper my expectations.

Or maybe I'm a realist and realized that no matter who we elect the vets are getting screwed on this issue.

I'm not particularly happy about it,  but c'est la vie.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 20:49:11
Perhaps not, technically, but others don't seem to see it quite as technically:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3097871/fact-check-justin-trudeau-break-promise-approving-pipelines/

"Throughout last year’s election campaign and his government’s first year in office, Trudeau has championed the environment, promised to work with First Nations communities and revamp the review process for energy projects.

"He reneged on some of those."

"But in the same breath, Trudeau approved two other projects: Enbridge’s Line 3 (carrying oil from Alberta to Wisconsin) and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain line (carrying bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast).

"Those approvals provoked cries of betrayal, dishonesty and political pandering from environmental groups across the country and opposition MPs in Ottawa, given some promises he’s made."

"Federal NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said Trudeau “betrayed” British Columbians, many of whom fiercely protested oil conduits running through their province and onto their shores."

"During the election campaign, Trudeau said he would overhaul the National Energy Board and change the process for reviewing energy proposals. He also pledged to work with and consult indigenous communities. He painted himself as a defender of the environment. And he frequently said to voters it’s the communities that grant permission - the government can only grant permits*.

"It’s those promises that have the critics up in arms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pipelines-campaign-promises-1.3874933

"New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair says Trudeau broke a "solemn promise" to Canadians that no pipeline would be approved under the National Energy Board review system put in place by the previous Conservative government."

* Permit http://www.dictionary.com/browse/permit?s=t

noun

8. an authoritative or official certificate of permission; license: a fishing permit.
9. a written order granting special permission to do something.
10. permission.

- He therefore contradicts himself. Nice hair, though.
odd to see you siding with mulcair.

Regardless, he has for years said that no country with billions of dollars of natural resources in the ground would leave them there.

He has for years said that that oil will continue to be extracted,  pipeline or not,  and that transporting oil via pipeline is safer and better for the environment than transporting it via rail.

Anyone who though he wouldn't approve some pipelines wasn't listening to him speak.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/04/21/news/trudeau-boxes-and-talks-pipelines-new-york-city-video

Quote
At New York University, Trudeau also spoke about how Canada's energy resources shouldn't be demonized, about how transporting oil by rail is much more dangerous than by pipeline, and how it's important to include First Nations' input when it comes to energy projects.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 20:55:13
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/we-are-not-heading-to-fiscal-crisis/amp/

That's nice 'n' all, until interests climb to the point where servicing that debt eats up too much to be able to afford. I've lived through a time where that was a huge concern.

https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/history-wars-was-trudeau-a-disaster-david-frum-and-lawrence-martin-debate/

"Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the  global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out  right in the end?

"But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy  should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.

"Three subsequent important prime ministers - Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien  and Stephen Harper - invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by  Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last,  nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting  apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.

"Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in  Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the  peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just  consider - this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a  political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all  this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was  hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue  sky.

"Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising  worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as  rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 - through two majority governments and one  minority - Trudeau tripled federal spending.

"In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World  War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders  worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney,  balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era  inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney  could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits  grew, the Bank hiked rates again - and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even  tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s?  They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to  provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real  consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more  months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements."

Y'all really, really do not want a rerun of that.

Anyway, the initial point was the claim that people have it better now than fifty years ago, which I dispute. National debt is one problem, or quickly could be again; personal/household debt is another. Even a slight increase in interest rates could tip more than a few people over a financial cliff.

And that would be the start of an avalanche.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 21:03:27
odd to see you siding with mulcair.

Since when does quoting somebody equate to siding with them, either in general or just on the topic of the quote?

I just quoted you - don't feel too flattered by that.[/quote]

As for the rest, it is irrelevant to my original post.

Whatever he does, pipeline-wise, he pisses somebody off, either Alberta or BC, along with natives and assorted envirotwits.

He will side, as I said, with whichever faction costs him the fewest votes.

And avoiding more vote losses is the best that he can hope for, these days. His support level can only continue to slide as he annoys more and more people.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 21:05:40
That's nice 'n' all, until interests climb to the point where servicing that debt eats up too much to be able to afford. I've lived through a time where that was a huge concern.

https://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/history-wars-was-trudeau-a-disaster-david-frum-and-lawrence-martin-debate/

"Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the  global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out  right in the end?

"But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy  should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.

"Three subsequent important prime ministers - Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien  and Stephen Harper - invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by  Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last,  nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting  apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.

"Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in  Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the  peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just  consider - this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a  political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all  this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was  hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue  sky.

"Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising  worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as  rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 - through two majority governments and one  minority - Trudeau tripled federal spending.

"In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World  War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders  worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney,  balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era  inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney  could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits  grew, the Bank hiked rates again - and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even  tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s?  They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to  provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real  consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more  months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements."

Y'all really, really do not want a rerun of that.

Anyway, the initial point was the claim that people have it better now than fifty years ago, which I dispute. National debt is one problem, or quickly could be again; personal/household debt is another. Even a slight increase in interest rates could tip more than a few people over a financial cliff.

And that would be the start of an avalanche.
100 percent agree,  Canadians on a whole are cutting it too close financially. Interest rates rising is going to hurt a lot of budgets.

I simply don't buy that the feds are spending out of their minds. Current defecits are nowhere close in scale to the 90
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 03, 2018, 21:12:49
Since when does quoting somebody equate to siding with them, either in general or just on the topic of the quote?

I just quoted you - don't feel too flattered by that.

As for the rest, it is irrelevant to my original post.

Whatever he does, pipeline-wise, he pisses somebody off, either Alberta or BC, along with natives and assorted envirotwits.

He will side, as I said, with whichever faction costs him the fewest votes.

And avoiding more vote losses is the best that he can hope for, these days. His support level can only continue to slide as he annoys more and more people.
Correct me if I'm wrong,  but don't most governments sag in support at the middle point of their term?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 21:35:49
I'm not sure about most, but it's certainly not unheard of. I tired of both federal Conservative governments (during my time) well before their ends - and all Liberal governments before they even began.

Sunny Ways seems to be annoying more and more people than even I expected lately, though, as they wake up. He'll be down to the last diehard Kardashian-groupie-types soon.

He may get a second term. I'd not bet either way right now. He'll not last as long as Trudeau I, though
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 03, 2018, 21:43:58
The ultimate test of sustainability is NOT debt to GDP or any other of those fancy financial twists.  It is simply whether a citizen has cash in his pocket on the day before payday.  Because it is that citizen who pays the bills in one way or another and in the last year the cash left in my pocket has dwindled alarmingly.  So this government is a bust. It is overspending on things that we don't need and didn't ask for (gifts to foreign nationals) and bringing in immigrants at a faster rate than our economy can absorb.  Meanwhile his cohort here in Ontario has made it so there are no low end starting jobs for all these misplaced persons so we pay again.  Say what you like about Harper but he built a solid financial foundation. (full stop)  And yes, Trudeau has out and out lied to the vets.  As for the pipeline, if he had come out and told BC that their conditions were unacceptable I would have had more hope but Kinder Morgan is not about to build a pipeline that they can't pump gas through.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 03, 2018, 23:58:41

Further to my previous post: "The debt compounded, the deficits grew, the Bank hiked rates again - and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992.

I actually benefited from that. I bought my house in Newmarket at the absolute rock-bottom of the market. The vendor was one of many who lost a lot of money during that time. Interest rates had dropped in the three years since I bought my previous house, in Chalk River, which made it barely affordable (it cost three times as much as my Chalk River house), and, fortunately, continued to drop through the duration of my mortgage as the value of my house went back up and beyond.

I also made a bit of money on my Chalk River house, too, when I sold it, because the move of 1 RCR from London to Pet had been announced.

One cannot rely on continued good fortune forever, though.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 00:12:17
A two-year-old article that adds some perspective: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-lessons-for-justin-trudeau-in-his-fathers-first-budget/

And some First Nations viewpoint:

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2018/01/19/trudeau-shocked-to-learn-about-living-conditions-in-northern-ont-first-nation/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/11/22/trudeau-not-my-real-great-white-father-bellegarde/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/12/21/health-canada-issues-massive-recall-of-liberal-tears/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 04, 2018, 01:09:46
A two-year-old article that adds some perspective: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-lessons-for-justin-trudeau-in-his-fathers-first-budget/

And some First Nations viewpoint:

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2018/01/19/trudeau-shocked-to-learn-about-living-conditions-in-northern-ont-first-nation/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/11/22/trudeau-not-my-real-great-white-father-bellegarde/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/12/21/health-canada-issues-massive-recall-of-liberal-tears/
interesting tidbit in there about how the decline in the percentage of working age Canadians is going to be a drag on growth now,  yet people here claim that canada is absorbing more immigrants than the economy can handle.

I say bring in more immigrants,  I have 1 kid,  I don't want any more.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 04, 2018, 02:33:48

Anyway, the initial point was the claim that people have it better now than fifty years ago, which I dispute. National debt is one problem, or quickly could be again; personal/household debt is another. Even a slight increase in interest rates could tip more than a few people over a financial cliff.

And that would be the start of an avalanche.

Fear vs economic indicators.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, Canada has a Gross National Saving rate of 19.9%.

Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html

In fact, the government of the day has tried to decrease the savings rate by lowering the ceiling on yearly TFSA contribution room. The probability of a financial 'avalanche' under current market conditions is close to zero.  In fact, guess what happens when real and nominal interest rates rise? The saving rate rises as well!

As for being better off now than 50 years ago.  There are countless indicators that proves Canadian society is better off today than in the past.  For example, I could compare the number of cars, radios, TVs, disposable income. non-working hours per week, ect a household has today than 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago.  All would show a positive linear correlation with comparison to time.
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 05:41:05
Fear vs economic indicators.

Past experience vs experts, who are never wrong - especially where politicians play a major factor.

In fact, the government of the day has tried to decrease the savings rate by lowering the ceiling on yearly TFSA contribution room.

Really? Not because it wants to rip more tax out of honest citizens? Silly me. A lot more people saved in the 1960s and 1970s. Banks actually paid interest into savings accounts, too.

People are highly indebted, now. Few have enough money to save, unless there is tax incentive to do so.

In fact, guess what happens when real and nominal interest rates rise? The saving rate rises as well!

Not when people's mortgage and car payment and maxed-out credit card interest rates rise, they don't.

I could compare the number of cars, radios, TVs, disposable income. non-working hours per week, ect a household has today than 50, 40, 30, 20 years ago.  All would show a positive linear correlation with comparison to time.

Largely paid for via the matching linear-correlated household debt and the need for both parents (when there are two parents, today) to work. I never heard anybody express concern about household debt in the sixties and seventies, but I don't know anybody who had credit cards then, either, so living beyond one's means was not quite as convenient. My parents, and I, once old enough, paid for everything with cash.

Non-working hours per week? My father worked no overtime. My mother did not have to work. Life had a slower, more relaxed pace.

One car per family was adequate, as only one parent had to work. Families only need two cars todsay because both parents have to work, with the exceptions of the wealthy and women who work because of choice.

One television per family was adequate, then, too. There didn't "have" to be one in every room of the house. Families watched together, rather than in each member's own room.

Simple possession of "things" (as opposed to ownership when a growing collection of credit-bought things will never be truly paid off) is not the best indicator of happiness or quality of life.

Nobody had to rush to drop their kids off at daycare before going in. Shops closed between 1700 and 1800. Few people had to work evenings, and almost all businesses were closed on Sundays.

Perhaps your experiences fifty years ago differed from mine.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 04, 2018, 09:51:37
OK, this thread has once again devolved into another session of  :argue:

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/12/21/health-canada-issues-massive-recall-of-liberal-tears
...but that's  funny.    :rofl:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 04, 2018, 10:49:18
A two-year-old article that adds some perspective: http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/the-lessons-for-justin-trudeau-in-his-fathers-first-budget/

And some First Nations viewpoint:

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2018/01/19/trudeau-shocked-to-learn-about-living-conditions-in-northern-ont-first-nation/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/11/22/trudeau-not-my-real-great-white-father-bellegarde/

https://walkingeaglenews.com/2017/12/21/health-canada-issues-massive-recall-of-liberal-tears/

How did l miss these gems last night.   :facepalm:  I'm with JM  :rofl:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 04, 2018, 10:58:06
My sentiments exactly. I don't know why principled, rational conservatism has this terrible tendency to drift into the swamp of bumper-sticker populism instead of holding some kind of high ground. It should not be hard to defeat the Liberals without pitch fork waving and acting like a 19 year old at a tailgate party.

"Stop the gravy train!"  :)

"The elites are trying to keep you down! Ford Nation must rise again!"

11 hours ago:

"In order to vote for me as your next Ontario PC leader in March, you must purchase a $10 Ontario PC party membership now."
https://twitter.com/fordnation/status/959991211854512128

Reminds me of when Doug was handing out twentys to voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ckIcOiJyH4

And, his unsuccessful mayoral campaign in 2014.

If he loses the PC leadership race in March, he can still run for mayor. The campaign period for mayor doesn’t open until May.

Jan. 17, 2018
He had already been warned by the city about breaking the rules of campaigning early, before the official election period had begun.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/01/17/doug-ford-to-ignore-city-clerks-warning-about-premature-campaigning.html

"Now he gets to start campaigning early, right away. He can spend money, launch advertisements, hold rallies, fire up his organization, make speeches, mount a full-scale campaign for two months."

"Either he’s on the fast-track to the premier’s office, or he’s gotten a head start — legally! — on his bid for his brother’s old desk at city hall."

QUOTE

Globe and Mail

Published May 25, 2013
Updated March 26, 2017

"The Ford family’s history with drug dealing"
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investigation-the-ford-familys-history-with-drug-dealing/article12153014/

END QUOTE



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 17:13:35
Thank-you, Piece of Cake, for your most generous gift  of 25 Milpoints and support of the freedoms of thought and speech, both gifts to Site members by Mr Bobbitt and protected by our cherished Constitution.

This is also a nice addition to my growing Milpoint portfolio, which will be of great value during my eventual retirement, especially if a market crash wipes out my RRSP.

You claim to have "presented facts", whereas I merely "replied with opinion", and that doing so "is incorrect".

"Facts" are often based upon interpretation as CIA assessments (never known to be 100% correct, by the way, or free of political or other bias either) are, and are open to challenge. "Facts" often change when new information becomes available.

I tend to stand by my opinions. There are many areas in which I hold none, as I have too little experience in or knowledge of those areas, or do not care enough. Most form over considerable time, based upon personal experience, observed experience of others, and material that I read or watch. I consult a variety of sources of many viewpoints, which began at a fairly early age and further developed during my time as Squadron Intelligence Officer (a secondary duty that I took quite seriously) at three Tac Hel Squadrons, one of which was in Germany with a real potential threat not far away.

I question almost everything, regardless of origin, especially if something deviates from learned pattern. My opinion may or may not change as a result; I have considerable confidence in my opinions, but maintain an open mind, even though I have to force myself to do so on occasion. I am well aware of the hazard of mental rigidity.

I learned to question aviation weather forecasts early on, and saved myself a lot of grief over many years. Canadian aviation forecasts in Lahr were frequently out-to-lunch, so, when in doubt, I consulted German forecasters, especially in Bremgarten to the south of us. They understood local effects due to terrain influences, whereas our guys had no such comprehension; local effects play a key role when one is flying over long stretches of varying terrain at 250 feet above ground in a country that had long stretches of marginal weather.

I learned to question intelligence assessments, which often made little sense for various reasons, so did my own research via whatever source materials I could find.

I continue this today, a few decades later. I read and watch material from conservative, liberal, socialist, "progressive" (a horribly inaccurate misnomer), civilian, military, transgender, historical, environut, and other points of view, including ones for which I have varying degrees of contempt - it's a "know thy enemy" thing. I piece bits together from multiple novel sources.

I remember things that have happened before, and their signs.

I certainly do not trust "experts" blindly. I can always find an "expert" who completely disagrees. Which makes the most sense? What agenda does each have? Which has the best track record for accuracy? What does a third, fourth, or fifth say? I often come across a non-expert who has an interesting interpretation of something, who often turns out right (like the guy who was tracking relative sales of anti-Clinton and anti-Trump merchandise during the last US election; anti-Clinton stuff was outselling anti-Trump stuff eight to one - not a solid indicator by itself, but one of many indicators that received no general publicity).

I have no immediate fear of impending serious or total economic collapse, even though I've seen many "experts" predict one or more just around the corner over many, many years. For everyone who trumpets "See? I was right", there is another staying quiet while hoping that nobody remembers his prediction tomorrow, next week, or almost ninety years later.

"Yale economist Irving Fisher was jubilant. “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau,” he rejoiced in the pages of the New York Times. That dry pronunciation would go on to be one of his most frequently quoted predictions - but only because history would record his declaration as one of the wrongest market readings of all time.

"At the time he said it, in early October, he had good reason to believe he was right. On Sept. 3, 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average swelled to a record high of 381.17, reaching the end of an eight-year growth period during which its value ballooned by a factor of six. That was before the bubble began to burst in a series of “black days”: Black Thursday, October 24, when the market dropped by 11 percent, followed four days later by Black Monday, when it fell another 13 percent; and the next day, Black Tuesday, when it lost 12 percent more.

"Fisher, consistently bullish, pronounced the slide only temporary.

"In his defense, he was not the only optimist on Wall Street. After witnessing nearly a decade of growth, most economists, investors, and captains of industry believed that the market’s natural direction was up. The beginning of the crash struck them not as a sign of financial doom, but as an opportunity for bargains. Following the first of the black days, the New York Times was full of positive predictions: “I have no fear of another comparable decline,” said the president of the Equitable Trust Company.

"Many of those optimists, including Fisher, went broke by mid-November, when the Dow had lost nearly half its pre-crash value. Fisher’s reputation likewise plummeted."

Poor Irving eventually redeemed himself, though.

"He went on to develop a new theory about what had triggered the crash: overly liberal credit policies that encouraged Americans to take on too much debt, as he himself had done in order to invest more heavily in stocks. By then, however, no one was listening. His theory didn’t gain traction until the 1950s, when, years after his death, Harvard economist Milton Friedman pronounced him "the greatest economist the United States has ever produced." Fisher’s debt-deflation theory found its way into the spotlight again when overgenerous credit lines and huge debts prompted another U.S. market crash - this time in 2008.

"Economic (and other) indicators" are often disputed.

Finally, I am intrigued that you state that expression of opinion - or perhaps just expression of opinion with which you disagree - here in this fine Site is somehow "incorrect". Is that not also an opinion, and therefore also "incorrect"? Perhaps you misworded your true thought, or I misinterpreted what you wrote.

I remember the 1960s and 1970s (and later periods, obviously) fairly well. I remember many of the concerns of the time - inflation, no more oil, severe global cooling - and many of the things that we enjoyed and took for granted. Today is better than yesterday in some ways, but not so much in others. Mostly, it is just different.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on February 04, 2018, 17:26:11
Loachman, you just triggered a memory of the prevailing attitude in the late 60s and very early 70s. The smart folks were predicting that we were entering an era of marvellous prosperity where everyone would have lots of leisure time, job security, more than adequate income and a reduced need to toil at tiresome, wretched jobs.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 04, 2018, 17:35:12
And Old Sweat

You just triggered a memory - "Here Come the Seventies"  -  A must watch show for this 13 14 year old.

https://youtu.be/37z6eAp3D4A
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 04, 2018, 18:33:41
How did l miss these gems last night.   :facepalm:  I'm with JM  :rofl:

The federal public service needs to stop training IFN, otherwise they will end up violating their own Charter rights: https://walkingeaglenews.com/2018/01/26/assembly-of-first-nations-mistakenly-signs-mou-with-self/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 04, 2018, 18:42:25
And Old Sweat

You just triggered a memory - "Here Come the Seventies"  -  A must watch show for this 13 14 year old.

https://youtu.be/37z6eAp3D4A

That takes me back.   :nod:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 04, 2018, 18:43:00
The federal public service needs to stop training IFN, otherwise they will end up violating their own Charter rights: https://walkingeaglenews.com/2018/01/26/assembly-of-first-nations-mistakenly-signs-mou-with-self/

Comedy gold.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 19:13:53
You just triggered a memory - "Here Come the Seventies"  -  A must watch show for this 13 14 year old.

It's a pity that there are no episodes on line. It would be a good time-killer. I don't think that I missed a single episode.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 19:17:03
Comedy gold.

Yup. Brilliant. I spent a lot of time going through that after stumbling upon it.

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/unreserved/reclaiming-space-through-cooking-tattoos-and-satire-1.4435388/walking-eagle-news-satirical-news-with-an-indigenous-twist-1.4437564
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 04, 2018, 19:18:18
Dawn may be approaching: http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2826?key=4DC34574813F4B7BBC6B5839D45F2231
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 05, 2018, 12:57:58
Politicians break promises. I have yet to find one who doesn't. Have you?

Maybe I just temper my expectations.

Or maybe I'm a realist and realized that no matter who we elect the vets are getting screwed on this issue.

I'm not particularly happy about it,  but c'est la vie.

C'est la vie but you won't turn down any benefits others manage to secure for us, right?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on February 05, 2018, 13:30:37
Speaking of immigration, here is an Australian look at our rich immigrant policy, 100,000 Chinese millionaires to Vancouver over 2 decades .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZs2i3Bpxx4
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 06, 2018, 15:24:23
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeau-in-a-fight-he-cant-win-with-veterans-and-his-frustration-shows

John Ivison: Trudeau is in a fight he can't win with veterans, and his frustration shows

Trudeau was elected on a platform that raised expectations to infinity. To Blaszczyk, even the Tories look good right now. ‘At least we weren’t given false promises’

John Ivison   

February 5, 2018 6:53 PM EST

You have to be pretty tone-deaf to tell a man who lost a leg in Afghanistan that the government is fighting veterans groups in courts “because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”

Yet that’s exactly what the prime minister did at a town-hall in Edmonton last Thursday - a gaffe that has gone viral on social media and infuriated veterans.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 06, 2018, 15:40:38
Quote from: Lachlan


You have to be pretty tone-deaf to tell a man who lost a leg in Afghanistan that the government is fighting veterans groups in courts “because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”


Yup. That was pretty epic.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 06, 2018, 15:44:15
Tone deaf isn't the word I would use to describe that particular gaffe.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 06, 2018, 15:45:45
Waiting for the ABC Veterans commentary on the subject...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on February 06, 2018, 17:14:41
The "anyone but Harper" crowd got their wish. Always be careful what you wish for.....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 06, 2018, 17:18:30
The "anyone but Harper" crowd got their wish. Always be careful what you wish for.....


Not sure that they got their wish but they did get more of the same with an extra helping of crap.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 06, 2018, 17:56:58
Not that I want to take any spotlight from the stupidity of the Prime Minister saying the above to a wounded Vet but this deserves some of it's own ridicule.


Quote
Justin Trudeau interrupts woman to tell her to use 'peoplekind' instead of 'mankind' because 'it's more inclusive'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5357037/Trudeau-mocked-telling-woman-say-peoplekind.html

What a real piece of work.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 06, 2018, 18:06:46
Wait till he says "Peopletoba" while in Winnipeg. ....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 06, 2018, 18:17:24
Wait till he says "Peopletoba" while in Winnipeg. ....

 :rofl:   he would be that stupid
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: kratz on February 06, 2018, 18:50:05
According to the PM's wishes, we'll have a constitutional crisis as his government attempts to rename Manitoba,
to a more inclusive term.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 06, 2018, 19:16:29
Wait till he says "Peopletoba" while in Winnipeg. ....

How will they man-age, and will it be man-datory in this no-peoples land of biological neutrality.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 06, 2018, 21:19:09
Quote
The name Manitoba is believed to be derived from the Cree, Ojibwe or Assiniboine languages. Thename derives from Cree manitou-wapow or Ojibwa manidoobaa, both meaning "straits of Manitou, the Great Spirit", a place referring to what are now called The Narrows in the centre of Lake Manitoba.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba&ved=0ahUKEwjlnI7V0JLZAhUq34MKHVuiCbwQFggeMAE&usg=AOvVaw2nUEQNVOn_ZJZgSssrEetr

I think Manitoba is good.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 06, 2018, 21:30:09
How will they people-age, and will it be people-datory in this no-peoples land of biological neutrality.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 06, 2018, 22:16:41
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba&ved=0ahUKEwjlnI7V0JLZAhUq34MKHVuiCbwQFggeMAE&usg=AOvVaw2nUEQNVOn_ZJZgSssrEetr

I think Manitoba is good.

You just have to spoil our fun, don't you.

 :tsktsk:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 06, 2018, 22:25:26
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manitoba&ved=0ahUKEwjlnI7V0JLZAhUq34MKHVuiCbwQFggeMAE&usg=AOvVaw2nUEQNVOn_ZJZgSssrEetr

I think Manitoba is good.

Neither Cree, Ojibwa nor Assiniboine used cursive Roman script, so "Man" is white-person's interpretation of the First Nations' name.  Apologies due to and restitution for them, and a replacement name!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 06, 2018, 22:47:51
I think Manitoba is good.

The "Great Spirit" thing has got to offend somebody's religion, or lack thereof, somewhere.

And would the name not be considered to be cultural appropriation in certain circles, due to its origin and the number of older, patriarchal, privileged, cis-gendered (whatever that means; "functional normal human being", I think), straight, Christian white men who live there now?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 06, 2018, 22:50:47
The "Great Spirit" thing has got to offend somebody's religion, or lack thereof, somewhere.

And would the name not be considered to be cultural appropriation in certain circles, due to its origin and the number of older, patriarchal, privileged, cis-gendered (whatever that means; "functional normal human being", I think), straight, Christian white men who live there now?

I'm sure it does, MSM just hasn't picked up on it yet, give it till the end of the year...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on February 06, 2018, 22:59:07
How will they man-age, and will it be man-datory in this no-peoples land of biological neutrality.

Since the "man" in both these English words does not derive from the same origin as "man, the male human", other than trying to be sarcastic, what is the point?  Man (the human male) origin is Germanic - mann.  The man root in the other words comes from the Latin, manus or hand.  So when we manage, it is handling (manipulating) or if a mandate it is something commanded (from the Latin mandatum which is derived earlier from manus and dare - to give).  Neither is referencing the male gender.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 06, 2018, 23:31:05
No sense of humour? What next, "mandarin" is not really sexist after all?

Hennyway, some commentary from around the world: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/06/woke-joke-trudeau-becomes-object-global-ridicule-peoplekind-virtue-signalling-backfires/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 06, 2018, 23:52:06
The Prime Minister should apologize for offending those who identify as non-humans. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otherkin)

 ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Blackadder1916 on February 07, 2018, 00:37:30
No sense of humour?

Of course I do, but it is the smug, self-ingratiating humour of the pedantic.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 07, 2018, 00:48:13

No sense of humour?

Of course I do, but it is the smug, self-ingratiating humour of the pedantic.

To parse;

To analyze (a sentence) in terms of grammatical constituents, identifying the parts of speech, syntactic relations, etc.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parse
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 07, 2018, 00:49:30
A pun is the lowest form of humour - when you don't think of it first.  :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 01:12:06
The "Great Spirit" thing has got to offend somebody's religion, or lack thereof, somewhere.

And would the name not be considered to be cultural appropriation in certain circles, due to its origin and the number of older, patriarchal, privileged, cis-gendered (whatever that means; "functional normal human being", I think), straight, Christian white men who live there now?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_place_names_in_Canada_of_Indigenous_origin

Quote

Manitoba: Either derived from the Cree word manito-wapâw meaning "the strait of the spirit or manitobau" or the Assiniboine words mini and tobow meaning "Lake of the Prairie", referring to Lake Manitoba.Nunavut: "Our land" in Inuktitut.

Ontario: Derived from the Huron word onitariio meaning "beautiful lake", or kanadario meaning "sparkling" or "beautiful" water.

Quebec: from the Míkmaq word kepék, meaning "strait" or "narrows".

Saskatchewan: Derived from the Cree name for the Saskatchewan River, kisiskāciwani-sīpiy, meaning "swift flowing river".

Yukon: from an Athabaskan language, e.g. Koyukon yookkene or Lower Tananayookuna

Comox: either from the Chinook Jargon for "dog" (kamuks), or from the Kwak'wala for "place of plenty".

Coquitlam: "small red salmon" in Halqemeylem (Upriver Halkomelem). Derived from the name of the Kwikwetlem people. Another and more usual translation is "stinking of fish slime" or "stinking fish", thought to be a reference to the Kwikwetlem people's role as slaves to the Katzie and Kwantlen as fish butchers.

Kamloops: anglicization of the Shuswap word Tk'emlups, meaning "where the rivers meet".

Kelowna: "ki?lawna?" meaning a male grizzly bear in the Okanagan language.

Kootenay: derived from the proper name of the Kootenay people, Ktunaxa

Grand Rapids: Translation of Cree word misepawistik, meaning "rushing rapids"

Winnipeg: "muddy water" from the word win-nipi of the Cree.

Oromocto : possibly from the Maliseet word welamooktook which means "good river"

Iqaluit: "many fish" in Inuktitut.

Brantford: Named after Joseph Brant, a Mohawk leader.

Ottawa: "To buy" from the word adaawe in the Anishinaabe language; adapted as the name of the Odawa people.

Petawawa: From Algonquin meaning "where one hears the noise of the water"

Toronto: from an Iroquoian language, but of uncertain derivation.[35] Another story says it is derived from the Mohawk word "tkaronto" meaning "trees standing in the water".

Quebec City (and County): The "narrowing of the river" refers to the point where the St. Lawrence River passes Quebec City.

Shawinigan: "Portage at the crest" in Algonquian.

Saskatoon: Derived from the Cree word misāskwatōmin, meaning Saskatoon berry – a fruit native to the area.

Well,  we better get started then.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 07, 2018, 01:50:11
Of course I do, but it is the smug, self-ingratiating humour of the pedantic.

  :not-again:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 07, 2018, 09:33:10
Quote
Justin Trudeau interrupts woman to tell her to use 'peoplekind' instead of 'mankind' because 'it's more inclusive'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5357037/Trudeau-mocked-telling-woman-say-peoplekind.html

I am in the Phoenix. Even on the local Rock station they carried this item and it was not a feed. It is in the media in the US and the PM is being mocked.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 07, 2018, 09:51:28
The woman's actual line to the PM was "maternal love is the love that's going to change the future of mankind."  Why wasn't he offended that paternal love is demeaned and oppressed?


He's still  just not ready. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 10:26:18
This is rather ridiculous and its weird that  its grown legs and taken off more than his response to our veterans(that's canada for you,  screw over vets, meh,   peoplekind as opposed to mankind, controversy) but has anyone watched the video in question?

The woman is going on and on about religion and female equality in religion,  her church,  for over 3 minutes with people in the crowd starting to get agitated and a few starting to boo her before Trudeau makes the quip about peoplekind.

Seems far more tongue in cheek to me in that context,  and the audience was happy he found a way to shut her up.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 10:40:22
Well, he started the ball rolling with changing the words in the English version.  Reap what you sow.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 07, 2018, 10:42:09
This is rather ridiculous and its weird that  its grown legs and taken off ... Seems far more tongue in cheek to me in that context,  and the audience was happy he found a way to shut her up.

I'm inclined to agree with you as to the motive, what rattled a lot of people was the stupidity (fair word, I think) of the words he chose to "shut her up." Now, "humankind (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/humankind)" has been in pretty common use for at least decades ~ I grew up knowing it as a "neutral" term in the 1950s ~ but "people-kind" is just plain dumb ... it makes Justin Trudeau look like what I think he is: a semi-literate man-child pretending to be prime minister of a G7 country and being amazed that no one has pulled him off the stage quite yet.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 07, 2018, 11:04:29
I am in agreement with ERC on this one. And, BTW, according to the Gazette article this morning (thus probably in the National Post also), this has been mocked as far as the UK also.

I would only add that he wilfully decided to go on a national Town Hall tour. By definition, Town Halls are a political event in a democracy - they are not "celebrity" tours or stand-up comics show. When a politician offers himself (is that the proper pronoun for Trudeau?) to the public in an exercise in democracy, he has to accept that there will be point of views that will be expressed that will contradict his own views, or even will constitute personnel attacks. It doesn't give him the right to joke around or belittle any of these positions or people - if he truly believes that in democracy, everyone is allowed their own views and positions and to express them, no matter how awkwardly. He has to be "man" enough to take it and move on.

But then again, the Libs have always been bad at accepting that people could have views and opinions differing from theirs.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 07, 2018, 11:56:41
Interesting ctv article and quote  about the class action sexual assault case going on.

Quote
Despite those efforts, the federal government argued in court filings that it does not “owe a private law duty of care to individual members within the CAF to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault."



https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/feds-trying-to-stop-sexual-misconduct-lawsuit-against-canadian-forces-1.3792725
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 12:46:32
Quote
Trudeau writes off peoplekind quip as 'dumb joke'
Canadian PM mocked for correcting a woman using 'mankind' during town hall in Edmonton

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-peoplekind-bad-joke-1.4524233

my favorite bit from the story

Quote
British TV broadcaster Piers Morgan called Trudeau a "Chief PC Plonker," accusing him of killing off mankind. Australian columnist Rita Panahi called him the "Kim Kardashian of political leaders; an all-style, no-substance himbo with all the depth of a puddle."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 07, 2018, 12:54:23
Well, Panahi seems to have him well pinned down.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 13:05:29
This is rather ridiculous and its weird that  its grown legs and taken off more than his response to our veterans(that's canada for you,  screw over vets, meh,   peoplekind as opposed to mankind, controversy) but has anyone watched the video in question?

The woman is going on and on about religion and female equality in religion,  her church,  for over 3 minutes with people in the crowd starting to get agitated and a few starting to boo her before Trudeau makes the quip about peoplekind.

Seems far more tongue in cheek to me in that context,  and the audience was happy he found a way to shut her up.

my favorite bit from the story

hmm.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 07, 2018, 13:11:14
This is rather ridiculous and its weird that  its grown legs and taken off more than his response to our veterans(that's canada for you, screw over vets, meh,

"C'est la vie"
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 13:19:24
C'est la vie
malheureusement.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 14:37:53
But totally self inflicted.  He has no one to blame but himself.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 07, 2018, 15:30:59
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-another-nep-fiasco-looms-as-westerners-suffer-for-trudeaus-energy-follies/wcm/a219f664-9715-4f0f-9ac6-67abfecf9b0e

Jack Mintz: Another NEP fiasco looms as Westerners suffer for Trudeau’s energy follies

Thanks to government policy and indecision, American consumers enjoying subsidies paid for by Western Canadians

"The prime minister calls the dispute between Alberta and British Columbia ... a "disagreement between provinces." That ignores the constitutional role the federal government has in interprovincial transportation and trade. Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley is right: This is as much a fight between B.C. and the federal government as it is between Alberta and B.C."

"... perhaps the Trudeau government is quietly hoping the pipeline’s owner, Kinder Morgan, gives up in frustration, for “business reasons,” as other resource project proponents have done recently after enduring endless regulatory and political setbacks."

"The NEP, which hit the West just as commodity prices were falling, led to one of the largest income transfers in history, from the West to Central and Eastern Canada. Western energy producers were forced to pay an export tax to fund subsidies to make life cheaper for energy-guzzling consumers to the east. This time, the income isn’t being transferred from the West to Eastern Canada. It’s being transferred from Canada to the United States."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 16:12:29
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-another-nep-fiasco-looms-as-westerners-suffer-for-trudeaus-energy-follies/wcm/a219f664-9715-4f0f-9ac6-67abfecf9b0e

Jack Mintz: Another NEP fiasco looms as Westerners suffer for Trudeau’s energy follies

Thanks to government policy and indecision, American consumers enjoying subsidies paid for by Western Canadians

"The prime minister calls the dispute between Alberta and British Columbia ... a "disagreement between provinces." That ignores the constitutional role the federal government has in interprovincial transportation and trade. Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley is right: This is as much a fight between B.C. and the federal government as it is between Alberta and B.C."

"... perhaps the Trudeau government is quietly hoping the pipeline’s owner, Kinder Morgan, gives up in frustration, for “business reasons,” as other resource project proponents have done recently after enduring endless regulatory and political setbacks."

"The NEP, which hit the West just as commodity prices were falling, led to one of the largest income transfers in history, from the West to Central and Eastern Canada. Western energy producers were forced to pay an export tax to fund subsidies to make life cheaper for energy-guzzling consumers to the east. This time, the income isn’t being transferred from the West to Eastern Canada. It’s being transferred from Canada to the United States."

Funny the author put Norway in a positive light in an argument against NEP.

Its heavily taxed, regulated, and nationalized petroleum industry is responsible for the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.

The whole impetus for Petro-Canada and later the NEP was the fact the Canadian oil industry was geared towards benefiting the US.

It was economic nationalism in a country that was and still is dominated by provincial thinking.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 16:13:56
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-another-nep-fiasco-looms-as-westerners-suffer-for-trudeaus-energy-follies/wcm/a219f664-9715-4f0f-9ac6-67abfecf9b0e

Jack Mintz: Another NEP fiasco looms as Westerners suffer for Trudeau’s energy follies

Thanks to government policy and indecision, American consumers enjoying subsidies paid for by Western Canadians

"The prime minister calls the dispute between Alberta and British Columbia ... a "disagreement between provinces." That ignores the constitutional role the federal government has in interprovincial transportation and trade. Alberta’s Premier Rachel Notley is right: This is as much a fight between B.C. and the federal government as it is between Alberta and B.C."

"... perhaps the Trudeau government is quietly hoping the pipeline’s owner, Kinder Morgan, gives up in frustration, for “business reasons,” as other resource project proponents have done recently after enduring endless regulatory and political setbacks."

"The NEP, which hit the West just as commodity prices were falling, led to one of the largest income transfers in history, from the West to Central and Eastern Canada. Western energy producers were forced to pay an export tax to fund subsidies to make life cheaper for energy-guzzling consumers to the east. This time, the income isn’t being transferred from the West to Eastern Canada. It’s being transferred from Canada to the United States."
its also a perfect microcosm of the great divide that exists in the NDP.

We have two NDP lead provinces,  one representing the labour wing,  the other the environmental wing,  and here they are in a full out trade war.

It was interesting seeing Jagmeet Singh trying to walk on eggshells when talking about the issue
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 16:16:42
I remember all too well the NEP and what it was like in Alberta as a young man.  It sure as hell did SFA for us, except to boot frig us.  Another reason l dislike the "T" family and all whom politic in her.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 07, 2018, 16:18:08
We have two NDP lead provinces,  one representing the labour wing,  the other the environmental wing,  and here they are in a full out trade war.

I'd not thought of it that way, but it makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 16:18:31
I remember all too well the NEP and what it was like in Alberta as a young man.  It sure as hell did SFA for us, except to boot frig us.  Another reason l dislike the "T" family and all whom politic in her.

Suck it up, cowboy.  ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 07, 2018, 16:29:53
Plan B...?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/first-nations-pipeline-has-a-plan-to-get-around-b-c-oil-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-Alaska
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Larry Strong on February 07, 2018, 19:13:06
I remember all too well the NEP and what it was like in Alberta as a young man.  It sure as hell did SFA for us, except to boot frig us.  Another reason l dislike the "T" family and all whom politic in her.

Yep, developed my hatred for the family then as well..went from working "balls to the wall" to loading my rig on trucks and sending it down to the Coots border crossing............


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 07, 2018, 19:43:50
Plan B...?

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/first-nations-pipeline-has-a-plan-to-get-around-b-c-oil-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-Alaska

This is a good alternative, but of course the NGO’s will shift focus back to Alberta and use influence, courts etc preventing oil ever getting from the field to the pipeline. But, watch and see, I guess the key here is speed, how fast can and will they get it underway.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 19:45:26
Trudeau government will insist on ultimate authority over fate of pipeline in B.C.-Alberta spat: source
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trans-mountain-alberta-british-columbia-1.4524706


Quote
As the governments of Alberta and British Columbia clash over oil and wine, federal officials are carrying a forceful message in their discussions with the two provinces. 

"The key message [is] that we want to help bring the temperature down," a senior Liberal, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CBC News, "but ultimately the federal government will not allow any province to impinge on its jurisdiction over the national interest. Full stop."
  I don't expect him to get any credit in Alberta or by those on the right.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on February 07, 2018, 20:21:36
Trudeau government will insist on ultimate authority over fate of pipeline in B.C.-Alberta spat: source
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trans-mountain-alberta-british-columbia-1.4524706

  I don't expect him to get any credit in Alberta or by those on the right.

Big talk from a gov't that let a corrupt municipal mayor do exactly that. Maybe I'm biased but I thought the Energy East was the most important pipeline we had on the table.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 20:50:49
Trudeau has been publicly pro-pipeline since at least 2013. He even went down to Washington to lobby for Keystone XL long before he became PM.

Energy East was a tricky one, since they needed to build new lines in some strange lands before arriving in Irving land.

Northern Gateway was a farce.

Trans Mountain is of course a long established pipeline corridor, kind of a no brainer.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 21:01:05
Just like Trudeau.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 21:20:31
Just like Trudeau.
really mature.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 21:40:41
I do hope Trudeau dials back the SJW lingo though.

I think even with all of his gaffes, next election he'll beat that altar boy with the dimples for sure. ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 21:45:20
There's more than one way to take that, Altair.

I think he plays you and those like minded like a violin, or Pavlov's dogs.  He got you all drinking the cool aid and barking on command at every turn. 

I don't believe for one minute that he's "pro pipeline". 

Or, as some believe he's the Kim Kardashian of politicians etc. As per the Australian comment on "peoplekind".

Take your pick.  I could care less.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 21:55:36
I don't believe for one minute that he's "pro pipeline". 

You probably wouldn't believe it if it hit you in the face.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 21:58:56
You probably wouldn't believe it if it hit you in the face.

The next time he impresses me will be the first.   ;)  But do carry on enjoying the Kool-aid
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 07, 2018, 22:00:39
There's more than one way to take that, Altair.

I think he plays you and those like minded like a violin, or Pavlov's dogs.  He got you all drinking the cool aid and barking on command at every turn. 

I don't believe for one minute that he's "pro pipeline". 


yet 3 pipelines will be built under trudeau.

That's not exactly anti pipeline.

There are 3 parties in canada. One that would have approved every pipeline,  environmental be damned,  one that would have banned every pipeline,  economy be damned and one party that would try to balance out the two.

Striking a balance doesn't seem like a bad idea to me,  and he's going to lose votes in BC standing up for a pipeline getting built, so no,  I don't think he's anti pipeline.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 22:06:27
I don't think he'll do Alberta any favours.  I have no faith in the man whatsoever.  You love him now but the day will come you'll get tired of it all and kick him across the floor to the opposition or obscurity.  It happens to them all eventually.  We'll just differ on when we want to see that day come, Altair.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 07, 2018, 22:11:58
The next time he impresses me will be the first.   ;)  But do carry on enjoying the Kool-aid

I don't think he's trying to impress you. Neither am I.

I don't even take sugar in my coffee let alone drink Kool-aid. But I have voted for CPC before, and probably will again at some point in time.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 07, 2018, 22:40:16
I don't think he's trying to impress you. Neither am I.

Phew, that's a load off, then.  As it isn't happening.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 17:44:49
yet 3 pipelines will be built under trudeau.

Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

If they are built during his blighted reign, it will not be because of him. It will be because somebody in his government or party with more brains and spine than him forces his hand.

He will do as little as possible for as long as possible rather than do anything that will jeopardize the adoration of his fan club.

He is happier sitting at his desk in Parliament signing autographs and imperiously ignoring the proceedings that are too uncomfortable or too boring or beneath him while Bardish Jagger defends his poor ethics. I am all for equality of treatment and opportunity 'n' all, but I am still a traditionalist, and the sight of a "man" hiding behind the skirts of a woman does not sit well at all - and that is a polite understatement.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 17:48:47
Will they? Maybe, maybe not.

If they are built during his blighted reign, it will not be because of him. It will be because somebody in his government or party with more brains and spine than him forces his hand.

He will do as little as possible for as long as possible rather than do anything that will jeopardize the adoration of his fan club.

he's been talking about the need to build pipelines since he was named leader of the liberal party,  if you want to be irrational and think he's being "forced" to do it be my guest,  I'll simply focus on talking about reality,  not this fantasy world where every bad thing he does is on him and every good thing he does is because of someone else.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 17:58:17
I ended up leaving more in than I originally intended to snip, but thought that this was good insight:

http://www.hilltimes.com/2018/02/05/nanos-book-voter-rage-hitting-shelves-three-countries/133028

“Anti-establishment politics is very cost-effective. That’s probably one of the reasons why it’s so appealing to politicians, because if you can tap into how concerned people are about the future, how they’re having difficulty making ends meet, how they feel that the system is working against them. …You don’t have to give them pamphlets, you don’t have to remind them to vote, you don’t need to give them a drive to the polls. They’ll get out and they’ll vote, because those voters, it’s all about punishment.

“Justin Trudeau is one. I’m not sure that everyone would agree with me, but the reality is that Justin Trudeau on paper should be the establishment candidate. Because after all, he is the son of a former prime minister, he had a very comfortable upbringing, his grandfather on his mother’s side was a Liberal cabinet minister. Although the Conservatives tried to portray him as a person of privilege and part of the Canadian elite, he very carefully tried to kind of fashion himself as the scrappy, almost, anti-politician.

“The thing about Justin Trudeau is, people talk about people flocking to him, but the reality is, he was a vehicle to punish the Stephen Harper Conservatives, and to get them out of power. Canadians in the last election were looking for change, looking for something different from politics that they saw in the last decade. And Justin Trudeau was the vehicle, and they kind of rallied around him.”

“The interesting thing about the Harper Conservatives is that, for them, they considered themselves and positioned themselves as an outsider to the political elites. Which is why Stephen Harper would take on the courts, would take on the media, he’d take on the civil service. In their case, it was them against the establishment, as opposed to, when you’re looking at Donald Trump, he was talking about how Americans had suffered under the establishment.

“We saw similar types of messaging in terms of the Harper government feeling that they were political victims, but they never really transitioned into giving voice to Canadians who were worried about the future. On the contrary, for Stephen Harper, he had a narrative related to Canada being an energy superpower. He had a narrative related to Canada being an exception in terms of the global recession in 2008. And his narrative was, the Conservatives are steady stewards of the economy, and everything is okay.”

“Right now, a lot of these anti-establishment candidates are not incumbent governments. So the trap is, how can you be anti-establishment when hypothetically you are the government, and are the establishment? That’s why incumbents in this age of voter rage are under siege.”

“I think it’s going to be very difficult for them (Liberals) to run as an anti-establishment party, because they now have to defend a record and they now have to take responsibility for their government’s policies. The one thing that they could do in this very fragile environment is focus on the things they have done to make things a little better for Canadians.

“In the polling that we’ve done, 50 per cent of Canadians think that the next generation will have a lower standard of living, only 15 per cent think that the standard of living will be higher for the next generation. That should be the one stat that should put fear in the hearts of Liberals, that Canadians are more pessimistic now than they were under Stephen Harper.

“This is why for the Liberals, issues such as legalizing marijuana, issues related to democratic reform, gender equality: those are all important issues, many of those issues are supported by a majority of Canadians. But they don’t stack up against, ‘Will my son or daughter have a job?’ And I think that’s why for the Liberals, they have to be aware that they do not govern by distraction on issues that have a second level of importance, because they’ll get punished.”

“For any politician to have a positive frame around how they’re trying to connect with voters, they need to have positive policies. Many times the Conservatives like to run on being tough on criminals. They want to talk about controlling the number of refugees or immigrants that are coming into the country because they’re concerned about security threats to Canada. Those issues, yes they resonate with Canadians, but they do not align with having a positive demeanour.

“If the Conservatives wanted to focus on opportunity, if the Conservatives wanted to focus on, ‘We need to create an environment where Canadians can work hard, and they can have a good standard of living, and their kids can go to college and university,’ that would be a positive frame. We haven’t been seeing that. We’ve seen from the Conservatives, kind of, effectively, taking a page from the previous administration, focusing on very narrow issues, that are very good at raising funds, but they don’t align with the brand that it looks like Andrew Scheer is trying to portray. My point is, sure you can be positive, but you need positive policies or aspirational policies. And I think it is possible for the Conservatives to have that, but they need to put them in the window so that the brand aligns with the substance.”

“I don’t even think that governments have to improve the day-to-day lives of Canadians. They have to create an environment where Canadians and citizens everywhere think that they have a chance to improve. Because right now for that small minority of people that feel disenfranchised, they feel the system is stacked against them, that they work hard but they can’t make ends meet, they’re worried about the future.

“I don’t think that writing a cheque to everyone that is underemployed or unemployed is the solution. I think creating an environment that is more merit-based, where people feel if they work hard that they can have a middle-class existence, I think that’s actually the solution.”

“The whole twist on this is how very small swings in voters have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the election. It doesn’t really take a lot of disenfranchised citizens who are anti-establishment-minded and looking to punish the establishment to reshape the outcome of the election.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 17:59:39
he's been talking about the need to build pipelines since he was named leader of the liberal party

He also has a reputation for saying different things to different audiences.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 18:07:38
And not delivering or backing off as he did with Veterans...Electoral Reform, for example.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:12:27
He also has a reputation for saying different things to different audiences.
Fair enough.

However,  off the top of my head,  when he became liberal leader,  he went to alberta and spoke about the need for pipelines.

He went to new york and spoke to Americans about balancing the environmental and pipelines.

He's gone on a recent cross country speaking tour and reiterated how kinder Morgan was going to be built.

And to top it off,  there is word coming out how he won't allow BC to interfere with a federal project.

So going off all of that,  I'm going to just give him the benifit of the doubt and say that he's not going back down or flip flop on the pipeline issue and that 3 pipelines will be built,  Line 3, Kinder Morgan,  and Keystone XL.

I don't know how this isn't being viewed as a victory for the energy sector, Alberta,  and canada as a whole.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 08, 2018, 18:14:08
Actions speak louder than words.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:14:38
And not delivering or backing off as he did with Veterans...Electoral Reform, for example.
I'm beginning to believe that you would rather he did back off and kill the pipelines so you can be right about that than you would he dig in and get it done and you have go give him any credit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:15:48
Actions speak louder than words.
What actions do you realisticly expect the federal government to undertake right now?

BC hasn't actually done anything yet.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 18:18:28
However,  off the top of my head,  when he became liberal leader,  he went to alberta and spoke about the need for pipelines.

Environmentalists and some native groups seem to have heard different messages.

Liberals don't get many votes in Alberta anyway...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 18:20:46
What actions do you realisticly expect the federal government to undertake right now?

BC hasn't actually done anything yet.

ModlrMike's comment can be applied to future likelihood as well.

I'll wait and see. I have no confidence in his ability to do the right thing, based upon his, and his party's, past performance.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 08, 2018, 18:20:56
I'll rephrase that that then.

Inactions speak louder than words.


(with apologies to the grammar police)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:27:29
Environmentalists and some native groups seem to have heard different messages.

Liberals don't get many votes in Alberta anyway...
environmentalists heard about how canada needs to take a leading role regarding climate change,  and how the process regarding approving pipelines was broken and took this to mean that they could stall out energy companies until they gave up.

Native groups heard how they needed to be consulted on a nation to nation basis regarding energy projects and took this to mean that every first nation group got a veto.

 People hear what they want to hear.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 08, 2018, 18:34:15
Trudeau is a hot crying mess but it's going to be entertaining seeing all the campaign promises rolling out.

Maybe a little promise to veterans to bring back pensions for life? 

Maybe figure out whats going on to the Missing and murdered Indigenous women?

Some anti-trump fear mongering is definitely in store.


Did Canada ever send that $840 million to Syria?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 08, 2018, 18:39:49
...and the World heard that "Canada is back" when it comes to peacekeeping...  :boring:   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 18:50:58
I'm beginning to believe that you would rather he did back off and kill the pipelines so you can be right about that than you would he dig in and get it done and you have go give him any credit.

I'd rather he went back to being a drama teacher.

At any rate, my examples are just two where he reneged on promises.  There will be more, l am sure.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 18:55:18
...and the World heard that "Canada is back" when it comes to peacekeeping...

Well, "Canada is back" at stage centre on Comedy Central...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 08, 2018, 18:56:34
I'd rather he went back to being a drama teacher.

Did he never quit? ;)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:56:51
I'd rather he went back to being a drama teacher.

At any rate, my examples are just two where he reneged on promises.  There will be more, l am sure.
naturally.  He's a politician.

The provinces and senate might throw a wrench in his marijuana plans so that its not legal by July 1st 2018 for one.

But let's not pretend that because he's broken son promises that hes going to break all of them,  or that a broken promise on electoral reform has anything to do with pipeline politics.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 18:58:00
naturally.  He's a politician.

The provinces and senate might throw a wrench in his marijuana plans so that its not legal by July 1st 2018 for one.

But let's not pretend that because he's broken son promises that hes going to break all of them,  or that a broken promise on electoral reform has anything to do with pipeline politics.

Sip, sip, sip on that Kool-aid
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 18:59:28
Sip, sip, sip on that Kool-aid
pot,  meet kettle.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 08, 2018, 19:03:39
pot,  meet kettle.

What colour is a kettle?

Contrary to popular cliche kettle are not all, or even predominately black.
https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1366&bih=634&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=I9V8WtXfLa6AtgWW3bWoAw&q=kettle&oq=kettle&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.428028.428652.0.428714.6.5.0.1.1.0.120.507.2j3.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.6.520...0i67k1.0.im3kS1zuYZg
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 19:03:59
But let's not pretend that because he's broken son promises that hes going to break all of them,  or that a broken promise on electoral reform has anything to do with pipeline politics.

No, past performance is never an indicator of future performance...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 19:09:59
No, past performance is never an indicator of future performance...
so by that same token,  what would you say if i said that trudeau will definitely keep all his promises because he's kept others in the past?

Things are far more nuanced than that,  things should be evaluated and judged on a case per case basis other than the extreme laziness I'm seeing here with"he's broken promises in the past so he will break this one as well".

Again,  if you all hate him so much that you cannot even pretend to remain objective,  that's fine. I just find it sad.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 19:14:08
 
pot,  meet kettle.

Altair, Altair, l know you're an uber fanboy,  it's only natural for you.  Whereas, I am not and never shall be, so it's only natural for me.  We shall remain at polar opposite.  C'est la guerre.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 08, 2018, 19:22:24

Altair, Altair, l know you're an uber fanboy,  it's only natural for you.  Whereas, I am not and never shall be,  so it's only natural for me.  We shall remain at polar opposite.  C'est la guerre.
and I know that I do support the liberals.  Same as I know you're a diehard conservative supporter.

What disappoints me is that it seems to be impossible to talk about our opposing viewpoints without tossing out things like drink the koolaid. 

Its disappointing that it seems like you would rather canada do poorly as long as its trudeau at the helm to take the heat than you would canada do well with him at the helm lest he get any credit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2018, 19:37:59
so by that same token,  what would you say if i said that trudeau will definitely keep all his promises because he's kept others in the past?

Had he kept all, or even most, promises (and I truly hope that he does not, and that he has no opportunity to do so after 2019), then I would also take that as an indicator that he is more likely to keep others. Past performance, you see.

"he's broken promises in the past so he will break this one as well".

Has anybody actually said "will break" in this context? I'm not bothering to go back and look. On the balance of probabilities, however, and given that letting pipelines proceed, or, especially, over-ruling BC, would cost him more votes than he would gain from Alberta, I doubt that he would - willingly and happily - force the issue. I expect him to delay and waffle until the company gives up in frustration.

You're the one saying
3 pipelines will be built under trudeau.

I, and others, lack your confidence in that "will".

It may happen. I won't say that it won't. He may become the Country's biggest pipeline enthusiast.

I'd not bet upon that, however, and neither should you.

It is hard to predict people with absolute accuracy.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 19:43:12
Actually no, l am not a die hard Con.  They didn't get my vote last spin.  They probably won't next go either.

I'd rather see Canada do better, sadly l don't believe we are with the current sitting Parliament.

I'm ready to dislike the left and the right in equal measures if l think they rate it. 

What dismays me is the people whom are blindly taken in with the Trudeau show, all the nice hair, good looks, boo hoo tears on demand, etc.   It's like reality TV, the Kardashians.  All show and drama, no substance.  I'd rather they see past the fluff and take off the rose coloured glasses once in a while.

As was pointed out earlier by others.  The only reason he's in the chair is because the voters were tired of Harper and he was the silver bullet or wooden stake if you will.

We deserve better, someone who isn't out of his depth.  I truly believe this PM is in over his head in the water and like any drowning man he's going to pull us under with him.

I've said to you before.  I also really would love to be so very wrong about him.   As with anyone who is in that chair, I'd want each and every one of them to be THE best PM we've ever had.
I'm still waiting, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 08, 2018, 22:50:34
Actually no, l am not a die hard Con.  They didn't get my vote last spin.  They probably won't next go either.
I figured you voted for Mulcair.

Quote
What dismays me is the people whom are blindly taken in with the Trudeau show, all the nice hair, good looks, boo hoo tears on demand, etc.   It's like reality TV, the Kardashians.  All show and drama, no substance.
This is the second time you've mentioned the K word, I'm getting a sense you might have some hidden guilty pleasures. ;)

If reality TV style politics [and revolting behavior] was off limits for conservatives in North America, Hillary would be President.

Quote
I also really would love to be so very wrong about him.
Have you ever been wrong in your entire life?  ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 08, 2018, 23:10:36
I figured you voted for Mulcair.

Yeaaaaahhhhh.    ::)

Have you ever been wrong in your entire life?  ;D

Yes, taking the time to respond to you here.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 08, 2018, 23:15:19
Yes, taking the time to respond to you here.

Likewise.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: PuckChaser on February 08, 2018, 23:23:35
Alright gents. If we can't be civil in the politics thread and refrain from personal attacks, I'll start handing timeouts. There's also no need for childish name-calling of politicians of any party affiliation. We're all adults here and as shown previously, we're capable of debating emotional topics without resorting to emotional responses.

- Milnet.ca staff
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 09, 2018, 00:01:00
Alright gents. If we can't be civil in the politics thread and refrain from personal attacks, I'll start handing timeouts. There's also no need for childish name-calling of politicians of any party affiliation. We're all adults here and as shown previously, we're capable of debating emotional topics without resorting to emotional responses.

- Milnet.ca staff

Levity and humour>Internet pride and ego.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 09, 2018, 00:13:57
One Liberal's response to "Peoplegate"

https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/961573323112112129 (https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/961573323112112129)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 09, 2018, 06:51:41
If reality TV style politics [and revolting behavior] was off limits for conservatives in North America, Hillary would be President.

Can we please agree to not insert American political figures into Canadian debates ?  We have a US Politics thread.  Please don't sully ours with that tripe from south of the border.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 09, 2018, 08:00:02
Alright gents. If we can't be civil in the politics thread and refrain from personal attacks, I'll start handing timeouts. There's also no need for childish name-calling of politicians of any party affiliation. We're all adults here and as shown previously, we're capable of debating emotional topics without resorting to emotional responses.

- Milnet.ca staff

Sorry for the discord.  Won't happen again.  :ignore: applied.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 09, 2018, 08:20:22
One Liberal's response to "Peoplegate"

https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/961573323112112129 (https://twitter.com/gmbutts/status/961573323112112129)

Calling someone a Nazi is as bad or worse than racial slurs IMO. It's sad that it's both the adopted go to insult by so many and tolerated.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: angus555 on February 09, 2018, 13:05:16
Can we please agree to not insert American political figures into Canadian debates ?  We have a US Politics thread.  Please don't sully ours with that tripe from south of the border.

Yes, I didn't intend to trigger another discussion with the H word. :not-again:

But it was ironic that someone brought up US reality TV as a caricature of Liberal voters in the last election.

EDIT:

I do enjoy the commentary from Jordan Peterson when he talks about the delusions of young leftist political activists, which he's very familiar with. But it's hard to say how much that element contributed to the last election. Although, I agree Trudeau has an appeal to that segment of voters, the election was too complex.
Right now they're at his town halls screaming at him about pipelines.

 :2c:

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on February 09, 2018, 13:25:19
The Philippine government has told Canada to pound sand on the helicopter deal, I can see that coming back as "Liberals costing Canadian jobs". 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 09, 2018, 13:59:12
The Philippine government has told Canada to pound sand on the helicopter deal, I can see that coming back as "Liberals costing Canadian jobs".

Aren't they?  How do you market a military helicopter and then try and tell the customer that they can't use it as a military helicopter?  Do they expect a country to purchase one set for humanitarian use and another fleet for counterinsurgency? 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 09, 2018, 15:30:43
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what's the difference between a military Bell 412 and a civilian Bell 412?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: kratz on February 09, 2018, 15:39:34
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what's the difference between a military Bell 412 and a civilian Bell 412?

IR paint?   ;D

I know, rhetorical question.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 09, 2018, 16:06:38
$840 million in new foreign aid in Syria.
$678-million over six years to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees.
Another $245-million set aside for the resettlement of an additional 10,000 government-assisted Syrian refugees over the next five years.
$200,000 spent on an unethical vacation (fined $100)
$100,000 to “somebody running a Minister’s Twitter account”
$59.5M goes to Burkina Faso one day after Trudeau tells vets they ask for too much

 :yellow:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 09, 2018, 17:23:29
IR paint?   ;D

Not necessarily IR, but paint scheme, yes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 09, 2018, 20:00:12
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what's the difference between a military Bell 412 and a civilian Bell 412?

From the August 2015 news release about the first eight Bell 412 EPs Canada sold to the Philippines:

Quote
Five of eight Bell 412s will be assigned to the Philippine Air Force’s 205th Tactical Helicopter Wing for use in combat utility and human assistance disaster relief (HADR) operations. The remaining three, which are configured for VVIP transportation, will be assigned to the 250th Presidential Airlift Wing.

The Bell 412EP can also be configured for a wide range of missions such as law enforcement, special operations, homeland security, VIP transportation, oil and gas, and emergency medical service.

....................

Survivability features

The fuselage is fitted with rollover bulkhead protection for the occupants. The crashworthy, energy-absorbing crew seats ensure pilot safety and comfort. The transmission system uses chip detector and debris collection to provide early failure detection.

The Bell 412EP’s safety features also include rupture-resistant fuel cells, wire strike protection system, dual digital flight control, and dual redundant electrical, hydraulic and fuel systems.

Article Link (https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/bell-412ep-twin-engine-helicopter/)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 09, 2018, 23:00:18
. . .
I do enjoy the commentary from Jordan Peterson when he talks about the delusions of young leftist political activists, which he's very familiar with. . . .

Speaking of Jordan Peterson here is a good article about him from the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5374295/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Pilloried-speaking-sense.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5374295/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Pilloried-speaking-sense.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 09, 2018, 23:04:03
Sigh... let the riots begin:

Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

"  ...Outside the courthouse, Baptiste said to reporters the justice system has to change to serve First Nations people. "

really? Is the justice system now supposed to change to meet First Nations needs by depriving other races of their right to a fair trial. I hope not.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 09, 2018, 23:05:23
Speaking of Jordan Peterson here is a good article about him from the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5374295/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Pilloried-speaking-sense.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5374295/DOMINIC-SANDBROOK-Pilloried-speaking-sense.html)

 :cheers:

has anyone read 12 Rules? I just bought it today, weekend reading... so far, it is quite enjoyable to read.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 09, 2018, 23:08:40
Sigh... let the riots begin:

Gerald Stanley found not guilty in death of Colten Boushie
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-verdict-1.4526313

"  ...Outside the courthouse, Baptiste said to reporters the justice system has to change to serve First Nations people. "

really? Is the justice system now supposed to change to meet First Nations needs by depriving other races of their right to a fair trial. I hope not.
there was zero reason for 4 kids to be on someone else's property.

No need go address the justice system for that. Just don't do dumb things.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 09, 2018, 23:11:51
and that too...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 09, 2018, 23:39:37
there was zero reason for 4 kids to be on someone else's property.

No need go address the justice system for that. Just don't do dumb things.

Five kids actually.

Here's a short summary of the evidence:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214)

One can imagine why the jury may have had a reasonable doubt. I find the accidental discharge theory plausible when you consider that Boushie had a loaded 22 "rifle" between his legs at the time he was shot. If Stanley had shot deliberately then he could have argued self defence in that circumstance.

 :cheers:

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 09, 2018, 23:44:11
there was zero reason for 4 kids to be on someone else's property.

No need go address the justice system for that. Just don't do dumb things.

Yup. They were driving around stealing crap. The helpless teenagers  bit didn't hold up in court.

That said I'm very surprised by the verdict.



Quote
Jurors have just left via the side door in large van under police escort.
Speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 10, 2018, 00:27:20
Link to Saskatoon Star Phoenix re Stanley trial including the evidence that prior to driving to Stanley's farm they attempted to steal a truck at another farm:

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-delivers-not-guilty-verdict-in-murder-of-colten-boushie (http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-delivers-not-guilty-verdict-in-murder-of-colten-boushie)

There is a short video that shows a number of the trail photos.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 10, 2018, 01:19:44
From the August 2015 news release about the first eight Bell 412 EPs Canada sold to the Philippines:

Article Link (https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/bell-412ep-twin-engine-helicopter/)

Whatever goes into a helicopter can be removed from a helicopter. There is no difference in the machine itself. Machines sold and delivered for SAR or VIP use can easily be reconfigured for any other use - and a new paint job, if necessary, is a simple thing to do.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 10, 2018, 03:38:28
I highlighted a name in the last paragraph that I included. I see that as another indicator of the likelihood of continuing Liberal inaction.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-ugly-pipeline-war-is-no-accident-it-was-the-plan

Terence Corcoran: The ugly pipeline war is no accident. It was the plan

The Canadian pipeline crisis is developing along the usual constitutional divide and within the tired context of party politics punditry. Will Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government use its federal powers to overrule the unconstitutional moves by B.C.’s NDP government? Will B.C.’s attempt to block the $7.4-billion expansion of the Trans Mountain oilsands pipeline to the West Coast lead to a trade war with Alberta’s NDP?

And what will the Liberals’ new plans, announced Thursday, to gut the National Energy Board’s power and responsibilities, and new environmental rules released this week to protect the lives of fish against human encroachment by pipeline do to the state of the federation?

Wake up, Canada. This is not another political game show about the powers and rights of different levels of government. Nor is it about ritual inter-party rivalries among Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives. The Trans Mountain constitutional meltdown is the product of an aggressive radical campaign by green extremists to rip up the Canadian economy.

<mucho snippage>

Among the Canadian green groups cited by Marx as eager recipients of funding were Environmental Defence Canada, World Wildlife Fund Canada, ForestEthics Canada, Greenpeace and others. At the time, in 2008, the head of World Wildlife Fund Canada was Gerald Butts, currently Prime Minister Trudeau’s principle secretary and top adviser. Other green activists sit on panels and outside cabinet rooms, providing bad advice and misguidance to politicians and business leaders.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 10, 2018, 08:23:49
No other country would ring fence hundreds of billions of dollars worth of potential tax revenue.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 10, 2018, 10:24:13
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but what's the difference between a military Bell 412 and a civilian Bell 412?

MIL-STD-1553 avionics buses, multiband ARC-210s, etc...  That stuff doesn't get 'removed'.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 10, 2018, 10:42:12
Necessary for Philippine use?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 10, 2018, 13:21:16
Link to Saskatoon Star Phoenix re Stanley trial including the evidence that prior to driving to Stanley's farm they attempted to steal a truck at another farm:

http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-delivers-not-guilty-verdict-in-murder-of-colten-boushie (http://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/gerald-stanley-trial-jury-delivers-not-guilty-verdict-in-murder-of-colten-boushie)

There is a short video that shows a number of the trail photos.

 :cheers:

Do you think the other members of the vehicle will be charged with trespassing, theft/attempted theft, drinking and driving, illegal possession of a firearm (which was probably stolen), having a loaded weapon in a vehicle or anything like that?  Seems they got a free pass.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 10, 2018, 13:30:51
I highlighted a name in the last paragraph that I included. I see that as another indicator of the likelihood of continuing Liberal inaction.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/terence-corcoran-the-ugly-pipeline-war-is-no-accident-it-was-the-plan

Terence Corcoran: The ugly pipeline war is no accident. It was the plan

The Canadian pipeline crisis is developing along the usual constitutional divide and within the tired context of party politics punditry. Will Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government use its federal powers to overrule the unconstitutional moves by B.C.’s NDP government? Will B.C.’s attempt to block the $7.4-billion expansion of the Trans Mountain oilsands pipeline to the West Coast lead to a trade war with Alberta’s NDP?

And what will the Liberals’ new plans, announced Thursday, to gut the National Energy Board’s power and responsibilities, and new environmental rules released this week to protect the lives of fish against human encroachment by pipeline do to the state of the federation?

Wake up, Canada. This is not another political game show about the powers and rights of different levels of government. Nor is it about ritual inter-party rivalries among Liberals, New Democrats and Conservatives. The Trans Mountain constitutional meltdown is the product of an aggressive radical campaign by green extremists to rip up the Canadian economy.

<mucho snippage>

Among the Canadian green groups cited by Marx as eager recipients of funding were Environmental Defence Canada, World Wildlife Fund Canada, ForestEthics Canada, Greenpeace and others. At the time, in 2008, the head of World Wildlife Fund Canada was Gerald Butts, currently Prime Minister Trudeau’s principle secretary and top adviser. Other green activists sit on panels and outside cabinet rooms, providing bad advice and misguidance to politicians and business leaders.
if the liberals do use their nuclear option and shut down any attempt by BC to block kinder Morgan,  I wonder if the people writing these articles will give them any praise.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bc-alberta-pipeline-trans-mountain-expansion-1.4529422

Quote
As B.C. looks for a way to fight back, Carr said he and his colleagues working on the issue stand ready to shut the dispute down.

If B.C. makes good on its threat to restrict the bitumen shipments, Ottawa will act "immediately," Carr said.


Quote
Carissima Mathen, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, said that the federal government has always held the constitutional right to the final word on pipelines.

"No province is able to intervene in that process and they can't use their own law-making authority to try and create other obstacles or barriers to do that," she said
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on February 10, 2018, 15:31:19
Do you think the other members of the vehicle will be charged with trespassing, theft/attempted theft, drinking and driving, illegal possession of a firearm (which was probably stolen), having a loaded weapon in a vehicle or anything like that?  Seems they got a free pass.

Free pass? I think they've clearly been victimized enough.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 10, 2018, 15:32:39
The feds obviously have the final word- how else would Trudeau's father have imposed the NEP.
What is almost certainly going to happen is the Supreme Court will, in the end, be the final decision maker. It seems apparent that even if all governments were aligned on this, the environmental lobby and other special groups are not aligned and so they will have their day in court.(after they finish wreaking enough political destruction on everything else.)  Trudeau et al already know this.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 10, 2018, 15:43:03
Free pass? I think they've clearly been victimized enough.

They haven't been charged with anything.

Not trying to come across as snarky but do you mean the trauma of having a victim fight back and turn the tables on them? 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 10, 2018, 15:57:12
They haven't been charged with anything.

Not trying to come across as snarky but do you mean the trauma of having a victim fight back and turn the tables on them?
Probably meant seeing their friend die in front of them.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 10, 2018, 16:10:28
According to the CBC news article, the victim had in his hands a .22 long rifle, with the stock cut off, 5 rounds in the mag and one in the chamber, the safety was off and of course no trigger lock.  Now, the place is full of coyotes and other things like that, but that does not seem a likely explanation for having that firearm at that time.
These kids were looking for trouble and they were going find it one way or another. Imagine if Stanley had simply called the police, and then an RCMP officer pulling that car over in the middle of nowhere and to his/her detriment, not seeing that rifle until it is too late.
Frankly, if Boushie had lived he should have been the one charged.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on February 10, 2018, 16:19:24
I was being 100% sarcastic. My apologies for not using a [/sarcasm] tag to be clearer, but the thought and post were a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that I have been trying to hold back for the last 24 hours.

I am quite angry with the reaction to this whole thing, to the point that I have been trying to make myself take a pause to collect myself because my comments are very very unsympathetic to the family and friends of the person who was killed... and at the end of the day it's too bad someone had to die, but people have completely lost their ability to think straight at all. The person who died and the people who were with him have no one to blame but themselves for their own personal choices which led to a situation that did not work out in their favour.

The perpetrators, followed then by the legislative and executive branch of the government are the ones who victimized the actual victim, and it's the justice branch and our justice system that actually stood between an innocent man (who did not ask for these drunken misfits to come onto his property to trash and steal his stuff) and a cage. And I am very very sick of our justice system being defamed by a bunch of people who need to go back to grade school to learn some personal responsibility. Our justice branch is not perfect but it's probably the only part of government left I hold in any esteem and to see people trying to trample it because they want to use majority opinion against innocent people is putting me quite on edge.

"Justice does not mean that you are guaranteed the result that you want." - Marie Henein
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 10, 2018, 16:43:44
I was being 100% sarcastic. My apologies for not using a [/sarcasm] tag to be clearer, but the thought and post were a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that I have been trying to hold back for the last 24 hours.

I am quite angry with the reaction to this whole thing, to the point that I have been trying to make myself take a pause to collect myself because my comments are very very unsympathetic to the family and friends of the person who was killed... and at the end of the day it's too bad someone had to die, but people have completely lost their ability to think straight at all. The person who died and the people who were with him have no one to blame but themselves for their own personal choices which led to a situation that did not work out in their favour.

Ahh, sorry for not being more astute. I've seen some pretty wacky commentary on this. 

I actually thought he Stanly was guilty because I recall reading some stuff about the guy being shot in the back of the head when they were driving away. Seemed pretty clear cut to me.  Hearing the details (and seeing enough browning NDs) I can see why the jury chose not guilty (though still pretty surprised).

Sask farmers seem to be routinely victimized without very much support or relief (this from friends in Sask and reading).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 10, 2018, 16:44:07
I will admit, l haven't read any of the stories on CBC about this trial until now.  The only weapon l see mentioned at the link is the one Mr. Stanley had.  I don't believe those who are upset by the verdict are going to take any notice of what the young men were doing that night or what they had with them.

The story linked below is about all the rallies springing up across Canada.  Like the Cornwallis statue or the MMIW, they want blood and won't be satisfied until they get what they want as a verdict.  As far as l can determine it's another white man's injustice on First Nations people, in their eyes.

Truth, reasonable clarity and acceptance of whatever the real facts are will be lost to the people on both sides whom feel justice wasn't served.

PM Trudeau's comments seem to be one sided (to me) and are only going to pour gas on the fire.  I wish he could keep his gate closed at times like this.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/saskatoon/boushie-rallies-saskatoon-regina-stanley-not-guilty-verdic-1.4529956
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 10, 2018, 17:11:18
I’ll admit to also not knowing all the facts.  But I did I hear some stuff on the radio about it being an all white jury and the risk that the crown took in going after first degree murder charge rather than a criminal negligence approach.

I’m sure this evening factors are playing into this.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 10, 2018, 17:23:07
Justin Trudeau chiming in on the verdict:

"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US"



While Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould says:
"As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians"





Being impartial is not a part of the job I guess.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on February 10, 2018, 17:30:05
This could get real ugly very quickly, and I fear the remarks of JT and his Justice Minister will not help.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: kratz on February 10, 2018, 17:37:41
Quote from: Old Sweat
This could get real ugly very quickly, and I fear the remarks of JT and his Justice Minister will not help.

Agreed.
The rush to condemn and demand censure through social media, despite the judicial system, is disturbing. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 10, 2018, 17:38:29
Ref: the all white jury. The Supreme Court of Canada has already, recently, ruled that there's nothing wrong with that, but the policy might benefit from om a review.  The key issue would have been bias or prejudice, and there is no factual evidence to support the assertions of the FN in this case. And, it was not Boushie on trial so I really don't see how the composition of the jury is truly relevant. Are the FN suggesting having a Native on the jury would have brought some value here- would such a presence change the law, facts and evidence of the case>>>no.
In my view the justice system worked here by preventing racialized views from tainting the jury. And, I haven't seen any official confirmation that there was not any FN in the jury. You can't tell just by looking at skin color and last names.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ballz on February 10, 2018, 17:54:58
It's deeply disturbing, the arguments being brought up show that we as a society have forgotten, quite quickly, why we created constitutional democracies, three branches of gov'ts, a judicial system that assumes innocence and a burden of proof being laid on the Crown, etc... all things that we would probably fall apart without.

The argument about an all-white jury shows how much ignorance and bias is involved. The idea is to make the trial fair *for the accused.* Not give the Crown, which already has all the advantages in its favour, even more advantages by letting it stack a jury with people who are going to be prejudiced *against* the accused.

It's f**king mind-boggling.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 10, 2018, 18:30:40
So federal ministers are commenting as to the grief they feel with the family of the deceased and that the justice system has to do better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-ministers-boushie-verdict-reaction-1.4530093

Similar retorts when Ghomeshi got off. Is the metoo movement the result?
https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/02/11/closing-arguments-today-in-jian-ghomeshi-trial.html

What will be the result of the Stanley acquittal?

One final note:
If I hear the PM or any of the ministers of the crown speak of white settler farmers extolling their privilege I will lump the entire pathetic group into a Mugabe-like dung heap of idiocy that do not deserve an ounce of our respect.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 10, 2018, 18:42:56
1. The argument about an all-white jury is racism IMHO. Or, is it when someone not white says something about white people?  Reverse racism or reverse discrimination, but you can't say that because you will be called racist!!

2. http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/aboriginal-background-must-be-considered-in-violent-crime-sentencing-top-court

   Aboriginal background must be considered in violent crime sentencing, top court rules
- 23 Mar 12
  The Supreme Court of Canada on Friday upheld the principle of differential sentencing for aboriginals in even the most extreme and
   technical cases, such as the violation of long-term supervision orders


3. Think about the Gerald Stanley who killed Colten Boushie. That traumatic event will be his memory/on his conscious until he dies. He may get PTSD. People will always be looking at him and muttering. Stanley is not in an occupation where he has been trained to intentionally take a human life.

4. See 2, above. If Colten Boushie killed Stanley, or beat him to a pulp, or killed a RCMP officer on a traffic stop, what would his sentence be? The first trial with this sentencing was years ago in BC Superior Court with an Indian women getting off after killing  a man/husband/boyfriend (can't remember - FJAG will know). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladue_report

5.. The PM and the Justice Minister should shut their cake hole and show leadership to all Canada not a tiny segment.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 10, 2018, 19:04:09
The feds obviously have the final word- how else would Trudeau's father have imposed the NEP.
What is almost certainly going to happen is the Supreme Court will, in the end, be the final decision maker. It seems apparent that even if all governments were aligned on this, the environmental lobby and other special groups are not aligned and so they will have their day in court.(after they finish wreaking enough political destruction on everything else.)  Trudeau et al already know this.

As it was in determining the validity of Omar Khadr’s $20M lawsuit.   :(

Not a comment about your point specifically, W601, but rather that the Judiciary sometimes doesn’t get the last say where the Executive feels its opinion takes precedence.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 10, 2018, 19:04:49
So we have Liberal cabinet members implying that they know better than 12 jurists and a sitting judge.  The implications of that are very, very threatening to the rule of law and should be vigorously opposed by all.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: kratz on February 10, 2018, 19:06:22
ref: CTV local news

Quote from: Female protester interviewed
It can not be acceptable to take a life of someone who comes on your property. This was clearly racially motivated.

Why bother buying and owning anything, including land, with blanket statements like this for a leading argument?

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 10, 2018, 19:09:24
As it was in determining the validity of Omar Khadr’s $20M lawsuit.   :(

Not a comment about your point specifically, W601, but rather that the Judiciary sometimes doesn’t get the last say where the Executive feels its opinion takes precedence.

Regards
G2G
100%
The Supreme Court limited its decisions to the legal rights of the "child. They made no pronouncement on his guilt or innocence,   only about what the duty of the government is/was with the little turd.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 10, 2018, 19:32:03
At least someone knows what they're talking about, unlike JT and his Ministers.  I can't wait until the voters make him a Drama Teacher again.

Quote
But some question the ministers speaking publicly on a judicial decision.

"Inappropriate" was the word former justice minister Peter MacKay used to describe the posts.

"It undermines the system of justice, quite frankly, to have politicians weigh in," he said, adding the case could still be appealed, so they are technically commenting on a case currently before the courts. 

Unwarranted skepticism of a properly conducted trial will set a dangerous precedent, MacKay concluded.

'Very rare' politicians speak up
This outreach from federal politicians is virtually unprecedented, according to Glen Luther, a criminal law expert from the University of Saskatchewan.

"It's very rare," he said Saturday. "The federal government is actually taking it seriously."

Ministers using a specific trial to point to issues in the justice system could provide a much-needed wake-up call, he added.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/trudeau-ministers-boushie-verdict-reaction-1.4530093
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 10, 2018, 20:12:34
At least someone knows what they're talking about, unlike JT and his Ministers.  I can't wait until the voters make him a Drama Teacher again.

Snowboard Instructor......A Drama Teacher may mean that he would be teaching impressionable minds.  That is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 10, 2018, 20:19:46
That works too.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 11, 2018, 01:14:18
"Peremptory challenges" seem to be a topic of discussion in this case,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&ei=StB_WsjbH4GUtQXksr7YDA&q=%22colten+boushie%22+%22peremptory+challenges%22+&oq=%22colten+boushie%22+%22peremptory+challenges%22+&gs_l=psy-ab.12..35i39k1l2.93972.93972.0.98826.1.1.0.0.0.0.193.193.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.192....0.gDLyw7xGi9w
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 11, 2018, 16:11:50
Justin Trudeau chiming in on the verdict:

"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US"



While Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould says:
"As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians"





Being impartial is not a part of the job I guess.

I agree. The PM and justice minister coming out with the assertion that the legal system failed is extremely unprofessional. One can safely assume that the PMs comments were basically clag designed for sympathy. While he shouldn't comment on such things, "sending love" isn't a direct assault on the justice system. The justice ministers comments are more troubling as she is the minister and she directly imply's that she doesn't agree with the verdict of the trial, which casts aspersions on the justice system. This is not a good or proper road for her to be walking down. If there are doubts that the trial was fair based on evidence of bias in the jury there are mechanisms for that, and it certainly needs to be fleshed out. However, barring that, the minister is simply saying that " we need to do better" to ensure that we always get the verdict we want, not necessarily the proper one.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 11, 2018, 16:38:18
The Minister forgets that the application of justice exists in two equally important forms: the punishment of the guilty, and the exoneration of the innocent.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 11, 2018, 16:43:16
And the latter is the more important of the two.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 11, 2018, 16:50:02
Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 11, 2018, 17:06:28
Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

That isn't going to happen OGBD. The narrative is that a white farmer murdered an innocent aboriginal boy and a racist jury let him off scott free. No federal cabinet minister is going to resign or apologize.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 11, 2018, 17:13:27
That would go against the dialectic of today's Liberals to do so.  Which is starting to feel like, "if you're white, you're not right".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 11, 2018, 17:15:53
Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

Agree. It's a dangerous path to walk, particularly in light of the same thing happening in the Ghomeshi trial. Governments have the right to challenge the supreme court on matters of constitutional importance, such as was the challenge of same sex marriage and 2 x governments challenging veterans. Attempting to vote gather through saying that a trial was rigged is below board.

And the latter is the more important of the two.

Disagree. The court system isn't there to exonerate the innocent, it is there to find justice for the victims of a crime through sentencing of a guilty party. That the system works to protect the innocent from false allegations is a critical benefit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 11, 2018, 17:26:35
Not quite, ModlrMike:

It exists for the punishment of the guilty, and to refrain from punishing those the Crown cannot prove beyond a doubt to have been guilty.

Courts never (or very, very, very seldom) pronounce someone "innocent". That' is why the verdict that acquits someone is "not guilty" instead of "innocent".

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, Trudeau's comments was stupid, but the Minister of justice's comments should cost her her job. She has absolutely no business whatsoever commenting as if an injustice has been committed in a trial where she is not a member of the jury and therefore, has neither seen the full evidence presented, nor been able to observe the witnesses.

To put simply: If the justice system is actually broken, she's had two years to fix it and has done nothing - she should be fired; if it isn't broken, then she is impugning twelve jurors without cause and the judge. There is no evidence whatsoever of this so it is unacceptable and she should resign before getting fired.

Agree 100%.

I've been concerned for years now about an accelerating trend which started long before the Liberals. Vic Toews, I mean you. DoJ has been tweaking the laws for years so that it becomes easier to charge and convict, and to more harshly punish "popular" crimes. By "popular" I mean those offences which seem to be the fashion of the day; ones where the government has been taking heat from vocal special interest groups. There is less discretion available for judges to use common sense when dealing with the case before them because of such things as mandatory minimum sentences. The problem is particularly notable in the field of sexual offences where the presumption of innocence is almost completely undermined.

I find it particularly distressing that government comments about our jury system is that it needs to be "fixed" because there was an acquittal. There is an old adage in the legal profession that "hard cases make bad law" which means that changing a system just because one case didn't go the way one hoped or expected will undoubtedly lead to a whole lot of new problems.

I can only see two ways that the government could use to "fix" the perceived "injustice": eliminate or reduce peremptory challenges or mandate that there shall be racial representation on the jury every time that an accused or victim has a particular racial background. Both of those, IMHO, are stupid solutions.

Like FSTO, I don't see any Liberal falling on their sword over their stupid comments. In my opinion, they are going to double down on this one and do something stupid. Hopefully it will bite them in the *** in the next election.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 11, 2018, 17:34:00
The Minister forgets that the application of justice exists in two equally important forms: the punishment of the guilty, and the exoneration of the innocent.

I agree, I was being overly simplistic. Perhaps I should have said to punish the guilty, and to protect the innocent. I use the word innocent in the context of the presumption of innocence. That the court does not pronounce one innocent is immaterial. Every defendant enters the court as innocent, whether or not they leave that way is what the process is there to determine.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 11, 2018, 17:40:20
Quote from: ModlrMike
Every defendant enters the court as innocent, whether they leave that way is what the process is there to determine.

Not according to our Minister of Justice and lesser extent PM.

The only reason the PM chimed in is to virtue signal because race is involved and, I'd guess, to make up for kicking the FN campaign promise can down the road.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on February 11, 2018, 17:41:45
I, for one, would appreciate it very much if one of the lawyers in our group could comment on what form an appeal would take, and how its results are determined. Second, could the ex-defendant be charged with another offence such as careless use of a firearm, that is, is there a way for the Crown to skirt double jeopardy?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 11, 2018, 17:52:15
I think his firearm storage charges are still pending.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 11, 2018, 18:23:54
I, for one, would appreciate it very much if one of the lawyers in our group could comment on what form an appeal would take, and how its results are determined. Second, could the ex-defendant be charged with another offence such as careless use of a firearm, that is, is there away for the Crown to skirt double jeopardy?
An appeal is available under the CCC as follows:

Quote
676 (1) The Attorney General . . . may appeal to the court of appeal

(a) against a judgment or verdict of acquittal . . . on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law alone;
. . .

Effectively under a jury verdict (which are the finders of fact as opposed to law) it would be necessary to prove that the judge made an error in law (such as in the jury selection process or in his instructions to the jury) which are substantial enough to invalidate the jury's finding.

Effectively the matter would be argued before three judges of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal based on transcripts of the evidence and legal arguments by counsel.

If successful the Court of Appeal would order a retrial and, in very rare circumstance, could substitute a conviction for the acquittal.

The crown would not be able to lay new charges under s 11(h) of the Charter which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; (http://11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;)

Quote
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

With the charges having been murder, I would think that the crown has put all of the facts into play and blown it's chances of trying this again on a lesser charge.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2018, 19:14:51
Disagree. The court system isn't there to exonerate the innocent, it is there to find justice for the victims of a crime through sentencing of a guilty party. That the system works to protect the innocent from false allegations is a critical benefit.

Nope.

It isn't Bouschie vs Clayton, or estate of Bouschie vs Clayton, or family of Bouschie vs Clayton, its Regina vs Clayton.  The criminal justice system isn't designed to solve anything for victims, families of victims, or anyone else.  It resolves matters between accused and the state.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 11, 2018, 23:43:17
To some extent, the CCJ system does involve some measure of victim and community justice, from victim impact statements during sentencing submissions, and taking into account any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. But you're 100% right in the sense that neither of those issues has anything to do with finding of guilt or not guilty. The Crown still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offence, and the accused has every right to make arguments raising reasonable doubt by leveraging every single legal tool available, from the rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence and the Charter.  Don't misread that as a statement supporting all of the accused that appear before a court, it just seems to me in this case the adage of letting guilty people go free is better than sending innocent  people to jail. In this case, the Crown did not succeed in proving every element of the offence to a proper jury. Hence, that means the accused did not commit the offence for which he was prosecuted and that simply means not guilty. To be found guilty he must have committed all of the required elements set out in the Criminal Code, and only the Criminal Code. 

Now, the politicians may force the Crown to go looking for an error in law, even if the error has nothing to do with the finding of a guilty verdict, and they just may get their appeal. That will not change the elements of the offence, the facts of the events in question, or explain any better the actions of the accused. Once charged, these are fixed and not dynamic. Certainly, in applying the logic required by law from the jury, they do not take into account the racial or social status of victims or the accused. Nor should they, otherwise we really would have an apartheid justice system.       
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 11, 2018, 23:46:12
An appeal is available under the CCC as follows:

Effectively under a jury verdict (which are the finders of fact as opposed to law) it would be necessary to prove that the judge made an error in law (such as in the jury selection process or in his instructions to the jury) which are substantial enough to invalidate the jury's finding.

Effectively the matter would be argued before three judges of the Alberta Court of Appeal based on transcripts of the evidence and legal arguments by counsel.

If successful the Court of Appeal would order a retrial and, in very rare circumstance, could substitute a conviction for the acquittal.

The crown would not be able to lay new charges under s 11(h) of the Charter which states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; (http://11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;)

With the charges having been murder, I would think that the crown has put all of the facts into play and blown it's chances of trying this again on a lesser charge.

 :cheers:

Why the Alberta court of appeal? Did Battleford convert?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 11, 2018, 23:51:39
Why the Alberta court of appeal? Did Battleford convert?

 :facepalm:

I have a really bad cold right now. Congestion. Brain not working right. Mea Culpa.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 11, 2018, 23:57:10
Saskaberta?

Albertewan?


Either way, doesn't solve the pipeline problem...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 10:43:04
Justin Trudeau chiming in on the verdict:

"Just spoke with @Puglaas. I can't imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family is feeling tonight. Sending love to them from the US"

While Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould says:
"As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians"

Being impartial is not a part of the job I guess.

This is disgusting and quite disturbing. Politicians are risking grossly overstepping their bounds here, in a manner that I find very dangerous.  While I'm probably somewhat to the "left" on some issues as compared to fellow posters here, this case is not one of them.

It is bad enough, in my opinion, that politicians have any say in the appointing of Justices: an invitation to introducing partisan politics in what must be a fair and impartial system.

For them to make the comments they are now making is totally out of bounds. The only correct comment they could make is "The Courts have spoken. The Crown is free to appeal if it has grounds".

To me, the suggestion by politicians (of ANY stripe, by the way: these just happen to be Liberals) that something is "wrong" or "unfair" in our court system because of a certain decision is wrong. The Crown did its best, and so did the defence. The Crown lost. That's what happens.

What good would it have done to "make sure" that a FN person(s) was sitting on the jury? To "guarantee" that the accused was found guilty? Are we going to make race a prerequisite for jury composition? Really? Think about that for a second, because IMHO it is a very slippery slope.

I've commented elsewhere that "justice" is not "vengeance", although that is what it seems to mean these days. Usually, I hear that sort of distorted thinking coming from the "lock 'em up" crowd dwelling toward the "right" or  "conservative" end of things, but it doesn't matter where it comes from, and politicians, unwittingly or not, shouldn't be encouraging it.

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home? And, on the other side of things, what made the RCMP treat Boushie's family in the manner they reportedly did, when they went to the residence to notify?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 12, 2018, 11:06:55
Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home?

Five young people, one of whom was reportedly in possession of a rifle, went on to another man's property, and started causing mischief. There's no way this didn't end with a negative outcome - one way or another.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 12, 2018, 11:08:21

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home?
It isn't just Saskatchewan.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 12, 2018, 11:09:57

The bigger question might be just what the hell is going on in rural Saskatchewan, to produce such deep divisions and anger in society? Who is scared of whom, and why? What made that farmer feel that he had to resort to deadly force to protect his life and his home? And, on the other side of things, what made the RCMP treat Boushie's family in the manner they reportedly did, when they went to the residence to notify?

When the Police is an hr to an hr and half away what choice do people have? There has been a rash of thefts throughout the prairies and farmers and ranchers are getting a little fed up with the free hand the thieves (native and non native) have had lately.
 
Finally what gives the group of young people the right to drive into a place and just start stealing stuff? Why would they not stop the car on the side of the road and ask for help?
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 12, 2018, 11:10:34
Five young men, one of whom was reportedly carrying a rifle, went on to another man's property. There's no way this didn't end with a negative outcome.
Actually 3 men and 2 women.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 11:27:02
First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?

Don't mistake the intent of my question: it's just that-a question. The answer might be that in some places rural people do feel a high threat level. OK-if so, why? Threat from whom? Are rural people able to express their fears and concerns to any body? Or are they dismissed (perhaps as "racists")? Where is their side of this?

I get the inadequate policing part: geographically most of Ontario has little or no regular police coverage except for a few thinly spread OPP, and even down south some rural areas rarely see a cruiser, and must wait quite a while for a response.  Neither of which are automatically a real big problem, unless we are talking about an increasing threat level in these areas. Canada, I think,  is a historically under-policed country.

On the other hand, are there some rural people who think the right (and only... ) response to deal with FNs is deadly force? "Shoot first and ask questions later" ? If that is really true, how is that happening in our country? Killing people shouldn't be taken lightly in a civil society, no matter who does it.

I am guessing that this case is a warning indicator of much bigger problems. How will those problems get looked into, in a fair and dispassionate way that doesn't automatically assume that either side has a lock on what's right?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 12, 2018, 11:31:30
Witness statements would suggest that it was not shooting that occurred first:

What happened on the Stanley farm (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/what-happened-stanley-farm-boushie-shot-witnesses-colten-gerald-1.4520214)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 12, 2018, 11:35:43
First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?

Don't mistake the intent of my question: it's just that-a question. The answer might be that in some places rural people do feel a high threat level. OK-if so, why? Threat from whom? Are rural people able to express their fears and concerns to any body? Or are they dismissed (perhaps as "racists")? Where is their side of this?

I get the inadequate policing part: geographically most of Ontario has little or no regular police coverage except for a few thinly spread OPP, and even down south some rural areas rarely see a cruiser, and must wait quite a while for a response.  Neither of which are automatically a real big problem, unless we are talking about an increasing threat level in these areas. Canada, I think,  is a historically under-policed country.

On the other hand, are there some rural people who think the right (and only... ) response to deal with FNs is deadly force? "Shoot first and ask questions later" ? If that is really true, how is that happening in our country? Killing people shouldn't be taken lightly in a civil society, no matter who does it.

I am guessing that this case is a warning indicator of much bigger problems. How will those problems get looked into, in a fair and dispassionate way that doesn't automatically assume that either side has a lock on what's right?

Okay first off it wasn't a hail of gunfire that met the SUV as it entered the yard. Initially the Stanley's thought it was someone coming in to check on a vehicle they may have left there to be repaired. The Stanley's had a vehicle/machinery repair business in their yard and many people came and went into the yard. But once the ATV was fired up and the Stanley's went over to investigate thats where things went south.

Its assumptions like you just made is what is making rural people distrust comments coming from away.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 12:03:18
Okay first off it wasn't a hail of gunfire that met the SUV as it entered the yard. Initially the Stanley's thought it was someone coming in to check on a vehicle they may have left there to be repaired. The Stanley's had a vehicle/machinery repair business in their yard and many people came and went into the yard. But once the ATV was fired up and the Stanley's went over to investigate thats where things went south.

Its assumptions like you just made is what is making rural people distrust comments coming from away.

What assumptions were those? Or did I ask questions that looked like assumptions? I don't think I actually said "hail of gunfire" anywhere in my post.

See what I  mean, though? It's hard even to ask questions about this subject, from either angle, without stirring up feelings that one "obviously believes" one thing or the other. I wasn't there, so it's a bit hard for me to assume anything.

It just bothers me that we may have a worse situation in our country, or a part of our country, than what we understand.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 12, 2018, 12:09:22

It just bothers me that we may have a worse situation in our country, or a part of our country, than what we understand.

Me too... namely believing every story ever told to you by the "victim" without due process. I'm so sick of this trend that everyone who cries victim just HAS to be automatically believed to be telling the truth. The Boushie kid was no saint, just like a lot of "innocent men" being gunned down by the "evil police" in the states...the MSM and his family portray him like some angel who was just seeking some help for a flat tire, meanwhile hes trying to steal MVC's and carrying around a rifle barrel in a loaded SUV with his friends... So sorry, not sorry.

The bleeding hearts are so easily manipulated by the MSM it's absolutely INSANE.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 12, 2018, 12:14:37
What assumptions were those? Or did I ask questions that looked like assumptions? I don't think I actually said "hail of gunfire" anywhere in my post.


Your opening sentence is what I commented on.

"First off, if it's more than just SK in which people in rural areas are in fear for their lives, I go back to the question of finding out why. What is making these rural areas so dangerous that the response to a trespasser (or group of trespassers) is deadly force, seemingly right off the bat? Where is the back story here?"

To me you implied that the occupants of the SUV were met with deadly force as soon as they drove into the yard.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 12:22:09
Quote
Me too... namely believing every story ever told to you by the "victim" without due process

I agree that would be a bad idea, if I was doing it. But I'm not. I'm asking questions.

Quote
I'm so sick of this trend that everyone who cries victim just HAS to be automatically believed to be telling the truth.

Yes, me too. It's called "the Victim Industry" or "the Victim Culture". It's the abuse of something real and legitimate. Not talking about that.

Quote
The Boushie kid was no saint,

I think the "MSM" (which I follow) has made it pretty clear that is the case, nor was the other individual in the vehicle who was well known to police and had a record.

Quote
just like a lot of "innocent men" being gunned down by the "evil police" in the states..

Well...if I'm not mistaken, some innocent people actually have been shot or otherwise killed by the police in the US. If the police, whom we appoint to obey the law and protect us, are breaking that law and killing people, then IMHO it is the job of the media to raise the issue and prevent it from being dismissed. I also believe, by the way, that there are situations in which a police officer may kill a person with good justification.  It isn't just "either/or".

Quote
The bleeding hearts are so easily manipulated by the MSM it's absolutely INSANE

And people who ask irritating questions are often tagged as "bleeding hearts" or "racists" or "police haters" or "colonialists" or whatever bumper sticker people feel like slapping on to shut down questions they don't like.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 12, 2018, 12:26:33
Well...if I'm not mistake, some innocent people actually have been shot or otherwise killed by the police in the US. If the police, whom we appoint to obey the law and protect it, are breaking that law and killing people, then IMHO it is the job of the media to raise the issue and prevent it from being dismissed. I also believe, by the way, that there are situations in which a police officer may kill a person with good justification.  It isn't just "either/or".

Debatable on A) How many of them were innocent. B) How many Police are actually pulling the trigger and the subject isn't dying due to cases of excited delirium, effects of being tazed, etc.

Quote
And people who ask irritating questions are often tagged as "bleeding hearts" or "racists" or "police haters" or "colonialists" or whatever bumper sticker people feel like slapping on to shut down questions they don't like.

Wasn't using it as a label, just moreso a general brush stroke of people who live sheltered lives and think that people doing evil crap is a rarity and everyone calling the victim card is to be believed.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 13:46:28
Debatable on A) How many of them were innocent. B) How many Police are actually pulling the trigger and the subject isn't dying due to cases of excited delirium, effects of being tazed, etc...

Maybe some deserved to be shot. It certainly happens. But I don't become "guilty" because a police officer decides (out of fear, poor training, psychological issues, misunderstanding, racism, or whatever) to kill me outside the bounds of the law. I worked for a few years in hotel security: I know very well that some people are just looking for trouble, and need a good thrashing. I get it. But not everybody deserves that all the time, and certainly not every dodgy person deserves to be killed.

Quote
Wasn't using it as a label, just moreso a general brush stroke of people who live sheltered lives and think that people doing evil crap is a rarity and everyone calling the victim card is to be believed.

Ack. And I didn't mean to say that you did. And I am with you on people who don't understand that there really are bad, evil people who deserve to die. There are. I'm just saying that taking human life in a civil society is a serious business. When it happens, we have to ask what the hell is going on, no matter who gets offended.

And, by "what the hell is going on", I mean (like I tried to say earlier) that maybe there really is serious criminal behaviour by some FN people: maybe rural folks in parts of SK really ARE frightened. If so, then we need to get this out in the open. Those farm folks need as big and loud a public platform as Boushie's supporters: they have a story too. If  people in this country are so scared that they feel they have no choice but to defend themselves with guns, that IMHO is failure on a bunch of levels.

But we need to be able to have this out without people screaming "racists" and "bleeding hearts" at each other. I'm not so sure how to do that.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jed on February 12, 2018, 13:53:55
Maybe some deserved to be shot. It certainly happens. But I don't become "guilty" because a police officer decides (out of fear, poor training, psychological issues, misunderstanding, racism, or whatever) to kill me outside the bounds of the law. I worked for a few years in hotel security: I know very well that some people are just looking for trouble, and need a good thrashing. I get it. But not everybody deserves that all the time, and certainly not every dodgy person deserves to be killed.

Ack. And I didn't mean to say that you did. And I am with you on people who don't understand that there really are bad, evil people who deserve to die. There are. I'm just saying that taking human life in a civil society is a serious business. When it happens, we have to ask what the hell is going on, no matter who gets offended.

And, by "what the hell is going on", I mean (like I tried to say earlier) that maybe there really is serious criminal behaviour by some FN people: maybe rural folks in parts of SK really ARE frightened. If so, then we need to get this out in the open. Those farm folks need as big and loud a public platform as Boushie's supporters: they have a story too. If  people in this country are so scared that they feel they have no choice but to defend themselves with guns, that IMHO is failure on a bunch of levels.

But we need to be able to have this out without people screaming "racists" and "bleeding hearts" at each other. I'm not so sure how to do that.

People are afraid that this is the case. Invariably these are the same people who fear guns, big knives and not being able to look after their own self defence. That is the essence of the problem.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 12, 2018, 14:03:54
People are afraid that this is the case. Invariably these are the same people who fear guns, big knives and not being able to look after their own self defence. That is the essence of the problem.
Isn't it more likely that the people who don't like guns, etc are the ones who would immediately deny that the SK farmers have anything to be afraid of: in other words, claiming that what I proposed definitely "isn't the case" ?  Wouldn't those people be the ones who believe the farmers are just motivated by ignorance and racism and trigger-happiness?

But, I wouldn't trivialize people who don't like the idea of killing. I would hope that most people in a civil society actually don't like it, and see it as something to be done only in a case of dire necessity./ If everybody likes the idea of killing, civil society won't be around long.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 12, 2018, 16:23:06
I disagree with pretty much everything this lawyer has to say about this matter:  https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/boushie-verdict-no-justice-without-indigenous-people-in-the-system-says-lawyer-1.3799738


"Public comments made by political leaders about the verdict in the Colten Boushie case can’t undermine the justice system when it comes to Indigenous people because it is already fundamentally broken, says a Native lawyer."  - what sort of BS is that? Anything that interferes with the accused right to a fair trial undermines the justice system. No further explanation needed or required.

“That’s been a problem from the very beginning. No visibly Indigenous police officers, Crown counsel, defence counsel, jury, judges, corrections, I mean, all the way around this is a non-Indigenous system,” Palmater, who is Mi’kmaq, told CTV’s Your Morning Monday." -- well, as an educator and a lawyer, it would be nice if we could have more FN graduates, without disrupting the entire standards of the post secondary education system. For example, the testing and marking schemes are rapidly becoming "Indigenized" to meet their needs. Would you take a defence lawyer or a jury or a crown counsel serious if you knew they got a trophy diploma just for showing up at class some of the time? Thats how low the standards are dropping, just look at how the (now called) Law Society of Ontario behaves.

“Society, unfortunately, and government has allowed to move forward dispossession, oppression and racism of Indigenous people with almost complete impunity. And this case is just a prime example of that.” - well, we've pretty much beat the crap out of that line of BS in this thread.

"Politicians are just speaking from the heart and they are speaking the truth, so critics will be critics. The fact remains a young man got killed and there was no justice,” he said on Your Morning Monday. “I pose this question to all those critics and all those people who think that Gerald Stanley was justified in what he did: What would you do if that was your child? What would you expect? And how would you feel?”- I would feel terrible for the parents because their drunken child was in the process of committing a crime spree with his pals and was accidentally killed in the process.

“The system is flawed. It was designed to fail First Nations people and many other people. There has to be more positive change and you’re not going to get any better recommendations (than) from people who have suffered through the justice system, families like the Boushie family.”  - The Criminal Code was NOT designed to fail any particular race, religion or creed. It did have some very serious gender issues and those are slowly being fixed. Has the justice system failed the Boushie family- yes, the Crown and the police did not put the truth to the family that their son put himself in a crowd of idiots and was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Simple and painful as that may be for them to accept.  If the reverse had happened, if the crappy, unsafe rifle accidentally discharged and had shot Stanley, would there be FN and Lib outrage if there was a guilty verdict if one of those trespassers was convicted- of course they would.  OTOH, would they be happy and thankful if the verdict was not guilty - yes, the justice system would be just sunny and on its way to reconciliation.

“I think, unfortunately, they’re just going to get more words to try to placate them,” she said. “There will be no real commitment for change and that’s part of the problem with this and other governments, it’s always been words and less action.”  - Does she really expect the Courts will allow the government to flip over a constitutional principle in order to attempt to manufacture more pleasing racialized outcomes to satisfy a vengeful segment of the population by creating an actual apartheid justice system rather than a perceived one.  Every Judge in this country is watching this and dreading what lies before them... will they stick to the law and the principles of the constitution or will they be forced to get creative.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jed on February 12, 2018, 19:25:24
Isn't it more likely that the people who don't like guns, etc are the ones who would immediately deny that the SK farmers have anything to be afraid of: in other words, claiming that what I proposed definitely "isn't the case" ?  Wouldn't those people be the ones who believe the farmers are just motivated by ignorance and racism and trigger-happiness?

No. Most of the folks that don’t like guns, big knives don’t live in rural Saskatchewan / Alberta.

But, I wouldn't trivialize people who don't like the idea of killing. I would hope that most people in a civil society actually don't like it, and see it as something to be done only in a case of dire necessity./ If everybody likes the idea of killing, civil society won't be around long.

I agree, never trivialize taking a life. It is sick and perverse to enjoy killing / torture / etc. Even if one perceives it to be justice and / or revenge. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Eaglelord17 on February 12, 2018, 20:04:43
In this case, the Crown did not succeed in proving every element of the offence to a proper jury. Hence, that means the accused did not commit the offence for which he was prosecuted and that simply means not guilty. To be found guilty he must have committed all of the required elements set out in the Criminal Code, and only the Criminal Code. 

That is sometimes not true. It simply means the Crown failed to prove that the accused committed the offence, not that the accused did not commit the offence (two very distinct things).

This is why I like the Scottish way of doing things were they have Guilty and Not Proven. Not proven simply means we didn't prove you did the crime. You may have actually done it, you may have not, we may never know, but it isn't the complete exoneration that our wording seems to imply.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 12, 2018, 20:07:30
Another thing being lost here is that I doubt that Gerald Stanley woke up that morning and thought "I'm going to kill me an indian today".
By listening to the Ottawa chattering classes today, I'm have the feeling that that is exactly what many people here in Ottawa are thinking.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 12, 2018, 21:15:54
I think the impartial truth of what happened in this tragedy for both families has left the building in the rush to condemn due process. 

I can appreciate the Boushie family is grieving, angry and feel they were let down by the system.  That doesn't mean they were.

The Stanley family too are no doubt feeling they've been abandoned and run over.  Both of these families have suffered a great loss, no one has won here.

I am disheartened to see political figures who should be keeping their mouths closed, taking sides and bringing the system into disrepute.  That's not leadership.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 12, 2018, 21:23:15
The FN community seem oblivious to the nuances of the case. A  GoFundMe thing set up describes:
Quote
  In August 2016, Colten was shot and killed on a farm while out for a drive with his friends.
.

Obviously they were doing more than going out for a drive but the community wants to gloss over that fact.

A similar fund for Gerald Stanley to recoup court costs is up and naturally people are going berserk about it. From demanding GoFundMe remove it to stories of people taking contributors names and harassing then in facebook or trying to contact their work and get them fired or causing crap.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 12, 2018, 21:30:43
The FN community seem oblivious to the nuances of the case. A  GoFundMe thing set up describes: .

Obviously they were doing more than going out for a drive but the community wants to gloss over that fact.

A similar fund for Gerald Stanley to recoup court costs is up and naturally people are going berserk about it. From demanding GoFundMe remove it to stories of people taking contributors names and harassing then in facebook or trying to contact their work and get them fired or causing crap.

For anyone who wishes to contribute, or compare the amounts in each fund,

Colten Boushie
https://www.gofundme.com/justice4colten

Gerald Stanley
https://www.gofundme.com/gerald-stanley-support-fund
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 12, 2018, 22:12:03
That is sometimes not true. It simply means the Crown failed to prove that the accused committed the offence, not that the accused did not commit the offence (two very distinct things).

This is not Scotland. This was a charge of murder- under Canadian law this an offence of specific intent and not general intent. If all the elements of an offence are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the alleged crime did not occur pursuant to the Criminal Code, and that is all that matters. There was a homicide but not a murder.  Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence. Black and white, right in the criminal code. If it is established through a trial that a person did not commit murder, manslaughter or infanticide or any of the items in section 222(5), they have not committed a culpable homicide.  See 222 (1)-(6).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 12, 2018, 22:15:49
Another photo opportunity.  The PM is going to meet the Boushie family.   :not-again:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 12, 2018, 22:27:05
Another photo opportunity.  The PM is going to meet the Boushie family.   :not-again:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/boushie-verdict-ottawa-parliament-meeting-1.4530880

Did the prime minister meet with the families of  Robert Hall and John Ridsdel after they were kidnapped, tortured and beheaded by the ISIS-affiliated terror group Abu Sayyaf?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 12, 2018, 22:29:47
Remember the last time Trudeau hosted a family?
Perhaps there is a pattern.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 12, 2018, 23:17:03
Remember the last time Trudeau hosted a family?
Perhaps there is a pattern.

I wonder, if it were the Stanley family looking for a meeting,  would they get the same answer as that Silver Cross father did when he had concerns about where dollars were going.  A "gee is that the time?  We're fully booked up, maybe next time".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 00:43:27
I have never looked at Reddit before, and therefore have no comment regarding any bias that may or may not exist on that site, or on the veracity of comments regarding the Boushie incident in general, but https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/7wt9ey/after_stanley_verdict_lawyers_say_political/du37b4q/ was pointed out to me. The poster seems to have done his research, and provides many links. I've only looked at a few, all of which were from regular media reports.

On one:

"The embattled Chief of Red Pheasant First Nation was sentenced, again, in North Battleford provincial court Wednesday.

"Stewart Baptiste received a suspended sentence and six months probation in connection to guilty pleas entered for two charges of violating his probation."

A sentence of probation for breaking probation strikes me as ineffective and silly.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 13, 2018, 03:17:34
You know you've crossed the Rubicon when even the Red Star tells you to STFU...

For the sake of peoplekind, Justin Trudeau needs to shut his mouth (https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/opinion/2018/02/07/for-the-sake-of-peoplekind-justin-trudeau-needs-to-shut-up.html)


Forget climate change, terrorism, potential war or a volatile stock market. The biggest threat to Canada right now is our leader’s mouth, writes Vinay Menon.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Eaglelord17 on February 13, 2018, 06:53:40
This is not Scotland. This was a charge of murder- under Canadian law this an offence of specific intent and not general intent. If all the elements of an offence are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the alleged crime did not occur pursuant to the Criminal Code, and that is all that matters. There was a homicide but not a murder.  Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence. Black and white, right in the criminal code. If it is established through a trial that a person did not commit murder, manslaughter or infanticide or any of the items in section 222(5), they have not committed a culpable homicide.  See 222 (1)-(6).

Again just because it is not proven does not mean the offence didn't occur, they are two distinctly different things. You are not on trial to prove your innocence you are on trial for them to try and prove your guilt. If we had a guilty until proven innocent system what you are saying would be true as you actually have to prove you did not commit the offence. This is why the Scottish wording makes sense as for all intents and purposes it has the same effects on the accused post trial, however it is still possible you did it, just they failed to prove it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 13, 2018, 07:30:39
You know you've crossed the Rubicon when even the Red Star tells you to STFU...

For the sake of peoplekind, Justin Trudeau needs to shut his mouth (https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/opinion/2018/02/07/for-the-sake-of-peoplekind-justin-trudeau-needs-to-shut-up.html)


Forget climate change, terrorism, potential war or a volatile stock market. The biggest threat to Canada right now is our leader’s mouth, writes Vinay Menon.

Holy crap.  What a great article.  I never thought the Red Star would print something cutting like this.  I expect it will fall on deaf ears.  So, more comedy gold to come l guess.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 13, 2018, 10:29:01
Not a bad article on what the jury might have faced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/gerald-stanley-colten-boushie-jury-verdict-1.4532064
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 13, 2018, 13:00:40
Good article on why the conservatives might need another 4 years in opposition.

John Ivison: Scheer’s climate policy alienating potential new Conservative voters: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-scheers-climate-policy-alienating-potential-new-conservative-voters

Quote
The Conservative leader is firmly ensconced as the leader of a Official Opposition that is united against a carbon tax.

His problem is that, unless he can persuade voters he cares about the environment and has a plan for tackling climate change, he will still be the Opposition leader after the next election.

Scheer got a rousing reception from the ideological faithful at the Manning Networking Conference in Ottawa, when he said his first act as prime minister after the 2019 election would be to repeal the federal carbon tax.

But while most diehards at Manning were opposed to carbon pricing, voters – particularly the millennials the Conservatives need to win over – are not.

Conservative supporters remain steadfastly opposed to a carbon tax – either because they don’t believe in climate change; oppose taxation in principle; or because they don’t think changes in Canada would have sufficient impact globally.
Quote
Yet, the polling evidence is convincing – the Conservatives need to attract younger, urban, ethnically diverse voters or they will lose again in 2019.

Just hours before Scheer’s appearance at Manning, David Coletto, chief executive at Abacus Data, presented some new research that suggested the pool of voters who would consider voting Conservative has risen to 51 per cent of all Canadians, from 42 per cent at the last election. Yet Abacus polling said only 26 per cent of all voters say they will vote Tory if an election were held tomorrow.

Clearly, then, the opportunity for the Conservatives to do much better is there.

The poll outlined which groups are potentially persuadable. Currently only 11 per cent of Conservative supporters belong to visible minorities, yet 25 per cent of that group are potential supporters.

At the moment, 37 per cent of Tories are under 45, while 54 per cent would think about voting for Scheer.

Only 47 per cent of current Conservatives want “serious action” on climate change, while 67 per cent of potential supporters think it is important.

This large pool of potential support is made up of people who are not instinctively hostile to government intervention; are more likely to be urban dwellers; and believe immigration strengthens the country.

Crucially, a majority have a positive view of Justin Trudeau, with only one in five actively expressing dislike for him.

All of which makes it a tall order to win over the one quarter of the electorate that does not support the Tories at the moment but is open to the idea.

But Scheer doesn’t have to be greener than Trudeau – he just has to neutralize the carbon tax with a strong proposal of his own, as Stephen Harper did when he matched Paul Martin’s every move on healthcare in 2004.

Yet Scheer rejoiced in his rejection of a policy that is popular with the voters he needs to woo. He spoke fondly of his hope that he would unite with Alberta opposition leader Jason Kenney and new Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe against Ottawa’s carbon tax.

“It’s great news for our movement and great news for Canada,” he said.


Quote
Climate change is a symbolic issue for many of them and Scheer mocks policies intended to address it at his peril.

The Conservative mantra under Harper was to adopt divide-and-conquer policies that polarized it with all the other parties, letting them fight for the progressive vote.

But the absence of carbon pricing breaks another cardinal rule of Conservative campaigning – not to veer too far to the right of the median voter.

David McLaughlin, Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff, was probably right when he told Manning delegates it might take another electoral drubbing before federal Conservatives wake up to the idea that voters care about the environment and demand their governments do too.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 13:18:41
Again just because it is not proven does not mean the offence didn't occur, they are two distinctly different things. You are not on trial to prove your innocence you are on trial for them to try and prove your guilt. If we had a guilty until proven innocent system what you are saying would be true as you actually have to prove you did not commit the offence. This is why the Scottish wording makes sense as for all intents and purposes it has the same effects on the accused post trial, however it is still possible you did it, just they failed to prove it.

Nobody, including Mr Stanley, denies that a homicide took place. That is not the issue. To find someone guilty of murder, intent to kill has to be proven, and it was not.

I do not know if self-defence was considered in this case or not. I would, however, consider any such claim to be valid.

The jury apparently deliberated for fifteen hours. That is a reasonable indication that they considered all factors quite carefully and thoroughly.

Your second sentence adds little. A good lawyer could still get a guilty client off under the right circumstances with reverse onus. It would be a much bigger challenge, yes, but would you rather see more potentially innocent people go to jail than potentially guilty people be let off?

There have been more than enough people sentenced for crimes that they did not commit as it is. Reversing the onus would inflate that number and is repugnant.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 13, 2018, 13:35:26
Good article on why the conservatives might need another 4 years in opposition.

John Ivison: Scheer’s climate policy alienating potential new Conservative voters: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-scheers-climate-policy-alienating-potential-new-conservative-voters

I agree. The issue he has to cross is a viable, workable and politically acceptable alternative to carbon taxes. I don't believe those taxes are really reducing emissions on their own-the US is doing that without such a tax.
Need a better alternative than taxes, or causing scarce supply when the resource is in abundance, and especially causing/allowing higher pump and heating prices for no good reason.
Scheer would do better talking about escalating household costs, taking a page from Jack Laytons playboy.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 13, 2018, 13:46:01
The real problem with a carbon tax is that the public has no faith that the government would use it for its intended purpose. I think people are willing to pay, if they can be assured that they are getting what they pay for. The other issue of course is that there's only one source of tax revenue, and that's the individual. Tax corporations all you want; in the end the individual pays.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 14:27:38
Some enlightenment from two lawyers in two letters in today's Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/letters/feb-13-justice-system-under-microscope-plus-other-letters-to-the-editor/article37947644/

The Stanley verdict

The purpose of a criminal trial is to determine if each essential element of the offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Murder contains two essential elements: actus reus and mens rea. Actus reus is the commission of the act, killing the victim, and mens rea is the accused having intended to do so. In the Gerald Stanley case, the actus reus was clearly proven and not denied by the accused. The problem was the mens rea – did the accused intend to kill the victim or was it an accident?

To secure a conviction, the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Colten Boushie (Stanley Acquitted In Shooting Death Of Boushie, Feb. 10). The jury wrestled with this issue for 15 hours before deciding unanimously that the Crown had failed to do so.

The length of deliberation suggests there was some evidence that he had an intention but not enough to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is how the system is supposed to work. The English legal system of criminal justice, which is the law in Canada, is the only system that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is intended to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of an offence. I sympathize with the victim's family and understand that it is difficult for them to accept the verdict but they must try to understand what has happened here. The jury was called upon to decide, based only on the evidence presented to them, whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stanley intended to kill Mr. Boushie. After deliberating for 15 hours, it decided that the Crown had failed to do so, and as a result Mr. Stanley was found not guilty.

Garth M. Evans, Q.C., Vancouver

.......................................

Before we throw trial by jury under the bus in favour of some other system, three considerations:

We already have a robust mechanism for determining if the jury is biased. The challenge for cause procedure results in questioning jurors before they are sworn. It is often used when racial prejudices might influence the jury. The Crown chose not to use it here. The fact the Crown did not engage that procedure does not mean the rest of the system is wrong or needs to be changed.

Second, context matters: If media reports are accurate, protesters greeted the jury pool before they were selected, calling on them to find Mr. Stanley guilty regardless of what the evidence demonstrated. The identity of jury members is public information. It would be perceived by the accused that it would be much harder for someone who lived on reserve with the demonstrators to resist that call than it would be for someone unknown to the demonstrators.

When we politicize the outcome of a trial by protests, we make it much harder for the accused to feel comfortable that a particular juror will decide based on the evidence instead of his or her ethnic identification.

The underlying problem is that there are few Indigenous people in the jury pool. Justice Frank Iacobucci commented on that problem and made recommendations to fix it. That is the urgent reform needed.

Brian Casey, Q.C., Dartmouth, N.S.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 13, 2018, 14:39:06
I myself find it hard to believe there were few indigenous people in the jury pool. That there were no or few indigenous people on the actual jury is another matter.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 14:57:30
From something that I came across yesterday - and cannot remember where - initial selection was/is done (in that area/province at least) from the provincial health card database, as it was considered to be the most universal/inclusive single database. Those living on-reserve, however, are covered federally rather than provincially and are therefore not included in the invitation process - and were probably quite happy about that situation until now.

Few reserve residents pay income tax and many otherwise-eligible jurors may not have driver's licences. What other provincially-accessible databases exist that could be added?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 13, 2018, 15:06:17
Why do you find it hard to believe, Whiskey601?

The First Nation community from which the victim came is a little more than 50 Km from the site of the event that gave rise to the trial.

Now, I don't know about Saskatchewan, but around here, that would mean that there is a very high likelihood that the two communities are located in different judicial districts. Now, when jury panels (the group of potential jurors called out for selection) are created, they are usually selected at random from a list of sort for the judicial district where the trial takes place. You don't get people from all over the province, save in very specific types of cases where you know that finding local people without involvement or bias is near impossible for some reason or other.

So it is perfectly possible, I would almost say probable, that there were few First Nation communities or member from First Nations in the district where the trial was held, and therefore few to be on the randomly selected panel.

And Loachman: In Quebec, we use the electoral list. While many members of the various First Nations make the conscious decision not to vote - for political reasons - they are nevertheless usually entered on the electoral list.
   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 13, 2018, 15:26:47
Whiskey601

I think this may have been a part of why there were no First Nations on that jury:

Quote
Second, context matters: If media reports are accurate, protesters greeted the jury pool before they were selected, calling on them to find Mr. Stanley guilty regardless of what the evidence demonstrated. The identity of jury members is public information. It would be perceived by the accused that it would be much harder for someone who lived on reserve with the demonstrators to resist that call than it would be for someone unknown to the demonstrators.

Meanwhile, here is another perspective:

http://thepoliceinsider.com/boushie-case-exposes-cracks-in-leadership/

Quote
Boushie Case Exposes Cracks in Leadership
February 12, 2018 7:35 am
by James G Jewell

I like a good murder mystery.
The Colten Boushie case was anything but.
There was never a question regarding who killed Mr. Boushie.
Gerald Stanley was the shooter, he admitted it and his defence attorney acknowledged the fact in court.
The justification for the killing was, however, in dispute.
Was it an intentional killing, as the second degree murder charge laid by police seemed to suggest, or was it an accidental killing as Mr. Stanley described during his sworn testimony in his defence.
The purported facts are also in dispute.
Some suggest Boushie was a criminal intent on committing criminal acts on Mr. Stanley’s farm while others portray him as an innocent victim simply looking for assistance in a time of need.
I won’t delve into the minutia of the case because I prefer to rely on facts when I conduct analysis and form opinions.
The required facts are contained in the transcripts of the criminal proceedings in the Gerald Stanley murder trial and are not available to the public just yet.
As such, the only people who can argue they have a truly “informed” opinion would be the people who attended or participated in the trial.
People  like the jurors who rendered a not guilty verdict in the matter.
A verdict that has sparked anger, outrage and protest across the Country.
Indigenous people blamed the all white jury and cited racism as the prevailing impediment to achieving justice for Colten.
Was racism to blame for the verdict?
Do we need to examine the manner in which juries are selected in our Country?
Do Canadian juries need to more diverse?
These will be topics of much debate moving forward.
As I watched main stream and social media accounts it dawned on me I haven’t seen this kind of societal racial divide since the OJ Simpson case.
In that case, African-Americans celebrated OJ’s acquital while white America gasped in horror, disgusted that a killer of two innocent people had been set free.
Set free by a predominately African-American jury.
The parallels to the Boushie case are obvious.
The public reaction in both cases are strongly divided on racial lines.
Indigenous Canadians largely believe a miscarriage of justice took place by Stanley’s acquittal while Caucasian Canadians express the sentiment it was Colten Boushie’s choice to engage in criminal activity that ultimately caused his demise.
The racial divide may be unprecedented in our Country.
”We’re in a very troubled place, not only as First Nations, not only as Indigenous peoples, but Canadians as a whole,” said Sheldon Wuttunee former Chief of the Red Pheasant First Nation.
(https://i2.wp.com/thepoliceinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/E59C9509-7F11-4575-8728-13D87DD60417.jpeg)
Justin Trudeau (Twitter)
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau seized the opportunity to express his condolences to the Boushie family via Twitter.
He took it further in a press conference held in the United States…
“I’m not going to comment on the process that led to this point today, but I am going to say we have come to this point as a country far too many times. I know Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians alike know that we have to do better.”
It was an interesting choice of words…
”We have to do better.”
The inference was clear.
The Canadian Justice Minister  Jody Wilson-Raybould took it a step further;
(https://i0.wp.com/thepoliceinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/44CA67D7-D730-4731-BDEE-661E3B230C19.jpeg)
Jody Wilson-Raybould (Twitter)
”As a country we can and must do better, I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians.”
If you take her comments in context, Wilson-Raybould is committed to seeking justice for all Canadians….well, all Canadians with the obvious exception of Gerald Stanley.
There you have it.
The Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian Justice Minister both posting comments on social media that clearly undermine the verdict and the entire Canadian Justice system.
It might be another unprecedented angle to the story.
We’ve seen enough controversial killings in recent history to know the families mourning the losses ultimately demand justice.
Justice to them often means conviction and jail, nothing less.
The evidence, the truth, the facts don’t always matter.
The pre-incident conduct of the decedent, criminal or not, compliant or not (in cases of police deadly force), often don’t matter.
Unfortunately, a person’s perception of justice is entirely dependent on which side of the fence they stand on…
We witnessed that phenomena in the Michael Brown, Terrence Crutcher and countless other cases in the United States.
It’s completely understandable.
I can sympathize to an extent.
What I struggle with is the lack of discretion Canadian Government officials of the highest office have when it comes to their ability to refrain from rushing to judgement in a controversial case such as this.
I don’t believe either of these high-ranking officials were equipped with enough factual information to condemn the Canadian Justice system in the manner they did.
They didn’t sit through days of court proceedings hearing the evidence.
They weren’t able to assess the credibility of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Crown.
They weren’t able to assess the credibility of Mr. Stanley when he provided his testimony.
They weren’t present in the jury room when guilt or innocence was debated.
The jurors who acquitted Mr. Stanley were.
That’s was their job.
They did their job.
They heard the evidence and acquitted Mr. Stanley.
The comments made by Justin Trudeau and Jody Raybould-Wilson not only undermined the criminal justice system, they sewed the seeds of intense anger, hatred and division.
That was not their job.
Their job was to promote reconciliation and healing.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 13, 2018, 15:47:23
I believe there were a few FN persons called to the jury pool but that the defense used peremptory challenges to dismiss them.

I think we have two situations that are unfortunately linked because of this trial.

1) A verdict that some people didn't like.  The problem is that most people don't understand the justice system.  Like in the Gomeshi trial.  Non credible witness can raise reasonable doubt.

2) A system that is perceived as not properly or fairly serving a segment of society

Both issues are being mixed in together when really they should be looked at separately.

On one side I accept the verdict from a legal perspective.  I have no doubt that Mr. Stanley felt threatened and feared for himself.  Those kids were up to no good and lost all credibility at trial with changing stories or things that didn't add up.  I also don't believe Mr. Stanley wanted to kill anyone but I don't believe for a second his pistol was for scaring animals and I have a hard time believing that his gun just went off with his finger off the trigger.  But that's just a biased non informed opinion on my part. 

The other side about how we pick juries and how the justice system deal with FN is something that does need addressing but in the proper context and without specific cases like this entering the political debate.  The government says they have to do better.  then stop saying that and do it.  They've had years now to deal with this sort of thing.
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 16:24:37
Ref your first line, from my Reply 520: "The challenge for cause procedure results in questioning jurors before they are sworn. It is often used when racial prejudices might influence the jury. The Crown chose not to use it here. The fact the Crown did not engage that procedure does not mean the rest of the system is wrong or needs to be changed."

No questions were asked, as I understand, but anybody who appeared to be indigenous was rejected anyway - undoubtedly because "racial prejudices might influence the jury".

A bulged spent casing from Mr Stanley's pistol was found. That was used to explain his claim that the weapon fired while the slide was to the rear. The ammunition was around sixty years old and likely stored for some, or all of that, in less-than-ideal conditions, which could explain a hangfire (possible, but almost impossible to prove or disprove).

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 13, 2018, 18:02:13
Reply #516

National Post
Quote
Yet, the polling evidence is convincing – the Conservatives need to attract younger, urban, ethnically diverse voters or they will lose again in 2019.

Any opinions on if they will be able to?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 13, 2018, 18:18:13
From something that I came across yesterday - and cannot remember where - initial selection was/is done (in that area/province at least) from the provincial health card database, as it was considered to be the most universal/inclusive single database. Those living on-reserve, however, are covered federally rather than provincially and are therefore not included in the invitation process - and were probably quite happy about that situation until now.

Few reserve residents pay income tax and many otherwise-eligible jurors may not have driver's licences. What other provincially-accessible databases exist that could be added?

How juries are selected in Saskatchewan:

Quote
A jury is a group of impartial people who listen to the evidence in a court case and render a verdict.  In Saskatchewan, jury trials are only held at Court of Queen's Bench.

In a criminal trial, 12 jurors hear the evidence and decide if the accused person is guilty or not guilty. Before the jury makes their decision, the judge explains the law that they must consider when deciding the verdict. If there is a guilty verdict, the judge will decide what the sentence should be. Criminal jury trials are only held for indictable offences (more serious offences).

In a civil trial, six jurors hear the evidence and determine the issues involved. In civil cases, jury trials are held when one of the parties requests and pays for a jury.

The Jury Regulations, 2000 set out the fees paid to jurors. In criminal matters, jurors are paid $80.00 for each day or part of a day that they sit. In civil matters, jurors are paid $15.00 for each day or part of day that they attend court for the jury selection process. Once a person is sworn in as a juror, they receive $25.00 for each day they sit on the jury.

The Jury Act, 1998 and The Jury Regulations, 2000 are the legislative authority for Saskatchewan's jury selection process.

The Jury Selection Process

First Step: The Summons

When the court needs to assemble a jury, the Sheriff in that judicial district asks the Ministry of Health to provide the required number of names. The names are selected randomly, by computer, from health records. Anyone who is over 18 years of age with a health services number and who lives within that judicial district may be called for jury service. The name and address of the potential juror is the only information provided to the Sheriff.

A document called a "summons" is prepared for each potential juror. It tells the person when to attend court and contains information about the selection process. Once the summons is received, it must be completed and returned within 5 days of receiving it. Failure to return this information and failure to attend court can result in a serious fine.

Second Step: The Judge and Lawyers

People who receive a summons in the mail must attend court for a process called jury selection.

The selection of the jury takes place before the start of the trial. The presiding judge describes the nature of the case to be tried and then makes certain inquires of the jury panel to determine if they are able to act as impartial judges of the facts. The names of the prospective jurors are written on cards that are placed in a box. The court clerk draws the cards from the box and those prospective jurors are asked to come forward.

The lawyers for the parties at trial have the right to challenge prospective jurors without giving any reasons. If this occurs, that person is then asked to return to the body of the courtroom. If the prospective juror is not challenged, he or she is then sworn as a juror. This process continues until all the jurors are chosen. Those members of the jury panel who are not selected are excused from further attendance. Those who are selected will serve as judges of the facts at the trial.

Eligibility for Jury Service

Any Saskatchewan resident who is over the age of 18 and is a Canadian citizen may serve as a juror.  Health records are considered to be the best database available in this province. Every person in Saskatchewan has a health services number which has been randomly assigned by computer. This ensures that everyone is given an equal chance at being called for jury service.

However, some people are excluded from being jurors because of the work they do or their legal status. This includes:

people who are now, or in the past have been, judges, justices of the peace, coroners, lawyers or police officers;
employees of the Ministry of Justice (Saskatchewan), the Department of Justice (Canada) or the Department of the Solicitor General (Canada);
people who work in the administration of justice;
a reeve, councillor or mayor;
a member of a board of education, the Counseil Scolaire Fransaskois, a board of trustees of a school district or a counseil d'ecole;
a member or officer of the Legislative Assembly;
a member of the Privy Council, the Senate or the House of Commons;
a spouse of any of the above people people who are legally confined to an institution; and
people who are certified incompetent.

As well, individuals over age 65 or who have been on a jury within the last two years will be excused. These individuals are not automatically excluded.

The only information considered by the jury selection program is whether the person is over the age of 18 years and whether they have a residential address within the boundaries of the judicial district. There is no information provided to the Sheriff that could enable him or her to judge the age or health of an individual. A person over age 65 can serve on a jury if they wish. However, if they are unable or unwilling, seniors will be automatically excused from jury service upon request. All that is required is a phone call to the Sheriff's office or filling out and returning the form enclosed with the summons.

Requests to be excused from jury service can also be made if:

    serving on a jury would cause personal or financial hardship;
    a person is suffering from illness;
    a person is not capable of performing the duties of a juror; or
    a person is a practicing member of a religious group with which jury service is incompatible.

 Article Link (https://sasklawcourts.ca/home/court-of-queen-s-bench/jury-information)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 13, 2018, 18:24:07
A more realistic goal for The Tories for next year is to play a long game and aim to become kingmakers to a Liberal minority government. Avoid courting the social extremists, focus on the economy and jobs, produce a workable and credible program to protect the environment without wrecking the economy, and they have a very good chance. I very much doubt the NDP will ever repeat their last performance.

For the record, after a life of voting Tory, I voted Liberal last time. But, like a goodly number  of Canadians, I could go back to the Big Blue Tent.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 13, 2018, 18:41:54
Quote from: pbi

For the record, after a life of voting Tory, I voted Liberal last time.

Genuinely curious, mind if I ask what motivated you to vote Liberal?
[I found this Conservatives were getting cocky, all but abandoned the CAF and firearm owners (two biggies for me) but their stance on refugees was what sealed the blue deal for me this go.]
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 13, 2018, 18:44:56
Why do you find it hard to believe, Whiskey601?

The First Nation community from which the victim came is a little more than 50 Km from the site of the event that gave rise to the trial.

Now, I don't know about Saskatchewan, but around here, that would mean that there is a very high likelihood that the two communities are located in different judicial districts. Now, when jury panels (the group of potential jurors called out for selection) are created, they are usually selected at random from a list of sort for the judicial district where the trial takes place. You don't get people from all over the province, save in very specific types of cases where you know that finding local people without involvement or bias is near impossible for some reason or other.

So it is perfectly possible, I would almost say probable, that there were few First Nation communities or member from First Nations in the district where the trial was held, and therefore few to be on the randomly selected panel.


This, among other things, is why I find it hard to believe: http://aptnnews.ca/2018/02/12/justice-minister-examine-jury-selection-saskatchewan-verdict/

"Now let us read about the jury selection, from the Globe and Mail
“More than 700 people from across the massive Battlefords district were issued summons to appear as part of the jury panel.
Approximately 200 showed up in person on Monday morning.
When Chief Justice Martel Popescul asked whether anyone needed to be excused as potential jurors, a long line quickly formed.
About 70 people, roughly a third of those present, pleaded to be let go,
Nearly 50, including about a “dozen people who appeared Indigenous ”, were excused.”
Those “dozen people who appeared Indigenous ” were 4.9% of the 200 and more that showed up Monday for jury duty but asked to be excused.


Now, I do not like the 'appeared to be indigenous" part of that, and I cannot source the Globe and Mail article. But it does suggest but not prove that the stories about this are not lining up with the many narratives on the jury pool. The Battleford judicial district is apparently "massive" whatever that means.  :pop:   

The federal government is responsible for paying the NIHB benefits for health care costs of FN, but does that mean they are excluded from provincial health care system registration and by extension the jury selection system? Is that known as fact or a supposition? I'm just asking.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 13, 2018, 18:47:47
Some information from Stats Canada on the Aboriginal population in Saskatchewan:

Quote
One in ten Aboriginal people in Canada live in Saskatchewan

    Numbering 157,740,Note 1 11% of the Aboriginal identity population in Canada lived in Saskatchewan in 2011. They made up 16% of the total population of that province.

    Almost four in ten Aboriginal people in Saskatchewan resided in Saskatoon (15%), Regina (13%) and Prince Albert (10%). While they represented nearly 10% of the total populations living in each of Saskatoon and Regina, they made up 39% of the total population of Prince Albert and 22% of the population of North Battleford.

    Saskatchewan was home to 103,205 First Nations people, 52,450 Métis, and 290 Inuit,Note 2 with the rest reporting otherNote 3 Aboriginal identities (1,120) or more than one Aboriginal identity (670). From 2006 to 2011, the First Nations population in Saskatchewan increased by 13%, while the Métis population rose by 9%, and the Inuit population increased by 37%.Note 4

    Of those who identified as First Nations people in 2011, nine in ten (91% or 94,155) reported being a Treaty Indian or a Registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada. Over half (53% or 54,950) of all First Nations people (57% of First Nations people who were Treaty or Registered Indians, or 53,940 individuals) lived on a reserve.

Full article can be found here (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-656-x/89-656-x2016009-eng.htm).

And for those not familiar with the area, there is the city of North Battleford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Battleford) and the town of Battleford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleford) (aka "the Old Town"), two very different urban areas. Collectively, they are known as "the Battlefords". Populations (2011) of 13,888 and 4,065 respectively.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 13, 2018, 18:50:51
A pause for thought and reflection.

On the Saskatchewan Legal front, this is escaping the MSM:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/drunk-driver-who-killed-family-of-4-moved-to-healing-lodge-after-serving-1-month-1.3300680

Quote
Drunk driver who killed family of 4 moved to 'healing lodge' after serving 1 month
Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca Writer
@JoshDehaas
Published Friday, February 24, 2017 7:44PM EST
Last Updated Saturday, February 25, 2017 1:01PM EST

A man who lost his son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren to a drunk driver says he was disappointed to learn that the woman sentenced to 10 years in prison for their deaths was moved to a minimum-security “healing lodge” just one month after her sentencing.

Jordan and Chanda Van de Vorst, along with their children Kamryn and Miguire, were killed last January when Catherine McKay ran a stoplight and crashed her SUV into their vehicle on Highway 11 north of Saskatoon.

McKay pleaded guilty last summer to four counts of impaired driving causing death. A joint submission by the Crown and defence stated she had consumed at least seven drinks and had been driving at 120 km/h.

McKay is living at the Okimaw Ohci healing lodge, a minimum-security facility that incorporates Aboriginal teachings into its rehabilitation programs. It has residential houses instead of cellblocks and inmates, including McKay, are allowed supervised day release.

Jordan Van de Vorst’s father Lou Van de Vorst says he is shocked that someone who killed four people could be transferred from prison so quickly, adding that the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.

“We miss our kids every day,” Van de Vorst said. “More than once a day, my wife and I think of our children and our grandchildren and my daughter in law."

Corrections Canada would not comment on McKay’s specific case, but said that each offender gets assessed at intake and an individual rehabilitation program is made.

“Indigenous programs target offenders’ needs in the context of indigenous history, culture and spirituality while at the same time addressing the factors related to criminal behaviour,” Corrections Canada said.

McKay’s lawyer Leslie Sullivan said that she believes healing lodges make a positive impact.

Regina mental health councillor and residential school survivor Grant Severight also defended the use of a healing lodge for McKay.

“She didn’t get up that morning to say, ‘I’m going to go onto a highway in a drunken stupor, I’m going to run into this car and I’m going to kill people,’” he said. “She never planned that.”

Prisoner advocate John Hutton, who leads the John Howard Society of Manitoba, said that prison is not the right place for someone who suffers from addiction issues and does not present a danger to society.

He said McKay will likely be eligible for parole within a few years whether she’s at a healing lodge or not, and “she’s going to make a better use of that (time) in the healing lodge.”

Van de Vorst said he believes in rehabilitation but wants to see more consideration for victims. He also said he hopes McKay’s rehabilitation includes speaking out against impaired driving.

With reports from CTV’s Jill Macyshon and CTV Saskatoon’s Mark Villani

Two Legal Standards (three if you want to include the "elite") for Canadians is not just. 

Here we have a First Nations person basically getting off scot free after killing four people.  If one wants to question why tensions exist, then look at how our Legal SYSTEMS do not match and treat ALL Canadians equally. 

I would say that this, although well intended, is not working:
Quote
“Indigenous programs target offenders’ needs in the context of indigenous history, culture and spirituality while at the same time addressing the factors related to criminal behaviour,” Corrections Canada said.
The problem(s) is being treated "reactively" and not "proactively".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 13, 2018, 18:51:28
The federal government is responsible for paying the NIHB benefits for health care costs of FN, but does that mean they are excluded from provincial health care system registration and by extension the jury selection system? Is that known as fact or a supposition? I'm just asking.

I can't speak for elsewhere, but not in MB, and not in ON. Both provinces issue health numbers for both FN and non-FN residents.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 13, 2018, 19:04:44
Hangfire.


https://youtu.be/_9umwdE8VoY
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 13, 2018, 19:28:29
On the CBC Ottawa afternoon radio drive home show today at about 1710hrs, l listened to a Criminal Defence Lawyer from Toronto being interviewed.

The subject was on the Justice Minister and PM weighing in on the trial, meeting the Bouchie family members today and the controversy of the trial, verdict and justice system and how these two individuals actions will have ramifications.

This lawyer absolutely savaged both Ministers, in particular the PM.  I know this radio segment will be available to listen to on the shows website in a day or so if one was so inclined.  It was interesting to hear this man break things down in a clear, concise and understandable manner.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 13, 2018, 19:59:34
Unfortunately, Parliament seems to be full of cloth ears regarding this subject.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2018, 21:00:32
Meanwhile, in the Province at the Centre of the Universe:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/12/dropping-brown-has-helped-ontario-tories-poll.html

Dropping Brown has helped Ontario Tories: poll

PC leadership hopefuls Christine Elliott, Caroline Mulroney and Doug Ford are all more popular than Premier Kathleen Wynne, a new poll suggests.

"Elliott, a former MPP, was the most popular – 46 per cent of respondents would cast a ballot for a PC party led by her compared to 23 per cent for Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats, 20 per cent for Wynne’s Liberals, and 7 per cent for Mike Schreiner’s Greens.

"Rookie PC candidate Mulroney’s Tories were at 41 per cent compared to 25 per cent for Horwath’s NDP, 22 per cent for Wynne’s Liberals, and 8 per cent for Schreiner’s Greens.

"Former Toronto councillor Ford’s PC party was at 39 per cent compared to 24 per cent apiece for Horwath’s NDP and Wynne’s Liberals, and 7 per cent for Schreiner’s Greens."

By comparison:

"When no leaders’ names are surveyed, the Tories are at 43 per cent, the Liberals at 28 per cent, the NDP at 20 per cent, and the Greens are at 8 per cent."

"In January, the company’s monthly tracking survey found Brown’s Tories at 35 per cent, Wynne’s Liberals at 34 per cent, Horwath’s New Democrats at 23 per cent, and Schreiner’s Greens at six per cent."

I was already leaning towards Mrs Elliott, but Mr Ford would be more entertaining.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 13, 2018, 21:40:43
I was already leaning towards Mrs Elliott, but Mr Ford would be more entertaining.

When Doug was Councillor for Ward 2, people were ( mostly ) able to work around him and his equally entertaining brother the mayor.

It will be even more entertaining watching Doug lead negotiations with teacher's unions, doctors, correctional officers etc.  :)

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 13, 2018, 22:13:58
Quote
A man who lost his son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren to a drunk driver says he was disappointed to learn that the woman sentenced to 10 years in prison for their deaths was moved to a minimum-security “healing lodge” just one month after her sentencing.

Do you think Mr. Lou Van de Vorst will get a personal interview with the PM with all the accompanied photos to be used in selected markets in the next election? Let alone meet with other Ministers of the Crown.

Second photo ref: https://www.facebook.com/colten.boushie
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 13, 2018, 22:53:21
Do you think Mr. Lou Van de Vorst will get a personal interview with the PM with all the accompanied photos to be used in selected markets in the next election? Let alone meet with other Ministers of the Crown.

And old male white settler? Surely you jest.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 14, 2018, 06:41:52
From the Huffington Post:

Robert-Falcon Ouellette's Remarks On Gerald Stanley Are 'Reckless': Grand Chief (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/12/robert-falcon-ouellettes-remarks-on-gerald-stanley-are-reckless-grand-chief_a_23359774/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000008)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 14, 2018, 06:51:05
There is so much wrong being said by both sides about the Gerald Stanley trial

There is so much wrong being said about the death of Colten Boushie and the trial of Gerald Stanley, it’s hard to know where to begin.

First off, let me start by saying I covered the North Battleford Provincial Court and Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench from 2004-2008 for the Battlefords News-Optimist, averaging one to three days in any given week. The only people who spent more time in those courts were the court staff, RCMP, security, judges and lawyers.

More on link provided:
http://www.newsoptimist.ca/opinion/columnists/there-is-so-much-wrong-being-said-by-both-sides-about-the-gerald-stanley-trial-1.23171591
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 14, 2018, 08:48:07
A very nicely put together article. A copy should be sent to the PM and his ministers - top of the reading pile.

Thanks for digging and sharing that, Halifax Tar.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 14, 2018, 09:27:11
Gerald Stanley still faces two counts of firearms offences which carry a maximum of two years jail.

I wonder when the PM or justice minister  will suggest he's guilty and suggest he get the maximum sentence.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 14, 2018, 09:52:57
A very nicely put together article. A copy should be sent to the PM and his ministers - top of the reading pile.

I doubt it would make a difference and sadly the horse is out of the barn anyhow.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 14, 2018, 10:37:47
From the Huffington Post:

Robert-Falcon Ouellette's Remarks On Gerald Stanley Are 'Reckless': Grand Chief (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/02/12/robert-falcon-ouellettes-remarks-on-gerald-stanley-are-reckless-grand-chief_a_23359774/?ncid=fcbklnkcahpmg00000008)

The MP from Winnipeg had the nerve to go off script and will now be outed as an APPLE from the rest of the FN Leadership.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 14, 2018, 10:59:51
In perspective:  Colten Boushie was, I believe, out on parole for previous offences including violation of parole.  Perhaps when examining the laws in this case people should consider the lax system that failed to protect Stanley by incarcerating Boushie when it was evident that he had no intention of correcting his behaviour.  Indeed, I suspect that he was in violation of his existing parole conditions on the day he died by a) being in possession of a firearm and b) consumption of alcohol.  Or perhaps if his tribe had insisted that the court mandated conditions be met he wouldn't have been out cruising with his friends looking for a vehicle to steal.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2018, 11:40:54

But he was a good boy.   ::)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 14, 2018, 11:43:19
Trudeau is announcing changes to the legal framework "to protect Indigenous rights" for First nations and Indigenous people in the commons today.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-to-announce-legal-framework-to-protect-indigenous-rights-1.3803111

Apparently this was already planned, no reason to doubt that, right? "Government sources said the announcement was planned ahead of the Boushie family’s arrival in Ottawa."

Cheers
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2018, 11:45:26
Trudeau is announcing changes to the legal framework "to protect Indigenous rights" for First nations and Indigenous people in the commons today.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-to-announce-legal-framework-to-protect-indigenous-rights-1.3803111

Apparently this was already planned, no reason to doubt that, right? "Government sources said the announcement was planned ahead of the Boushie family’s arrival in Ottawa."

Cheers

I have no doubt that it was planned or being planned but tis latest incident probably put their feet to the fire.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 14, 2018, 11:58:42
Quote
I have no doubt that it was planned or being planned but tis latest incident probably put their feet to the fire.

Just like the VAC return to lifetime pensions that was one of the items in the LPC election platform 2+ years ago and the new VAC benefits projected in 2 years. The Liberals sure move fast on their priorities as long as they sense a benefit.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 14, 2018, 12:37:10
It doesn't sound to me to be about "fair" treatment before criminal courts. It seems to have to do with a framework for recognition and enforcement of the constitutionally protected "indigenous" rights. Those have usually to do with the fiduciary obligations of the Crown, the recognition of the right to be consulted, and hunting/fishing rights, etc.

The mention in the article that the First Nations and/or their members often have to resort to the courts to have them enforced would indicate that this is the nature of what will be discussed here. And, yes, if that is what it is, then the Liberals had announced they were working in that direction a long time ago. So no surprise, just a weird timing issue.

On the other hand, to me it's another slap in the face of Parliament and respect for the elected officials - but on that one most recent governments have been equally deficient - with this damn way of announcing at the last minute that you will introduce something before the Commons without proper notice, so that the non-government members are deprived of any reasonable time to prepare and research the potential problems and counter points to the government's position, the government itself having been preparing its arguments and "research" with a long lead time.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 14, 2018, 12:58:29
They shouldn't have to go to court every time to have their treaty rights and subsequent contractual rights enforced. The  Crown is usually the respondent in the majority of these types claims, they really must "have to do better."  And as far as I'm concerned, it really is a "they", I don't appreciate a bunch of government lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians making broad statements about white guilt when most Canadians have repeatedly told, suggested, protested, written and spoken to the very same government to start doing the right thing. For decades now this has been the case, so yes get moving on those matters.
But if this idiotic government starts to change or interfere with fundamental legal rights by  creating an apartheid criminal prosecution system with built in legal privileges that excuses or amplifies conduct of one over the other in race, ancestry, spirit, creed or religion, gender (or binary) then no, I do not support that at all, and I do not think either the Constitution or the Charter creates any Federal power to do so unilaterally.  The provinces have responsibility for the administration of Justice. The only one that will step up, maybe, is Quebec.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 14, 2018, 13:42:42
Just like the VAC return to lifetime pensions that was one of the items in the LPC election platform 2+ years ago and the new VAC benefits projected in 2 years. The Liberals sure move fast on their priorities as long as they sense a benefit.

They realize they're loosing CAF votes so doubling down on FN votes.

I'm still blown away by the PM talking about this case like he is.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 14, 2018, 14:06:35
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-could-have-been-me-some-farmers-support-murder-acquittal-of-gerald-stanley

'It could have been me': Some farmers say they are easy targets, donate to Gerald Stanley fund

'We have a problem here. It's not a race problem. It's a criminal problem'

"Mark Pashovitz believes he and other Saskatchewan farmers are easy targets.

"They live in rural, isolated areas where it often takes police longer to respond to crimes. And their farm vehicles and equipment are tempting for thieves.

"That’s why he said he recently donated $1,000 to an online fundraiser to help pay the legal bills of Gerald Stanley, a white farmer acquitted last week of murder in the 2016 shooting death of a 22-year-old Cree man."

The GoFundMe page for Stanley, set up last Friday - the same day a jury found him not guilty of second-degree murder - had raised over $101,000 by Monday afternoon. Many donors were listed as anonymous, and some signed as “concerned landowner,” “previous victim,” and “one less thief”."

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-stoking-fiery-division-over-the-boushie-verdict-doesnt-show-you-care

Boushie verdict doesn't show you care

It is difficult to see a path toward reconciliation with so many, including Trudeau, reinforcing the impression among some Aboriginals that the courts are a bigoted scam

"If Stanley truly believes what happened was an accident, there must be at least some compassion for a man who will live the rest of his days with the knowledge that he took a human life under frightening and fast-moving circumstances. Also, possibly, living in the fear of facing vigilante justice, with so many whipping up hatred and hysteria by claiming this white guy right here, in this photo, basically got away with racist murder and we all know where he farms.

"Rampant crime and ineffective policing are a huge issue in the rural parts of Western Canada. And it cannot seriously be argued that citizens everywhere would only object to repeated thefts and burglaries if the perpetrators were exclusively white. Disagreement over the verdict is one thing, but to suggest that Saskatchewan in 2018 is Mississippi burning is a reckless calumny."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2018, 15:27:18
They realize they're loosing CAF votes so doubling down on FN votes.

I'm still blown away by the PM talking about this case like he is.

To be honest I doubt it very much.  the CAF is not really an effective voting block.  Like all of Canadian society many people vote for various reasons.  Plus spread out and some voting in different ridings they aren't all that much of a concern to the Liberals any more than they were a concern to the CPC.  Even when you add family that might be voting in a different riding than their CAF family member.

it is more likely that the FN vote is more important, especially since they voted in higher numbers last election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-indigenous-turnout-1.3365926

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 14, 2018, 15:31:47
It seems not everything in the Patrick Brown saga is as initially reported:

CTV News (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-accusers-stand-by-allegations-1.3802657)

Of course that's not the headline...

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 14, 2018, 18:10:57
I doubt he is squeaky clean, (who is?) but it sounds like the stories morph to fit the blow back (no pun intended).
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 15, 2018, 00:03:30
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-alberta-b-c-clash-just-the-latest-result-of-petrophobes-war-on-the-oilsands

Rex Murphy: In pipeline wars, Trudeau stands as always with Paris, never Alberta - 9 Feb 18

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127408.0.html


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 02:54:40
Written by somebody who lacks knowledge of how firearms function, but did his best (reporters cannot reasonably be expected to know everything about everything):

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/gerald-stanleys-magical-gun-the-extremely-unlikely-defence-that-secured-his-acquittal

Gerald Stanley’s 'magical gun’: The extremely unlikely defence that secured his acquittal

For Gerald Stanley’s version of events to make sense, two improbable things had to occur simultaneously

"No firearms expert has been able to fully explain or reproduce the “freak accident” that Gerald Stanley claims caused his gun to fire unexpectedly into the head of Colten Boushie.

"The result is what David Tanovich, co-editor of Canadian Bar Review, said was a case of a “magical gun.”

Stanley’s acquittal hinged on a claim of hangfire, an extremely rare scenario in which a cartridge discharges several seconds after it is struck by the firing pin.

"Even then, Boushie should still have survived if not for a second extremely specific malfunction that could not be replicated by experts testing Stanley’s gun."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 15, 2018, 03:41:54
Trudeau promises new legal framework for Indigenous people.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-speech-indigenous-rights-1.4534679   :facepalm:


e: Already posted.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 15, 2018, 05:38:40
Once again Canadaland spouts all farmers are racist and the 5 people in the car are blameless in their actions.

http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/patrick-brown-vs-reputation/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: EpicBeardedMan on February 15, 2018, 06:10:53
That picture of Trudeau holding the FN woman is so cringy...my god...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 09:18:44
http://torontosun.com/news/national/malcolm-half-of-prospective-boushie-jurors-were-aboriginal-says-member-of-jury-pool

MALCOLM: Half of prospective Boushie jurors were Aboriginal, says member of jury pool

Candice Malcolm

Published: February 13, 2018
Updated: February 13, 2018 7:40 PM EST

"The person estimates that more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.

"As the prospective juror describes, some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury.

"“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,” the person said of the Aboriginal people who remained. This account comes from one individual who spoke with the Sun, and has not yet been corroborated by other witnesses.

"“The thing that was the most shocking to me was the fact that they were so audible from where I was sitting (across the room) and there were police scattered throughout the room. No one stopped them.”

"Of the remaining potential jurors, “everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,” the person said, whose own number was not selected."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 10:20:05
http://edmontonsun.com/opinion/columnists/after-boushie-case-are-we-headed-for-gladue-2-0/wcm/95447d0e-6ceb-4ad9-948e-1600e3d5dd68

GUNTER: After Boushie case, are we headed for Gladue 2.0?

Lorne Gunter

Published: February 13, 2018

Updated: February 13, 2018 2:09 PM MST

"In the spring of 2016, when the sexual assault trial of former CBC host Jian Ghomeshi failed to produce the verdict the Trudeau government wanted, the government decided to change the law to make it even harder for men to defend themselves against rape allegations.

"Canada at the time already had one of the toughest “rape shields” in the world – a set of laws and judicial precedents that made it difficult to raise a woman’s past sexual behaviour in court, thereby making it harder for a defendant to establish the alleged victim had given consent.
I wouldn’t trust Ghomeshi around my wife or daughter, but that’s not the point.

"Because his defence lawyers had used his accusers’ emails and texts to expose serious inconsistencies between the accusers’ post-attack behaviour towards Ghomeshi and the claims they were making to police and prosecutors, the Trudeau Liberals changed Canadian law to make it very difficult to introduce an alleged victim’s electronic communications “of a sexual nature” or “for a sexual purpose.” This made it even harder than it had been for an accused to establish he had reasonable grounds to believe the alleged victim had consented.

"The underlying message of the amendments was: Due process and reasonable doubt are unimportant next to social justice for women. Therefore, it’s justifiable to stack the deck to make sure that when men are accused, they are found guilty.

"Now in the wake of the Gerald Stanley verdict in Saskatchewan, are we headed for a similar Liberal deck-stacking against those accused of crimes against Indigenous people?"
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 15, 2018, 11:02:14
Sounding more and more like a Liberal hit job. I hope that's proven quickly to clearly indicate how crooked the ON Liberals are.

Further to ModlrMike's post, this just published.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4535373?__twitter_impression=true

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127409.0.html
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 15, 2018, 11:46:19
Written by somebody who lacks knowledge of how firearms function, but did his best (reporters cannot reasonably be expected to know everything about everything):


Yet when I search the Internet for Tokarev Hand Gun misfires, I see they are aplenty.
I have my CCJ students working on a proven as fact, assertions not proven, lore and myth, fabrication and fiction project on this entire file. It's good to see young people wake up to all of the distortion fields on such a crucial issue, especially since some will be working in this space. Not making any friends with the SJW faculty though!

"PSE leaders issue statements on Colton Boushie verdict
“I haven't seen a day like this since I've been at the university,” said Laurentian University Interim President Pierre Zundel of the reaction he saw in his university community following the not-guilty verdict in the case involving the death of Colton Boushie. “Laurentian University is committed to reconciliation,” reads a statement from Zundel. “That means we will dig deep and help create a justice system that works for all people, including those it currently fails most consistently, namely Indigenous peoples.” Queen’s University Principal Daniel Woolf also issued a statement of condolence to Boushie’s friends and family, which came in addition to a candlelight vigil held by the school’s Indigenous Law Students’ Alliance and the Office of Indigenous Initiatives on Tuesday night. A number of other schools across the country also released statements and held solidarity events in the wake of the verdict."

As a side note, I was surprised how many of the students own or have used firearms, roughy half of the class even though the sporting club has been banned, including biathlon. (I would have thought that anything starts with Bi would survive, guess not.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 15, 2018, 13:30:18
Here is what I was talking about earlier, in terms of "the other side of the story", from the SK farming community:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/stanley-verdict-again-raising-concerns-over-rural-crime-1.4535146 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/stanley-verdict-again-raising-concerns-over-rural-crime-1.4535146)

One could argue whether this should have been presented earlier, but at least it's out there.

Now, will the PM or a Minister talk with these farmers? Marginalizing them or avoiding them like nuclear waste will only make this problem worse. Its very clear that the CCC doesn't allow us to kill to protect property alone (nor should it), but  obviously these people fear more than just property crimes.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 15, 2018, 15:05:01
There's a single reason why property rights are not enshrined in the constitution - it makes it easier for government to take it from you.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 15, 2018, 16:36:10
Whoah, whoah whoah there! Insofar as real property is concerned" "When Aboriginal title is proven it erases the Crown’s assumed beneficial interest in relation to Aboriginal lands."  A victorious outcome for the Tsilhqot’in Nation from the Supreme Court of Canada.

As for why the right to own or possess property for the rest of us was not included in the Charter:

"Despite the responsible and conservative judicial interpretation given the right to property in the Canadian Bill of Rights, there existed among senior Department of Justice officials a deep-seated fear that the juxtaposition of the right to property and "due process" in a constitutional instrument would give rise to an excessively wide definition of the term "property" and result in extreme substantive interventionism by the Canadian judiciary.  The solution frequently proposed to this perceived problem was to recommend the separation of the right to property from the right to life, liberty and security of the person and to qualify the right to property by some expression which has less substantive import than "due process", such as "according to law" or "natural justice".

https://commonlaw.uottawa.ca/ottawa-law-review/sites/commonlaw.uottawa.ca.ottawa-law-review/files/09_18ottawalrev551986.pdf at page 67.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 18:10:03
Here is what I was talking about earlier, in terms of "the other side of the story", from the SK farming community:

The Reddit thread that I posted earlier is an eye-opener, although I was already generally aware of the problems in rural Saskatchewan (and other provinces; plenty of crack houses in isolated areas with negligible police presence) from people who live there.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 15, 2018, 18:37:53
I live in rural Alberta. There is a known chemical lab two range roads over from me. Thefts are through the roof because it's easy to lift something to exchange for drugs.  My house is a 20 minute drive from the nearest RCMP detachment, 15 if they put their foot into it. That's if the lone member on patrol in this county at night is at the det. If not, it can be up to an hour. The suggestion that a guy should take a beating, or worse, while he waits for the law to show up (if they show up, property crimes are low priority in these here parts) rather than defend "just stuff" is revolting. If I'm outnumber 5-2 in a showdown with an unpredictable adversary, is that not reason enough to fear for my life? I wont comment on the verdict, because I wasn't in the courthouse, and I certainly wasn't in that farmyard, but my sentiments are pretty much the norm out here.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 18:58:18
More deaths are inevitable unless policing is improved, and courts and governments take legitimate concerns seriously. That includes eliminating the practice of letting indigenous criminals, especially the violent ones, off with lighter sentences because of an unfortunate collective history.

Simultaneously, real improvements to the lives of these communities need to be made, but that absolutely must include some effort on their part, and acceptance of their responsibility for the actions of their members, in return.

Until then, these tensions will merely bubble and churn away out of majority sight until they erupt again, in, most likely, a much worse way.

Both sides deserve better, and need to heal very real rifts. I'd not be surprised one whit if limited open warfare breaks out in the future if that does not happen.

I am not optimistic, especially as our "leadership" is encouraging one side and subtly threatening the other.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 15, 2018, 19:26:22
Quote from: Kat Stevens
  The suggestion that a guy should take a beating, or worse, while he waits for the law to show up (if they show up, property crimes are low priority in these here parts) rather than defend "just stuff" is revolting.

100%
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 15, 2018, 19:33:50
More deaths are inevitable unless policing is improved, and courts and governments take legitimate concerns seriously. That includes eliminating the practice of letting indigenous criminals, especially the violent ones, off with lighter sentences because of an unfortunate collective history.


In Canada - and most of the Western World - corrections is focused on recidivism, not punitive. Research suggests that longer sentences has a negative affect on recidivism rates.  Where   corrections needs to improve, is to provide adaqute and appropriate programming to aboriginal inmates.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2018, 20:21:39
I am not necessarily a fan of lengthy sentences, or of simply caging somebody, unless that person has demonstrated and continues to display uncontrollable violent tendencies from which the public deserves, and must have, protection. Public protection absolutely must be paramount. Rehabilitation, if and where possible, is the next priority, which includes meaningful support in the host community to the maximum extent possible.

New York reduced crime drastically, many years ago, by treating even minor crimes seriously. That discouraged many minor offenders from escalating to bigger crimes. They quickly understood that throwing a stone through a window would result in arrest, a cell overnight, a trial, and an appropriate sentence rather than just a stern talking-to and immediate release following a promise to behave.

Failure to effectively discourage/deter is unacceptable - it helps nobody, especially the offenders, who merely, correctly, and rapidly learn that they can get away with almost anything, often until somebody is seriously hurt or killed.

The carrot (and carrots are infinitely preferable if and when they work) to that stick is meaningful provision of work-related training and job-finding assistance.

Band leaders - too-often corrupt and abusive towards their own people - need to be exposed and held to account as part of that process. I would, if able, eliminate payments to bands and, instead, provide payments to individual adults. Band leaders could then apply taxes to their members to support necessary programmes. Ordinary members would then see how much is being taken from them, and would have more interest in controlling excesses (such as the legendary multi-million-dollar off-reserve Chief's house, if such actually exist).

Kind of like democracy.

I have a long-time indigenous friend who lives off of, but works on, a small reserve, and hear regular tales of the favouritism and outright nepotism and other abuses and problems that abound. There are no apparent off-reserve problems as far as I know, like the reserve at the centre of this conflict.

This is not an indigenous problem. many people of any race or ethnicity, when provided with the bare necessities of life and no incentive to do better, such as many welfare recipients. Payments should not be clawed back dollar-for-dollar for money earned from employment, either, as there is no incentive to work if one ends up with the same amount of money.

People who work have much more self-esteem than those who do not, have more regard for the things that they can buy with earned income, more respect for the rights and property of others, and much less need to relieve their boredom by drinking heavily and harassing farmers or other productive people.

People need hope for better futures, preferably via their own efforts but with assistance when needed. The opposite is despair.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 15, 2018, 20:37:19
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/15/patrick-brown-says-hes-suing-ctv-over-sexual-misconduct-allegations.html

Patrick Brown says he's suing CTV over sexual misconduct allegations - 15 Feb 18
'My lawyers are talking to CTV' former Ontario PC leader says in Facebook post.

Extract: “In the court of public opinion and among the many journalists I’ve spoken to, these allegations are now seen for what they are — fictitious and malicious,” the former Ontario PC leader posted Thursday on his Facebook page.



https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/02/15/rcmp-to-investigate-internal-facebook-post-that-said-colten-boushie-got-what-he-deserved.html

RCMP investigating post in officers’ Facebook group claiming Colten Boushie ‘got what he deserved’
- 15 Feb 18
Sources in an APTN report told the network the woman who made the post was an officer.

Extract: The RCMP told the Star that there are no officers with the name linked to the Facebook account, and didn’t confirm whether the woman worked as an officer under another name. Sources in an APTN report told the network the woman was an officer.

“Too bad the kid died but he got what he deserved. How many of us work on or near reserves and are getting fed up with the race card being used every time someone gets caught breaking the law?,” she said. The comment was posted in a Facebook group called “News Stories that Matter to or May Impact RCMP,” which has about 1,200 members.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 15, 2018, 22:11:11
(“Too bad the kid died but he got what he deserved. How many of us work on or near reserves and are getting fed up with the race card being used every time someone gets caught breaking the law?,” she said.

The comment was posted in a Facebook group called “News Stories that Matter to or May Impact RCMP,” which has about 1,200 members.

“Obviously, this remark is absolutely appalling and unacceptable,” Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said in a teleconference with journalists Thursday.  from the STAR)  What is appalling and unacceptable is the sad fact that it is true.  The kid had been getting away with it for years if news reports are to be believed.  Sadly this time it all caught up with him.  It is too bad he died but if it wasn't him and this time it would have been another next time.  And until Goodale is willing to face and address that sad truth, it will happen again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 15, 2018, 23:30:44
Public protection absolutely must be paramount.

Agreed.  However this is not practiced by all.  For example, let's look at the pracrice of some police departments in Ontario. Too often, instead of processing someone who has been arrested -who is well known to the law enforcement in that area - police will drop that person off at a hospital under section 17.  This individual will then be seen by a doctor who will either place this person on a form, or will be discharged.  In both cases, neither results in a charge. 

Now let's say this person is placed on a form.  Now the hospital is responsible to ensure the safety of the public as the hospital has to provide security to watch this person and ensure that they 1) don't harm someone 2) don't harm themselves 3) don't escape.  The staff that are performing these functions do not have the same tools as the police constables who brought this person in. 

Don't get me started on those found to be NCR, but released 2 years after a murder.


New York reduced crime drastically, many years ago, by treating even minor crimes seriously. That discouraged many minor offenders from escalating to bigger crimes. They quickly understood that throwing a stone through a window would result in arrest, a cell overnight, a trial, and an appropriate sentence rather than just a stern talking-to and immediate release following a promise to behave.

Yes, the broken windows theory.  I agree with some points but not all.  What about a person who makes a simple mistake?  Should that mistake follow him /her around for the rest of their life?

Where will the extra resources come from that are needed to process and house those who commit a simple crime? Given that resources are limited, what would you like to trade in exchange?  Should we take money from education? Sports programs? Housing? All of the above have a negative correlation to crime.  How about we take it from health care?

Lastly, and this is a personal opinion. I would rather have 10 people who committed a crime go free, than convict one innocent person.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 16, 2018, 00:13:02
We live with the consequences of our mistakes all the time.  Why should criminal activities allow a person to escape the consequences just because it is a first offense?  The courts generally accept and are very compassionate for a first offender as perhaps they should but they should never let the offender off without some form of suitable chastisement.  But when it is the third and fourth time then enough is enough.  It is time to protect people from an obviously unrepentant individual.  But then again, if we had made it clear to that offender the first time that his behaviour was not acceptable then maybe we wouldn't be dealing with the third time.  Repealing Harper's third offence laws was one of Trudeau's biggest mistakes imho.  People know that they can continue to get away with it.  When that happens eventually someone dies.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 16, 2018, 09:39:51
Quote
The suggestion that a guy should take a beating, or worse, while he waits for the law to show up (if they show up, property crimes are low priority in these here parts) rather than defend "just stuff" is revolting. If I'm outnumber 5-2 in a showdown with an unpredictable adversary, is that not reason enough to fear for my life?

I'm at risk of being misunderstood. In the scenario you described above, your life is clearly and reasonably in danger. As  (or "if") I understand the CCC, it is acceptable to use force, sometimes lethal force, to protect your life in self defense. That's fine.

For a different example, in Canada an armoured truck guard carries a side arm. There is probably a long gun racked inside the truck. But, under the CCC, those weapons are there to protect life, not money or property.

When I was a student at Quantico, a USMC Legal Officer who was a resident of Florida, was explaining US gun laws to all us foreigners. He very proudly stated that in his state, if a policeman came on his property without a warrant, he could shoot him. I thought this was madness.

What I don't believe in, or want, is a society where any trespasser (or passer by who acts questionably, or a policeman who steps on someone's property) can be shot, no questions asked, unless they are a reasonable threat to life.  The penalty for trespassing, or petty theft, or just plain stupidity, is not death. At least not in Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 16, 2018, 10:03:25
Genuinely curious, mind if I ask what motivated you to vote Liberal?
[I found this Conservatives were getting cocky, all but abandoned the CAF and firearm owners (two biggies for me) but their stance on refugees was what sealed the blue deal for me this go.]

Three reasons:

First, because of what seem to me to be systemic problems in our political system, the Tories were sinking into the swamp of what I call "Second-Term-itis". This pathology (IMHO) affects all parties in Federal power in Canada, regardless, and the Liberals are absolutely no exception, nor would the NDP be if (God Forbid) they ever got in power somehow.  It is characterized by increasing levels of arrogance, secrecy, disdain for the spirit and principles of democracy, increasing appeal to various special interest groups,  disingenuousness that often becomes dishonesty; and finally corruption.

As I've posted elsewhere, some of history's greatest leaders (to wit: Washington and Wellington) have warned against the corrosive and poisonous nature of party politics. I think we see it on a fairly regular basis in this country. (and the US too, for that matter...)

We could of course argue just how much of each symptom the Tories showed, or not, and whether my concerns were factual or just impressions. Regardless, this was important for me;

Second, although I do hold some beliefs which might be bumper-stickered as "conservative", I am more of a "centrist" and certainly not a "right winger". I'm probably what's called a "Red Tory". In  my opinion the Tories were beginning to drift too far towards "right-wing" rhetoric. Again an impression perhaps, but it meant something to me.  I don't want this country run by any "wing" (and it normally never has been, as compared to other countries), so that also influenced me.

Finally, as "all politics is local", I felt that the Liberal Candidate here in Kingston was by far the best qualified candidate to represent the riding, as he had already been the Mayor and understood the issues faced here. Because of the nature of Kingston he had experience dealing with both Provincial and Federal levels of government. He was also known to some of my family members who spoke well of him.

So, that was then. This is now. I don't give my vote mindlessly to any party, and in my opinion my loyalty to what I want this country to be is far, far more important than my "loyalty" to any political party. The Liberals will not get my vote automatically: nobody will.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 16, 2018, 10:18:29
As I've posted elsewhere, some of history's greatest leaders (to wit: Washington and Wellington) have warned against the corrosive and poisonous nature of party politics. I think we see it on a fairly regular basis in this country. (and the US too, for that matter...)

Or, to paraphrase LaGuardia, “There is no Liberal or Conservative way of fixing a sewer.”

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 16, 2018, 10:24:54
Finally, as "all politics is local", I felt that the Liberal Candidate here in Kingston was by far the best qualified candidate to represent the riding, as he had already been the Mayor and understood the issues faced here. Because of the nature of Kingston he had experience dealing with both Provincial and Federal levels of government. He was also known to some of my family members who spoke well of him.

So, that was then. This is now. I don't give my vote mindlessly to any party, and in my opinion my loyalty to what I want this country to be is far, far more important than my "loyalty" to any political party. The Liberals will not get my vote automatically: nobody will.

This was the reasoning, I voted for the NDP candidate for my riding until the boundaries were redrawn in 2006.  Now perhaps I made an error in judgement then as this particular ex-NDP MP is now being accused of "#me too" problems and my vote added to his being sent to Ottawa.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 16, 2018, 10:45:23
Kinder Morgan is all about protecting the environment. Still blaming Harper. Spin,spin, spin.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/14/news/inside-interview-trudeau-spills-kinder-morgan-pipeline

Trudeau spills on Kinder Morgan pipeline - 14 Feb 18

Extract: PMJT: "The national objective is, as we said many times — protecting the environment and growing the economy at the same time. Those are the two things that we set out as a core of what we do, and what we recognize Canadians know that we need. We need to make sure we’ve got jobs for the future, but we also need to make sure we’re protecting the environment, which means making sure we’re moving towards a transition off of fossil fuels in the long run, making sure we’re protecting our oceans, making sure we’re creating opportunities for Canadians and their families to have good work.

What means tangibly for us, is that we put forward a national plan on fighting climate change, on reducing carbon emissions. We moved forward on a historical oceans protection plan and we’re moving forward on getting our resources to market safely and securely through the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And all those things tie together as a part of the whole."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 16, 2018, 10:48:45
This was the reasoning, I voted for the NDP candidate for my riding until the boundaries were redrawn in 2006.  Now perhaps I made an error in judgement then as this particular ex-NDP MP is now being accused of "#me too" problems and my vote added to his being sent to Ottawa.

Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 16, 2018, 10:54:19
Kinder Morgan is all about protecting the environment. Still blaming Harper. Spin,spin, spin.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/02/14/news/inside-interview-trudeau-spills-kinder-morgan-pipeline

Trudeau spills on Kinder Morgan pipeline - 14 Feb 18
Extract: PMJT: "The national objective is, as we said many times — protecting the environment and growing the economy at the same time. Those are the two things that we set out as a core of what we do, and what we recognize Canadians know that we need. We need to make sure we’ve got jobs for the future, but we also need to make sure we’re protecting the environment, which means making sure we’re moving towards a transition off of fossil fuels in the long run,

Right. But what's wrong with striking a balance? We need oil and gas products, for sure (and we will for years to come), but we also need clean air, clean water and clean soil, or we'll be dead or quite ill.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 16, 2018, 11:02:50
Patrick Brown says he'll run for the PC leadership again?  This could get interesting,........backlash votes from "tired of #metoo" people?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 16, 2018, 11:13:46
Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.

We elected Darryl Dexter in NS as the first and probably last NDP government.  They lasted one spin and were a complete bunch of tools.  Dexter in particular. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 16, 2018, 11:15:27
Despite my slagging off of NDP earlier,  I was relatively happy under the Provincial NDP in Manitoba in the period 2002-2005. I thought they did OK, but then I wasn't really there all that long.

You are lucky you left. They left a total disaster for the PC's to attempt to clean up.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 16, 2018, 12:07:55
You are lucky you left. They left a total disaster for the PC's to attempt to clean up.

Ahhh. Just like in Ontario, where I am pretty sure they will never, ever, come back again. Good intentions but not very good execution.

But, then, what about Alberta...who could have called that one? The Devil must have been calling up clothing stores to issue winter kit...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Scott on February 16, 2018, 12:10:20
We elected Darryl Dexter in NS as the first and probably last NDP government.  They lasted one spin and were a complete bunch of tools.  Dexter in particular.

The Dexter NDP were a different beast, though when he stuck it to Joan Jessome I couldn't help guffawing, a lot. That got Michael de Addrer a lot of play.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 16, 2018, 12:45:01
The Dexter NDP were a different beast, though when he stuck it to Joan Jessome I couldn't help guffawing, a lot. That got Michael de Addrer a lot of play.

Yeah, a bit of Blue on Blue action happening there. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 16, 2018, 12:53:01
Ahhh. Just like in Ontario, where I am pretty sure they will never, ever, come back again. Good intentions but not very good execution.

But, then, what about Alberta...who could have called that one? The Devil must have been calling up clothing stores to issue winter kit...

Manitoba is a strange beast. About 200km NNW of the Yellowhead Highway (TCH 16), East side of Brandon and most of Winnipeg is pretty hard core NDP, the rest is hard core PC. The liberals have the odd enclave in Winnipeg. Its kind of reverse of the federal scene where the Conservatives require a strong NDP vote to defeat the Libs, in Manitoba the PC's require a strong Liberal vote to defeat the NDP.
Winnipeg, which holds over 80% of the population of the province is the lynch pin to who runs the province.



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 16, 2018, 13:26:51
I'm at risk of being misunderstood. In the scenario you described above, your life is clearly and reasonably in danger. As  (or "if") I understand the CCC, it is acceptable to use force, sometimes lethal force, to protect your life in self defense. That's fine.

For a different example, in Canada an armoured truck guard carries a side arm. There is probably a long gun racked inside the truck. But, under the CCC, those weapons are there to protect life, not money or property.

When I was a student at Quantico, a USMC Legal Officer who was a resident of Florida, was explaining US gun laws to all us foreigners. He very proudly stated that in his state, if a policeman came on his property without a warrant, he could shoot him. I thought this was madness.

What I don't believe in, or want, is a society where any trespasser (or passer by who acts questionably, or a policeman who steps on someone's property) can be shot, no questions asked, unless they are a reasonable threat to life.  The penalty for trespassing, or petty theft, or just plain stupidity, is not death. At least not in Canada.

PBI asked me to comment on this post so here goes.

In the US, the various states have passed what are called "Stand Your Ground" laws (Also called "line in the sand" and "no duty to retreat" laws). They vary from state to state but in essence provide that you have no requirement to retreat from a place where you have a right to be and can use force to repel an unlawful intruder. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law)

In Canada the law is different but not toothless. In essence it is covered under ss 34, 35, 464(2) and 25 of the Criminal Code.

S 34 provides for the right for someone to defend themselves and others with such force as is reasonably necessary from acts of force or the threat of force. The section and of course case law provides for what the circumstances and limits of that are.

S 35 provides for the right to protect or assist in protecting property that is about to be entered by someone not entitled by law to do so or take the property or damage the property so long as the act being used to protect the property is a reasonable one.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9)

S 494(2) provides that an owner of property (and anyone assisting them) may make a citizen's arrest without warrant of anyone committing a criminal offence against that property. They have an obligation to forthwith deliver any person arrested to a peace officer.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164)

In respect to an arrest under s 494(2), s 25 of the CCC provides that anyone who is authorized or required by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (specifically here, making an arrest) is justified in using such force which is reasonably necessary if acting on reasonable grounds.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6)

The problem, as with much of the law, is determining what the facts are at any given time and if the response or acts of the "innocent" person are in fact reasonable in the circumstances. That generally runs on a continuum. At one end using deadly force to protect yourself from imminent deadly force is fairly clear and obvious. At the other is the question of how much force is reasonable to apprehend a criminal who is trying to escape or evade capture and no longer a risk to the property.

The police and the crown should analyze those situations in order to determine if charges should be laid against the "innocent" party. Regrettably, in many cases they tend to charge and let the trial sort it out. I don't think that this is necessarily out of an overabundance of caution but because, more often than not, there are conflicting stories muddy the waters.

At the end of the day, the questions may need to be answered by either a judge or jury who, of course, will be analysing the situation with typical twenty/twenty hindsight in a quiet courtroom rather than the chaos of a farmyard.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 16, 2018, 14:18:33
Sounding more and more like a Liberal hit job. I hope that's proven quickly to clearly indicate how crooked the ON Liberals are.

Further to ModlrMike's post, this just published.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4535373?__twitter_impression=true

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127409.0.html

If I were to put my tin foil hat on I would bet on it being an insider job from the PCs. 

Think about it.  Kathleen Wynn was starting to chip away at his lead.  They needed a way to get him to go away.  In no time they have a leadership campaign up and running and ready to go.  Polls for those other candidates or even without a candidate are higher than what Patrick brown had. 

Brown claims he never resigned and they promptly throw him out.

Maybe there was enough rumour and innuendo to make this happen.

I think the Liberals were happy to face brown.  Or...maybe they (The liberals) just wanted to smear him a bit to increase their lead thinking the PCs would have no choice but to keep them on and underestimated how quick they would resolve the issue.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 16, 2018, 16:32:15
PBI asked me to comment on this post so here goes.

In the US, the various states have passed what are called "Stand Your Ground" laws (Also called "line in the sand" and "no duty to retreat" laws). They vary from state to state but in essence provide that you have no requirement to retreat from a place where you have a right to be and can use force to repel an unlawful intruder. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law)

In Canada the law is different but not toothless. In essence it is covered under ss 34, 35, 464(2) and 25 of the Criminal Code.

S 34 provides for the right for someone to defend themselves and others with such force as is reasonably necessary from acts of force or the threat of force. The section and of course case law provides for what the circumstances and limits of that are.

S 35 provides for the right to protect or assist in protecting property that is about to be entered by someone not entitled by law to do so or take the property or damage the property so long as the act being used to protect the property is a reasonable one.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-9)

S 494(2) provides that an owner of property (and anyone assisting them) may make a citizen's arrest without warrant of anyone committing a criminal offence against that property. They have an obligation to forthwith deliver any person arrested to a peace officer.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#h-164)

In respect to an arrest under s 494(2), s 25 of the CCC provides that anyone who is authorized or required by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (specifically here, making an arrest) is justified in using such force which is reasonably necessary if acting on reasonable grounds.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-4.html#h-6)

The problem, as with much of the law, is determining what the facts are at any given time and if the response or acts of the "innocent" person are in fact reasonable in the circumstances. That generally runs on a continuum. At one end using deadly force to protect yourself from imminent deadly force is fairly clear and obvious. At the other is the question of how much force is reasonable to apprehend a criminal who is trying to escape or evade capture and no longer a risk to the property.

The police and the crown should analyze those situations in order to determine if charges should be laid against the "innocent" party. Regrettably, in many cases they tend to charge and let the trial sort it out. I don't think that this is necessarily out of an overabundance of caution but because, more often than not, there are conflicting stories muddy the waters.

At the end of the day, the questions may need to be answered by either a judge or jury who, of course, will be analysing the situation with typical twenty/twenty hindsight in a quiet courtroom rather than the chaos of a farmyard.

 :cheers:

So now, not only do you have rural residents scared of the feral bipedal creatures that seem to roam around out here unchecked, they also live in fear that, if they protect their property and selves, they'll be charged, tried, smeared in the media, and then left destitute for defending themselves against the government. It's truly a great time to be alive.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 16, 2018, 16:48:07
Somewhat related to what FJAG posted earlier, here, courtesy of the National Post, is the full transcript of Chief Justice Martel Popescul instructions to the jury in the Stanley murder trial.

 Full transcript of judge’s instructions to Colten Boushie jury: Put yourself in a juror’s shoes  (http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes)



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 16, 2018, 17:09:06

In respect to an arrest under s 494(2), s 25 of the CCC provides that anyone who is authorized or required by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law (specifically here, making an arrest) is justified in using such force which is reasonably necessary if acting on reasonable grounds.

The problem, as with much of the law, is determining what the facts are at any given time and if the response or acts of the "innocent" person are in fact reasonable in the circumstances. That generally runs on a continuum. At one end using deadly force to protect yourself from imminent deadly force is fairly clear and obvious. At the other is the question of how much force is reasonable to apprehend a criminal who is trying to escape or evade capture and no longer a risk to the property.

The police and the crown should analyze those situations in order to determine if charges should be laid against the "innocent" party. Regrettably, in many cases they tend to charge and let the trial sort it out. I don't think that this is necessarily out of an overabundance of caution but because, more often than not, there are conflicting stories muddy the waters.

At the end of the day, the questions may need to be answered by either a judge or jury who, of course, will be analysing the situation with typical twenty/twenty hindsight in a quiet courtroom rather than the chaos of a farmyard.

 :cheers:
Section 27 also goes directly towards the use of force to prevent (immediate future tense)the commission of an offence and in R v Hebert the Supreme Court confirmed that Section 27 includes an offence that also is being committed (present tense) in the moment:

"Similarly, s. 27 justifies the use of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence.  This section is of general application and the person asserting the justification need not be a peace or public officer or a member of a restricted class of persons. However, the section is clearly designed to permit an innocent bystander, who witnesses an offence being or about to be committed, to use force to prevent the offence from occurring.”

This does allow a person to step in and use force for example, to break up a bar fight, prevent or stop any type of assault, theft, etc. as long as the force applied is not excessive (ie reasonable and proportionate) in the circumstances. Curiously, the section says nothing about arresting and then delivering the offender to the police. 

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 16, 2018, 17:24:43
I have attached the national use of force model.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2018, 20:13:22
Somewhat related to what FJAG posted earlier, here, courtesy of the National Post, is the full transcript of Chief Justice Martel Popescul instructions to the jury in the Stanley murder trial.

Thank-you very much for that. It was a lengthy read, but an absolutely fascinating and educational one.

I have never read the transcript of a judge's instructions before. I was very impressed by its detail and completeness.

It also provided much more detail regarding the unfortunate events as they unfolded.

I was already completely confident that the verdict was a correct and just one, and this confirmed it.

Not being a lawyer, I do not know if it contains any weaknesses that could be exploited in a potential appeal, but I could not see any.

I found "it is not disputed that Mr. Stanley was legally justified in defence of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air" to be of great interest. I have, previously, read accounts where that act has resulted in charges of careless use being laid, and often convictions being made.

Much appreciated. Thanks again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 16, 2018, 20:40:24
Somewhat related to what FJAG posted earlier, here, courtesy of the National Post, is the full transcript of Chief Justice Martel Popescul instructions to the jury in the Stanley murder trial.

 Full transcript of judge’s instructions to Colten Boushie jury: Put yourself in a juror’s shoes  (http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/full-transcript-of-judges-instructions-to-colten-boushie-jury-put-yourself-in-a-jurors-shoes)

Can't get past the d*** pay wall.  :(

Section 27 also goes directly towards the use of force to prevent (immediate future tense)the commission of an offence and in R v Hebert the Supreme Court confirmed that Section 27 includes an offence that also is being committed (present tense) in the moment:

"Similarly, s. 27 justifies the use of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent the commission of an offence.  This section is of general application and the person asserting the justification need not be a peace or public officer or a member of a restricted class of persons. However, the section is clearly designed to permit an innocent bystander, who witnesses an offence being or about to be committed, to use force to prevent the offence from occurring.”

This does allow a person to step in and use force for example, to break up a bar fight, prevent or stop any type of assault, theft, etc. as long as the force applied is not excessive (ie reasonable and proportionate) in the circumstances. Curiously, the section says nothing about arresting and then delivering the offender to the police. 
. . .

True enough but I would think that by going to the car to take the keys, Stanley was more than likely involved in preventing escape and/or effecting arrest; if anything.

The reason that s27 probably does not include the "deliver to police" provision is most likely because s 27 is an act to stop an offence before it occurs and where arrest isn't available because at the time no offence has happened yet. S494(2) and (3) relate to an arrest after a crime has been committed and therefore there is a need to provide for the disposition of the arrested offender.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 16, 2018, 20:48:27
I found "it is not disputed that Mr. Stanley was legally justified in defence of his property to retrieve his handgun and fire it into the air" to be of great interest. I have, previously, read accounts where that act has resulted in charges of careless use being laid, and often convictions being made.

That, Loachman, is because it is still dependant on other circumstances surrounding the discharge. In the case of Mr. Stanley , discharging his handgun in the air in the middle of his farm which is  hundreds of acres big made it safe. I live in the country, in farmland, but the way the farmhouses are arrayed, I have a neighbour's residence about 75 meters from my house, and his next neighbour is maybe fifty meters away. On the other side, my next neighbour's residence is about 150 meters away, and all of us are about 25 meters from the main road. It's the old French colonial "long and narrow" land organization, combined with building extra houses in between the original farms for kids of the original farmers over the years. So, in my case, if I was to discharge my hand gun in the air, while not in a position to prove that I was very careful as to the direction I shot in, I might still be considered to have been careless.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 16, 2018, 20:50:50
Loach: for me the discussion about careless use of a firearm was enlightening. On the one hand the Crown argues intent to murder, on the other they say death caused by careless use.
Jury says no to both.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 16, 2018, 20:53:22
I have the jury instructions document in MS Word, how do I send it by PM? I don't see an attachment option.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 16, 2018, 20:59:19
I have the jury instructions document in MS Word, how do I send it by PM? I don't see an attachment option.

Maybe print it as a pdf and then attach it to a post?

 :dunno:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 16, 2018, 21:02:50
You can actually attach it to a post in this thread as a word document, no need to transfer to an other format. It's just in PM's that we don't have the attachment function
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 16, 2018, 21:05:44
You can actually attach it to a post in this thread as a word document, no need to transfer to an other format. It's just in PM's that we don't have the attachment function

I don't like opening Word documents on the web. Too many macro viruses out there. PDF's are a bit safer.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 16, 2018, 21:14:06
attached ...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 16, 2018, 21:17:44
attached ...

Excellent!

Thx

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2018, 22:44:23
That, Loachman, is because it is still dependant on other circumstances surrounding the discharge. In the case of Mr. Stanley , discharging his handgun in the air in the middle of his farm which is  hundreds of acres big made it safe.

The only case that I can identify by memory is the famous Ian Thomson one:

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/firebombs-left-no-choice-homeowner-tells-gun-trial

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/matt-gurney-after-two-years-judge-acquits-man-who-defended-himself-with-a-gun

In that case, two charges were dropped prior to the trial. I thought he was tried for all four charges.

I probably cannot track the other cases down now, as they were older and received much less press.

Mr Thomson's legal experience - the dropped charges - may have influenced Mr Stanley's legal experience regarding warning shots. Those are still not recommended, for real safety as well as legal liability issues. Mr Thomson, being a firearms instructor, aimed his a little more carefully.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 16, 2018, 22:56:04
Looks like brown is trying to pull a Moore.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2018, 22:56:29
Yes, the broken windows theory.  I agree with some points but not all.  What about a person who makes a simple mistake?  Should that mistake follow him /her around for the rest of their life?

As long as the penalty is reasonable; the prime intent was to educate and deter at an early stage. From what I remember, arrests for such things resulted an overnight stay at taxpayers' expense and a release the next day, with charges either dropped or stayed.

If the petty crook failed to lean, subsequent police action also escalated.

Where will the extra resources come from that are needed to process and house those who commit a simple crime? Given that resources are limited, what would you like to trade in exchange?  Should we take money from education? Sports programs? Housing? All of the above have a negative correlation to crime.  How about we take it from health care?

The theory was, and it appeared to work, that, by influencing career choice at an early stage there was much less drain upon scarce resources overall.

One night in a cell, perhaps two for slower leaners, was better than a month for something bigger after no action at all prior to that, and then followed later by three months, six months, a year or two, and then life once the crook's chosen profession really takes off.

Deterrence, as in military defensive matters, is much cheaper than lengthy prison sentences or wars.

Lastly, and this is a personal opinion. I would rather have 10 people who committed a crime go free, than convict one innocent person.

On that we agree, as does lengthy legal tradition.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 17, 2018, 00:12:44
Looks like brown is trying to pull a Moore.

I rather think he's trying to reclaim his reputation.

On the other hand, that Tanya Granic Allen sounds like someone they should be very, very afraid of.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 17, 2018, 04:24:09
I rather think he's trying to reclaim his reputation.

On the other hand, that Tanya Granic Allen sounds like someone they should be very, very afraid of.
Hes running for the leadership with a cloud of alleged sexual misconduct over his head and a massive target for the wynne party. He's doing the party no favors,  he's in this for himself at this juncture.

Its very Roy Moore like. Of all the leadership candidates Wynne wants to fact you know she's kneels down and prays she goes up against Brown. Or Doug. But mostly Brown.

I would imagine the PCs don't pick him to be leader but they've come this far down the road of self destruction,  why not go all the way?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: GR66 on February 17, 2018, 11:36:35
...

On the other hand, that Tanya Granic Allen sounds like someone they should be very, very afraid of.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tanya-granic-allen-ontario-pc-leadership-1.4538156

Yes, that's exactly what the Ontario PC party needs...a hard swing to the social conservative right.
 ::)

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 17, 2018, 14:12:00
Ref the earlier discussions about use of information to fill jury pools, there is an article pin todays Toronto star about this regarding problems with Ontario's system:
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/02/16/how-a-broken-jury-list-makes-ontario-justice-whiter-richer-and-less-like-your-community.html

*********************
"A two-year Toronto Star/Ryerson School of Journalism investigation documenting the racial makeup of jurors in 52 criminal trials since 2016 in Toronto and Brampton reveals flaws in the jury selection process that skews towards property owners, fails to reflect the GTA’s growing diversity and excludes potentially millions of Ontarians from serving their civic duty.

The jury selection list is based on the province’s property assessment rolls, excluding many renters, boarders, students, seniors, spouses who are not named on property titles, transient and low-income people, Indigenous people and those unable to afford property in a red-hot real estate market.

What remains is a prospective juror list disproportionately comprised of white Ontarians able to afford the significant costs of serving in a system that often pays jurors less than minimum wage and does not cover expenses such as travel, parking, meals and child care. It is a particular hardship for hourly workers — Ontario has no law compelling companies to compensate employees for jury duty — the self-employed or those in temporary or contract jobs."
*********************************
Something is wrong with their information. I know people who rent, are mature students (white,asian, female), and have been called to jury duty in Ontario.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 17, 2018, 14:17:28
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tanya-granic-allen-ontario-pc-leadership-1.4538156

Yes, that's exactly what the Ontario PC party needs...a hard swing to the social conservative right.
 ::)

Might not be what the PC party needs, but a hard swing to the fiscal and ethical right as an immediate correction is what the province of Ontario needs. That does not mean "social conservatism" but it does mean getting financially lean and shedding a lot of government involvement and politically correct regulatory involvement in things that are creating divisions, not solving problems and generally dragging the province down.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 17, 2018, 14:31:19
Ref the earlier discussions about use of information to fill jury pools, there is an article pin todays Toronto star about this regarding problems with Ontario's system:
https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/02/16/how-a-broken-jury-list-makes-ontario-justice-whiter-richer-and-less-like-your-community.html

*********************
"A two-year Toronto Star/Ryerson School of Journalism investigation documenting the racial makeup of jurors in 52 criminal trials since 2016 in Toronto and Brampton reveals flaws in the jury selection process that skews towards property owners, fails to reflect the GTA’s growing diversity and excludes potentially millions of Ontarians from serving their civic duty.

The jury selection list is based on the province’s property assessment rolls, excluding many renters, boarders, students, seniors, spouses who are not named on property titles, transient and low-income people, Indigenous people and those unable to afford property in a red-hot real estate market.

What remains is a prospective juror list disproportionately comprised of white Ontarians able to afford the significant costs of serving in a system that often pays jurors less than minimum wage and does not cover expenses such as travel, parking, meals and child care. It is a particular hardship for hourly workers — Ontario has no law compelling companies to compensate employees for jury duty — the self-employed or those in temporary or contract jobs."
*********************************
Something is wrong with their information. I know people who rent, are mature students (white,asian, female), and have been called to jury duty in Ontario.

Not really.  It says "excluding many renters blah blah..."  not all.  The policy in Ontario is definitely biasing the jury pool. And everything about paying jurors garbage is correct.  And the loss of wages is a real issue.  The entire jury selection/list process could do with some significant updating/overhaul.  Perhaps using voting lists to select jurors.  That would also help ensure that people who are selected for jury duty actually live where they are supposed to vote.  However that might just encourage people not to vote (don't want to get called for jury duty...lol)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 17, 2018, 14:35:17
Might not be what the PC party needs, but a hard swing to the fiscal and ethical right as an immediate correction is what the province of Ontario needs. That does not mean "social conservatism" but it does mean getting financially lean and shedding a lot of government involvement and politically correct regulatory involvement in things that are creating divisions, not solving problems and generally dragging the province down.


Right now I’d settle for fiscally in the middle given the spending and waste this current government has done.

To be honest if the PC party picks a social conservative or a populist then Wynne will steal the election. Again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 17, 2018, 15:09:05
Might not be what the PC party needs, but a hard swing to the fiscal and ethical right as an immediate correction is what the province of Ontario needs. That does not mean "social conservatism" but it does mean getting financially lean and shedding a lot of government involvement and politically correct regulatory involvement in things that are creating divisions, not solving problems and generally dragging the province down.

I would be happy with a government that is friendly towards drivers. The gas tax needs to go into building more roads as well as public transit. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 17, 2018, 15:17:21
The problem is that money does go to roads but end up building bike lanes and bike paths instead of going where it is needed.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 17, 2018, 17:13:39

Right now I’d settle for fiscally in the middle given the spending and waste this current government has done.

To be honest if the PC party picks a social conservative or a populist then Wynne will steal the election. Again.

Or the NDP *suppresses a shudder*.

I would be happy with a government that is friendly towards drivers. The gas tax needs to go into building more roads as well as public transit. 

There is a conservative way forward here with regards to gas and carbon taxes.  Gas and carbon taxes are consumption taxes.  Consumption taxes as far as taxes go are generally progressive taxes.  They tax use. 

Income taxes I think most of us can agree are regressive taxes.  Badly implemented income taxes discourage work, innovation etc...  Income taxes should be lowered to encourage people to work more or keep more of their money to invest on improving their lives.

Gas should/needs to be taxed.  It's a proxy for road use, a shared service.  I suppose we could all just pay tolls on all our roads instead but that's not really practical without either large amounts of inconvenience (toll booths) or invasion of privacy (GPS tracking of where your car drives).  Carbon taxes are generally (philosophically) the same thing.  They tax pollution of a shared resource (no arguments about whether carbon is a pollutant or not pls, other threads for that, just using it as an example) which is the air and environment.

So the PC plan to get votes in Ontario should be as follows.  Scap the bureaucratic and idiot carbon market.  That is just ripe for corruption a la Europe's example.  Implement the carbon tax.  Use the proceeds of the carbon tax to reduce income taxes (like BC does which is genius).   The income taxes that are reduced should be the minimum personal exemption so all Ontarians benefit.  The goal for this reduction should be to hit approximately $20,000 of exemption.  This also means that no minimum wage increase is necessary to $15 because the take home pay of those working minimum wage jobs just got quite a bit higher.

This does a few things.  One it doesn't damage small business with min wage increases.  It allows all Ontarians to take home pay and equally distributes the actual amount of lower taxes to all tax brackets.  But it disproportionately benefits poor and middle income families.  $3000 more take home is not that much to the six figure crowd but its a huge amount to the min wage crowd.  Depending on where you live that could be two or three months rent, a lot of groceries, or daycare for one kid for 37 seconds.  It also discourages harmful behaviour of pollution, and people pay for the use of a shared resource.

I'd vote for that in a second.  Not this school sex ed crap again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 17, 2018, 17:34:17
Not this school sex ed crap again.

Not to disagree, but it's a political hot-button for some Ontario voters,
https://www.google.ca/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=603&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=7KSIWoqPLoi0tQXXwrfoAg&q=%22sex+education%22+ontario+protest&oq=%22sex+education%22+ontario+protest&gs_l=psy-ab.3...21406.27074.0.28501.25.18.0.0.0.0.136.1598.14j4.18.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..11.0.0....0.An_8QE20w2Y


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 17, 2018, 18:21:44
I would be happy with a government that is friendly towards drivers. The gas tax needs to go into building more roads as well as public transit.

Too many roads already, treated as a free good, and too expensive to maintain.  Made worse by urban sprawl, and suburbs that refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.

Start charging for use of roads and you'll find demand shrinks.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 17, 2018, 18:29:04
Don't know where you live, but shortage of family Doctors, specialists (and up to a year + wait to see one), wait times for MRI's (family MD can not request: must be from specialists), other special tests wait times, shortage of hospital beds, and percentage of all Provincial budget.

Meanwhile we can't afford Vets, and are running recession type deficits. Now for example, Grandpa/Grandpa/Grandma/Grandma who have a  disablity can now emigrate to get Old Age Security, free health care and vote (LIBERAL).


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-hussen-medical-inadmissibility-1.4537076

Ottawa to present plan to amend policy that rejects immigrants on medical grounds by April, Hussen says - 15 Feb 18
Immigration minister says he has to consider impact on provincial budgets

Extract: 1. Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said today he will present a plan by April to amend an outdated policy that excludes immigrants based on their medical conditions — but the NDP wants quicker action to end the "discriminatory" clause.

NDP immigration critic Jenny Kwan held a news conference today calling on the government to repeal a section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that allows applicants to be rejected because they could impose an "excessive demand" on the health care system. She said the issue has been on the government's radar since 2016, yet the "discriminatory" policy that causes "heartache and hardship" remains.

            2. A spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) said the department has been reviewing the policy "with the goal of ensuring that applicants are treated in a fair and equitable manner, and that the policy aligns with Canadian values regarding the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society, while also recognizing the need to protect publicly-paid health and social services."

            3. Maurice Tomlinson, senior policy analyst at The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, warned that the government must repeal the clause, not rework it. "Any tinkering with it would only perpetuate discrimination against persons with disabilities," he said. "This hurtful, stigmatizing and unnecessary regime must end."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 17, 2018, 18:31:01
Too many roads already, treated as a free good, and too expensive to maintain.  Made worse by urban sprawl, and suburbs that refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.

Start charging for use of roads and you'll find demand shrinks.

As a person who takes the 407 on a regular basis, I would agree.  However, when I look at roads that have the same number of lanes since the 1980s, it is clear that our transportation infrastructure has not kept up with the times.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 17, 2018, 18:35:37
Don't know where you live, but shortage of family Doctors, specialists (and up to a year + wait to see one), wait times for MRI's (family MD can not request: must be from specialists), other special tests wait times, shortage of hospital beds, and percentage of all Provincial budget.

Meanwhile we can't afford Vets, and are running recession type deficits. Now for example, Grandpa/Grandpa who have a  disablity can now emigrate to get Old Age Security, free health care and vote (LIBERAL).


Grandpa/grandpa? How progressive of you!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 17, 2018, 18:36:49
Too many roads already, treated as a free good, and too expensive to maintain.  Made worse by urban sprawl, and suburbs that refuse to pay their fair share of taxes.

Start charging for use of roads and you'll find demand shrinks.

Tried and failed. The city tried to toll the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway - roads they own and and maintain - to fund more subways and "Smart Track".

Queen's Park would not allow it. The city can't even install a speed bump without first asking Queen's Park for permission.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 17, 2018, 18:38:34
Income taxes I think most of us can agree are regressive taxes.
Well, many of the boutique credits that seem to be popular amongst federal Conservatives are regressive but, otherwise, I don’t think most could agree that income tax is inherently regressive ... in fact some have argued on these board that Canadian income taxes are too progressive and risk chasing the wealthy away.

But we can agree on consumption taxes.  If they are levied against luxuries, they are progressive ... but if they start raising the cost of necessities, like food or getting to work, then maybe not so much.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 17, 2018, 18:42:32

Right now I’d settle for fiscally in the middle given the spending and waste this current government has done.

To be honest if the PC party picks a social conservative or a populist then Wynne will steal the election. Again.

The problem for the PC party is that they seem to want to always, as has been noted, go socially conservative. The problem with that is that the vast majority of people in Ontario live within urban areas (11 million to 1.8 million in 2011) and have little interest in pro-choice (why even bring this up....) or other social conservative ideals.

They need to stick with discussing smaller government and lower spending/taxes and get away from this garbage. Or else they will trade winning in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound for losing the 30-ish ridings in Toronto. If they do what the PC's did in Manitoba- look at a map and realize that half the province lives in one place so being un-electable in that place was a bad idea -  than they can dis-lodge the Liberals. If they try to cater to rural conservatives than they'll lose again. It's that simple.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 17, 2018, 18:52:34
We have forgotten the PROGRESSIVE part in the PC.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 17, 2018, 18:55:35
I was personally expecting the Ontario Tories to implode in late April / early May; they're ahead of schedule. 

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/02/patrick-brown-doug-ford-likely-split-important-*******-vote-tory-leadership-race/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Retired AF Guy on February 17, 2018, 18:58:05
Not really.  It says "excluding many renters blah blah..."  not all.  The policy in Ontario is definitely biasing the jury pool. And everything about paying jurors garbage is correct.  And the loss of wages is a real issue.  The entire jury selection/list process could do with some significant updating/overhaul.  Perhaps using voting lists to select jurors.  That would also help ensure that people who are selected for jury duty actually live where they are supposed to vote.  However that might just encourage people not to vote (don't want to get called for jury duty...lol)

From Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney Generals website:

Quote
Jury Roll Process

May:

Required number of jurors is calculated

Jurors can be required for criminal trials, civil trials and Coroner's inquests. Each of the 50 Superior Court of Justice locations in Ontario calculates the number of jurors they will need for the upcoming year. They consider several factors, such as the number of jurors required in previous years and the anticipated number of trials. They send their estimates to the Provincial Jury Centre.

September – November:

Questionnaires sent to potential jurors

 Video clip: "Questionnaires are the first step"

To meet the estimated demand for jurors, juror questionnaires are mailed to people who are selected randomly from the most recent municipal enumeration (voters’) lists. For people living in a First Nation community, other lists, like Band lists, are used.

The questionnaire mailing includes a letter from the Attorney General, an instruction sheet and prepaid reply envelope.

People completing the questionnaire are invited to call one of two toll-free lines: one line provides recorded instructions on how to complete the questionnaire and one line reaches representatives at the Provincial Jury Centre who can answer questions about the questionnaire or the summons.

People who receive a questionnaire complete and return it in the pre-paid envelope. The completed questionnaires are used to determine whether a person is eligible for jury duty.

December:

Jury roll created and certified

Jurors are sorted for eligibility for jury duty. Jurors need to be Canadian citizens and at least 18 years old. Anyone who has attended court for jury duty in the previous three years cannot serve again. People in certain professions like firefighters, police officers and doctors as well as people convicted of a broad range of criminal offences are excluded from serving.

People who are eligible to serve are put on a list of potential jurors called the jury roll. The jury roll includes the name, address and occupation of the potential jurors. Once the jury roll is created, it is certified as accurate and complete. Jury panels are randomly selected from this list.

Last summer I received one of those letters and I'm a renter.

 Link (https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/jury_selection_process.php)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 17, 2018, 19:16:06
Don't know where you live, but shortage of family Doctors, specialists (and up to a year + wait to see one), wait times for MRI's (family MD can not request: must be from specialists), other special tests wait times, shortage of hospital beds, and percentage of all Provincial budget.

While this is true, it has nothing to do with politics. The shortage of doctors in Ontario is a result of the lack of medical students spots in med school. The reason for the lack of spots? The college of physicians and surgeons control these numbers.  It is sad that Canadians students have to leave Ontario to go to med school and then come back to Ontario to practice.... with a lot of student debt... If they come back at all.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 17, 2018, 20:00:05
attached ...
Thanks very much for posting that. A fascinating read, and one that many people shooting off their mouths on both sides should consider. One thing is very clear: Gerald Stanley very clearly had reason to be afraid for his life and that of his family. Second, that the young people in that car were obviously on a rampage of some sort. That alone doesn't justify Boushie's death, but it casts quite a different light on the moment.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 17, 2018, 20:06:24
I am not necessarily a fan of lengthy sentences, or of simply caging somebody, unless that person has demonstrated and continues to display uncontrollable violent tendencies from which the public deserves, and must have, protection. Public protection absolutely must be paramount. Rehabilitation, if and where possible, is the next priority, which includes meaningful support in the host community to the maximum extent possible.

New York reduced crime drastically, many years ago, by treating even minor crimes seriously. That discouraged many minor offenders from escalating to bigger crimes. They quickly understood that throwing a stone through a window would result in arrest, a cell overnight, a trial, and an appropriate sentence rather than just a stern talking-to and immediate release following a promise to behave.

Failure to effectively discourage/deter is unacceptable - it helps nobody, especially the offenders, who merely, correctly, and rapidly learn that they can get away with almost anything, often until somebody is seriously hurt or killed.

The carrot (and carrots are infinitely preferable if and when they work) to that stick is meaningful provision of work-related training and job-finding assistance.

Band leaders - too-often corrupt and abusive towards their own people - need to be exposed and held to account as part of that process. I would, if able, eliminate payments to bands and, instead, provide payments to individual adults. Band leaders could then apply taxes to their members to support necessary programmes. Ordinary members would then see how much is being taken from them, and would have more interest in controlling excesses (such as the legendary multi-million-dollar off-reserve Chief's house, if such actually exist).

Kind of like democracy.

I have a long-time indigenous friend who lives off of, but works on, a small reserve, and hear regular tales of the favouritism and outright nepotism and other abuses and problems that abound. There are no apparent off-reserve problems as far as I know, like the reserve at the centre of this conflict.

This is not an indigenous problem. many people of any race or ethnicity, when provided with the bare necessities of life and no incentive to do better, such as many welfare recipients. Payments should not be clawed back dollar-for-dollar for money earned from employment, either, as there is no incentive to work if one ends up with the same amount of money.

People who work have much more self-esteem than those who do not, have more regard for the things that they can buy with earned income, more respect for the rights and property of others, and much less need to relieve their boredom by drinking heavily and harassing farmers or other productive people.

People need hope for better futures, preferably via their own efforts but with assistance when needed. The opposite is despair.

 :goodpost:
Well said. My thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 17, 2018, 20:15:08
PBI asked me to comment on this post so here goes.

Thanks very much FJAG. Send me the bill....
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 17, 2018, 20:18:19
Thanks very much FJAG. Send me the bill....

These days my hourly rates are massively reduced.

Based on my writing income it works out to about $0.07 an hour. I have a bill for $0.02 on the way to you. That's pretty much what my advice is worth these days.  :2c:

 ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 18, 2018, 09:56:06
These days my hourly rates are massively reduced.

Based on my writing income it works out to about $0.07 an hour. I have a bill for $0.02 on the way to you. That's pretty much what my advice is worth these days.  :2c:

 ;D

 :cheers:

Sooooo.....a bottle of good single malt would be like a five year retainer...?? :whistle:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 18, 2018, 16:16:27
Sooooo.....a bottle of good single malt would be like a five year retainer...?? :whistle:

Probably a bottle of New Amsterdam Coconut Vodka would do that.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 19, 2018, 11:03:37
That's $15.99 USD or $20.13 Cdn for 1.75 Lt here in Phoenix.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 19, 2018, 21:00:02
That's $15.99 USD or $20.13 Cdn for 1.75 Lt here in Phoenix.

US$11.99 for 750ml and US$18.99  for 1250ml here at ABC in Florida.

Add ice, 1/2 orange juice, 1/2 ginger ale and a dash of ICE black raspberry for a very nice tropical drink.

You're welcome.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 20, 2018, 02:02:28
Ontario PCs have a presser tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Rumor has it Patrick Brown wont be allowed to run. Best move they could make really.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 20, 2018, 02:04:00
Ontario PCs have a presser tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Rumor has it Patrick Brown wont be allowed to run. Best move they could make really.

Hear! Hear!

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 20, 2018, 08:55:02
Ontario PCs have a presser tomorrow at 9:30 am.

Rumor has it Patrick Brown wont be allowed to run. Best move they could make really.

I'm not sure about that. His recent problems aside, he seems to have the platform that stands the best chance of defeating the Wynne govt. He appears to have struck a balance in proposed policies that would have the widest appeal, without just being pseudo-Liberal on the one hand, or pandering to the more extreme socon vote on the other. But I say these things without having completed a detailed analysis of his policies.

That said, I've wondered from the start of this mess if the Tories were actually just looking for a way to dump him, for whatever reason. I noted that the caucus and his election team seemed to sever the lifeline very quickly, and one or two other Tory MPPs have since made comments which IMHO seemed to suggest dissatisfaction that predated the scandal.

Or maybe it was just factionalism bubbling away.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 20, 2018, 09:53:09
I must confess that I don't know much about Ontario politics (other than the fact that I had heart attacks just about every time I compared my in-laws electricity bill to mine in Quebec), but this is the first time in a long time that in Quebec, we are doing this about politics in another province ... and it's fun!

 :pop: :pop: :pop:

 :nod:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 20, 2018, 09:53:36
Except that sadly, Ontario politics is more about the cult of personality and buying votes through spending.

Patrick brown will not win the personality war with Wyne.  She's a very good campaigner but terrible at governing. 

It is telling that polls for the PC s went up with every other leadership candidate.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 20, 2018, 10:13:30
Quote from: Altair

Rumor has it Patrick Brown wont be allowed to run. Best move they could make really.

Why?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 20, 2018, 10:20:18
Except that sadly, Ontario politics is more about the cult of personality < snip >

I wonder if Ford Nation will be as powerful province-wide as it is city-wide?

<snip> buying votes through spending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ckIcOiJyH4

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 20, 2018, 10:45:50

I doubt it.  But some people might be fed up enough with Wynne to vote for him.

I'm not going to judge yet but he's not my first choice.

If he wins the leadership I'll look a bit closer.  I don't want to paint him with the Rob Ford Brush some will inevitably do. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 20, 2018, 10:51:52
Why?

Because the PC ship was taking on water.  Before the harassment claims, Wynne was closing the gap with Brown and she might have just pulled out another win over him.  His issues are creating a distraction and will likely fracture the party when what they should be doing is getting to the business of picking a leader that can win.  By staying in the race his presence causes too many disruptions.

Do you want o hear about what the PCs will offer Ontario or do you want to keep hearing about what they think of Brown?  Because that is what will happen if he stays in the race.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 20, 2018, 11:21:57
I don't want to paint him with the Rob Ford Brush some will inevitably do.

Rob was the more likeable of the pair.  :)

Or, paint him with the same brush as another well known politician, as some will inevitably do,

February 19, 2018

Sun

"Doug Ford tears a page from Donald Trump’s script book"
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-doug-ford-tears-a-page-from-donald-trumps-script-book
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 20, 2018, 11:29:31
Rob was the more likeable of the pair.  :)

Or, paint him with the same brush as another well known politician, as some will inevitably do,

February 19, 2018

Sun

"Doug Ford tears a page from Donald Trump’s script book"
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/bonokoski-doug-ford-tears-a-page-from-donald-trumps-script-book

which is why he also isn't my first choice.

Mulroney or Elliott for me.  The others might have me vote for another party/candidate. but I'm more of a red tory.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 20, 2018, 11:38:55
Because the PC ship was taking on water.  Before the harassment claims, Wynne was closing the gap with Brown and she might have just pulled out another win over him.  His issues are creating a distraction and will likely fracture the party when what they should be doing is getting to the business of picking a leader that can win.  By staying in the race his presence causes too many disruptions.

Do you want o hear about what the PCs will offer Ontario or do you want to keep hearing about what they think of Brown?  Because that is what will happen if he stays in the race.

That makes sense, thanks.  Amazing that  Wynne is even a possibility.  Maybe Ontario deserves her though.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 20, 2018, 12:06:22
If after the last 12 years of financial fiascoes and blatant mismanagement folks here cast a liberal ballot instead of (fill in the blank including Attila the Hun) than we deserve to go down the toilet!!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 20, 2018, 12:49:40
Looks like brown will be allowed to run.

How this doesn't tear apart the party for the next few weeks and how he isn't a giant liability during a campaign versus wynne is beyond me.

Amazing how the PCs keep finding ways to self destruct.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 20, 2018, 13:45:55
Another misspoke. This is the new headline at CTV/CBC. Originally it was India investing $1B in Canada. Now its India investing $250K in Canada and Canada investing $750K in India.

Script please.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-announces-two-way-investment-deal-with-india-1.3810630#_gus&_gucid=&_gup=twitter&_gsc=4SBbqtQ

Trudeau announces two-way investment deal with India
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 20, 2018, 20:47:02
From the G & M Evening Update newsletter

Judge strikes down mandatory minimum sentence for Indigenous woman in drug trafficking case

An Ontario judge has ruled that the two-year mandatory minimum sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment in the circumstances of an Indigenous woman who brought $128,000 in cocaine to Canada. Cheyenne Sharma, who is from a background of extreme poverty, faced a minimum of two years, but her lawyers used the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to challenge the legality of the minimum sentences. They said the mandatory sentence has a disproportionate effect on individuals with Indigenous backgrounds. Ms. Sharma was sentenced to 17 months in custody.

The ruling comes shortly after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould decried unfairness in the justice system following the acquittal of a white farmer, Gerald Stanley, in the shooting death of an Indigenous man, Colten Boushie.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 20, 2018, 21:02:43
Can someone explain why 2 years in jail for trafficking drugs is unfair to an indigenous person but not to say, me?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 20, 2018, 21:53:53
LoL
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 20, 2018, 23:12:20
Can someone explain why 2 years in jail for trafficking drugs is unfair to an indigenous person but not to say, me?

No.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 21, 2018, 00:19:47
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-accused-of-dirty-politics-1.4543691 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-accused-of-dirty-politics-1.4543691)

They REALLY don't want Patrick Brown around.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 08:05:41
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-accused-of-dirty-politics-1.4543691 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-accused-of-dirty-politics-1.4543691)

They REALLY don't want Patrick Brown around.

Randy Hillier's broadside into Brown is interesting, coming from such a stalwart PC figure: I think it raises again the question of why the Party really dumped Brown so fast: was the sex scandal just a useful thing that came along at the right moment?

 It also blows up the tin-foil hatter idea that the move to dump Brown was a Liberal covert op: the last think you could ever, ever accuse Randy Hillier of is being a tool of the Liberals.  He has been described as "Don Cherry with rubber boots and plaid", and is all about defending farmers and their property rights.

His accusations in front of the cameras are pretty blunt: he is either very sure of himself or he hasn't heard about libel laws.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on February 21, 2018, 08:37:50
If Brown is allowed to run again I can see him winning. What I find interesting is that people in Ontario are so sick of the Wynne-Liberals that it doesn't matter who leads the PC's or what there policies are
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 09:19:17
If Brown is allowed to run again I can see him winning. What I find interesting is that people in Ontario are so sick of the Wynne-Liberals that it doesn't matter who leads the PC's or what there policies are

I hope not. I am ready to vote PC if I see an intelligent, moderate, fiscally sound and pro-economy platform that appeals to me as a Red Tory. If I see a ranting,  populist appeal to anger, stupidity and bigotry, I don't know what I will do.  ::)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on February 21, 2018, 09:25:40
Brown's platform was a little too heavy on vote buying for my take but I was in favour of swapping the cap and trade for the carbon tax the others don't even seem like they have a plan
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 21, 2018, 09:39:50
I hope not. I am ready to vote PC if I see an intelligent, moderate, fiscally sound and pro-economy platform that appeals to me as a Red Tory. If I see a ranting,  populist appeal to anger, stupidity and bigotry, I don't know what I will do.  ::)

 :nod:  Me too.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 21, 2018, 09:42:26
I hope not. I am ready to vote PC if I see an intelligent, moderate, fiscally sound and pro-economy platform that appeals to me as a Red Tory. If I see a ranting,  populist appeal to anger, stupidity and bigotry, I don't know what I will do.  ::)

Bloc Quebecois?


(Yes, I know.  Federal, not provincial, and not in Ontario...)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 21, 2018, 10:01:34
Bloc Quebecois?


(Yes, I know.  Federal, not provincial, and not in Ontario...)

Honestly, compared to what's out there in the world, not the worst option in my eyes right now. At least they have a good reason for their ethno-nationalism.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 21, 2018, 10:35:31
Quote from: pbi on Today at 07:19:17
Quote
I hope not. I am ready to vote PC if I see an intelligent, moderate, fiscally sound and pro-economy platform that appeals to me as a Red Tory. If I see a ranting,  populist appeal to anger, stupidity and bigotry, I don't know what I will do

If you are a masochist, vote for Kathleen or the NDP to allow her to form another government. Soon she will have enough people in her pocket, paid by the taxpayer (in ON and Canada) to be in power forever.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 11:06:06
Quote from: pbi on Today at 07:19:17
If you are a masochist, vote for Kathleen or the NDP to allow her to form another government. Soon she will have enough people in her pocket, paid by the taxpayer (in ON and Canada) to be in power forever.

I don't think I will ever vote NDP.  We had that here once, and it didn't go well. Even some of the unions ended up PO'd. The Liberals have reached (passed...) the stage of what I call "second-term-itis".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 21, 2018, 11:27:47
I don't think I will ever vote NDP.  We had that here once, and it didn't go well. Even some of the unions ended up PO'd.

I remember the Social Contract aka Rae Days. ( Twelve days of forced unpaid leave. )

A crew Scheduler would force you to take an unpaid Rae Day.

But, in the next breath, schedule you, at time-and-a-half, to replace a co-worker on their  Rae Day .

ie:  You lost 144 hours pay at straight time. But, gained 144 hours overtime at time-and-a-half.




 



Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 21, 2018, 12:00:10
Quote from: pbi on Today at 07:19:17
If you are a masochist, vote for Kathleen or the NDP to allow her to form another government. Soon she will have enough people in her pocket, paid by the taxpayer (in ON and Canada) to be in power forever.

The problem being the leadership contest where the candidates have to cater to the extreme right of the party to get votes. if they go too far right they may not have time during the campaign to get those centrists in the province to vote for them.  Two of those candidates, should they win will all but ensure that those votes go elsewhere. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 12:21:03
The problem being the leadership contest where the candidates have to cater to the extreme right of the party to get votes. if they go too far right they may not have time during the campaign to get those centrists in the province to vote for them.  Two of those candidates, should they win will all but ensure that those votes go elsewhere.

This seems to be a constant problem for what I like to call "moderate conservatism" (or maybe Red Toryism  ;D ) in the last few years. There appears to be an almost irresistible temptation to begin drifting towards the right wing and angry populism. Populism can be exploited by parties on either end of the spectrum (I never heard of a "centrist populist movement") but I'm not talking about the  "left" end right now. We saw some of this in the US, when the Republicans found themselves in uncomfortably close quarters with some fairly far-right  elements who are not even what I would call "conservatives": more like fascists and other trash. This must have been very uneasy for a number of Republicans: I have a US friend who has been a Republican all his life and would not vote Dem,  but was seriously worried about the apparent drift of the party.

To me, being a moderate conservative does not automatically imply being a racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist, anti-environment or closet neo-Nazi. It means avoiding mad, ill-informed rushes to social change without thought and evidence; not succumbing instantly to silly political correctness or the Victim Industry; supporting business and industry (which are the engines of everything, BTW); and having a realistic view on defence and security issues.  To me, being a principled conservative should not mean that you can never change your mind: " a foolish consistency is the mark of a small mind", or never act for the public good or for the true welfare of others. It means that you conserve what is good and foundational and common sense, while making changes in an intelligent and measured way
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 21, 2018, 13:37:07
There is a high probability that this area will see more violence, and more deaths, in the future:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/gunshot-trespass-report-battleford-farm-1.4541625

RCMP searching for suspect after attempted break-in, gunshot on farm west of North Battleford

Seniors who own the farm say they have never experienced such an incident in 40 years on property

By Cory Coleman, CBC News  Posted: Feb 19, 2018 12:19 AM CT| Last Updated: Feb 19, 2018 3:08 AM CT

"Kathy Smith said it was about eight inches above where her husband was standing.

"If he had been 5-10 [in height], he would have got a bullet in the brain," she said.

"The incident has left the couple, both 79, shocked and wondering what could have happened if they weren't alerted by the alarm.

"It just scares me to think, what if he broke a window and came in with a gun," she said.

"It seems to be a sad world when you can't even live in your own place without some idiot thinking he can take what we have."

"The couple have lived on their farm for 40 years and said they have never experienced an incident like this.

"RCMP say they dispatched police dog services and believe the suspect had fled on foot into a waiting vehicle."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on February 21, 2018, 15:01:53
When you start looking at that Reserve, you can see the problems run deep, it will likely take a generation to fix. The loss of the accountability Act won’t help, but the ability for off reserve members to vote will help in the long run.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 21, 2018, 15:15:39
This seems to be a constant problem for what I like to call "moderate conservatism" (or maybe Red Toryism  ;D ) in the last few years. There appears to be an almost irresistible temptation to begin drifting towards the right wing and angry populism. Populism can be exploited by parties on either end of the spectrum (I never heard of a "centrist populist movement") but I'm not talking about the  "left" end right now. We saw some of this in the US, when the Republicans found themselves in uncomfortably close quarters with some fairly far-right  elements who are not even what I would call "conservatives": more like fascists and other trash. This must have been very uneasy for a number of Republicans: I have a US friend who has been a Republican all his life and would not vote Dem,  but was seriously worried about the apparent drift of the party.

To me, being a moderate conservative does not automatically imply being a racist, bigot, homophobe, misogynist, anti-environment or closet neo-Nazi. It means avoiding mad, ill-informed rushes to social change without thought and evidence; not succumbing instantly to silly political correctness or the Victim Industry; supporting business and industry (which are the engines of everything, BTW); and having a realistic view on defence and security issues.  To me, being a principled conservative should not mean that you can never change your mind: " a foolish consistency is the mark of a small mind", or never act for the public good or for the true welfare of others. It means that you conserve what is good and foundational and common sense, while making changes in an intelligent and measured way

Exactly right and very much my way of thinking.

You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.

 :pop:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 21, 2018, 15:27:28
Exactly right and very much my way of thinking.

You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.

 :pop:
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-divide-and-conquer-in-canadian-politics-it-seems-maybe-not

Quote
In writing on this previously, I’ve attributed this insecurity to the party’s long history of electoral futility, especially at the federal level. But that only invites the question: why have the Tories been such losers? Why, since 1935, have they lost two elections in three to the Liberals? And here we come across an intriguing puzzle.

For the start of that near-century of Liberal dominance coincides with the arrival of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, forerunners of the NDP. By the conventional assumptions of politics, the splitting of the left-of-centre vote — at any rate, the non-Conservative vote — should have been fatal to the Liberals’ chances, delivering election after election to the Conservatives.

But that is not what happened. Of the 17 elections from 1867 to 1930, the Liberals won only seven, trailing the Conservatives in the popular vote by an average of 1.6 percentage points. By contrast, the Liberals have won 16 of the 25 elections since then, with an average 3.3-point margin of victory (from 1993 to 2000, vs. combined Progressive Conservative/Reform-Canadian Alliance vote) in the popular vote.

Canadian politics are not easily mapped on a simple left-right axis, of course: language and region always play their part. Nevertheless, it is striking that, despite having to split the vote with the CCF/NDP, the Liberals’ electoral performance, far from deteriorating, improved.

Despite? Or because of? Perhaps what’s going on here isn’t simply two parties warring over a fixed slice of the vote. Perhaps, rather, the presence of two parties on the left (later three, and arguably four, with the advent of the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois) has served to enlarge the total universe of voters available to them — a sort of political Say’s Law, wherein the supply creates its own demand.

The two parties, after all, while they have much in common, do not draw on the same undifferentiated mass of voters.

Though there is an overlap of Liberal-NDP “switchers,” each also has its own distinct base. Separately, then, the two command a larger total vote than they would combined, taking votes not only from each other but from the Conservatives.

The NDP, by its willingness to advocate for progressive issues the Liberals would prefer not to touch, has expanded the boundaries of permissible debate, pulling the median vote to the left, forcing the Liberals to respond and pulling the median vote to the left. At the same time, the broad philosophical sympathy between the two parties means they define the terms of debate, the default assumptions of public discussion, leaving the Tories permanently on the defensive, as the odd man out.

By contrast, consider what has happened on the right in recent years. The formation of a unified Conservative Party in 2004, after the decade-long split between Reform and the Progressive Conservatives, was also supposed to end vote-splitting.

Yet here, too, we see a striking result. In the three elections between 1993 and 2000, the combined vote-share of Reform (and its successor, the Canadian Alliance) and the PCs averaged 36.9 per cent of the popular vote. Since then, the Conservative party has averaged just 35 per cent.

Before then, Reform served a function in conservative politics much like the NDP, taking more radical positions on issues than the PCs were comfortable with. Given its avowedly regional origins, its chances of forming a government were slight. Yet in its brief life it had an enormous impact, shifting the median vote significantly to the right.

To be sure, the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century. What it did not do was alter the underlying balance of Canadian politics. With Reform no longer a threat, the party had no need to watch its right flank; shorn of any lingering ideological mission, it became more known for its centralized leadership and relentless partisanship.

Moreover, the status quo ex ante of a single party on the right having been restored, the Liberal-NDP tag team were able to regain control of the terms of debate. The Harper government never dared, even after it had won its majority, to reform any of the institutions of the Liberal-NDP state, or challenge any of its fundamental assumptions, leaving little of substance to show for its time in office.

A hypothesis, in two parts: Maybe the Canadian left has succeeded, not in spite of its division into two or more parties, but because of it. Maybe the weakness of the right is because of, not despite, its unification into one.

Found this to be interesting the other day.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 16:49:09
Exactly right and very much my way of thinking.

You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.

 :pop:
You might be onto something there. But what to call it? The Conservative Progressives? ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 21, 2018, 17:23:50
Liberal-Conservatives  - The Party of John A. MacDonald

The party that united Presbyterians (and French Calvinists) and Methodists and other Non-Conformist Dissenters with the Catholics against the Episcopalian Anglicans.

In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.

Quote
The Liberal-Conservative Party was the formal name of the Conservative Party of Canada until 1873, and again from 1922 to 1938, although some Conservative candidates continued to run under the label as late as the 1911 election and others ran as simple Conservatives before 1873. In many of Canada's early elections, there were both "Liberal-Conservative" and "Conservative" candidates; however, these were simply different labels used by candidates of the same party. Both were part of Sir John A. Macdonald's government and official Conservative and Liberal-Conservative candidates would not, generally,[clarification needed] run against each other. It was also common for a candidate to run on one label in one election and the other in a subsequent election.[1]

The roots of the name are in the coalition of 1853 in which moderate Reformers and Conservatives from Canada West joined with bleus from Canada East under the dual premiership of Sir Allan MacNab and A.-N. Morin. The new ministry committed to secularizing Clergy reserves in Canada West and abolishing seigneurial tenure in Canada East.[2] Over time, the Liberal-Conservatives evolved into the Conservative party and their opponents, the Clear Grits and the Parti rouge evolved into the Liberal Party of Canada.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 21, 2018, 17:58:58
Liberal-Conservatives  - The Party of John A. MacDonald

The party that united Presbyterians (and French Calvinists) and Methodists and other Non-Conformist Dissenters with the Catholics against the Episcopalian Anglicans.

In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party
What, sir, what? Slanderous! As an Anglican I take exception! We should have sorted out all the bloody Dissenters and Nonconformists and Puritans when we had the chance! Beware The Church of The Big Pointy Hats!!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on February 21, 2018, 18:05:43
In fact in Canada the Orange Lodge was explicitly created to unite Catholics and Dissenters against Bishop Strachan's establishment Episcopalians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal-Conservative_Party

Could you run this Orange Lodge bit by me again, svp? The Orange Lodge was established in Canada by Ogle Gowan, a Protestant Irish immigrant, to bolster Protestant values and survived well into the late-20th century in Eastern Ontario. (While there had been earlier groups, the first lodge organized under Gowan's purview was set up in Brockville.) It may have also opposed the Family Compact et al, but this is the first time I have seen it linked with Catholics in a positive way. In fact it was active in opposing the 1837 Upper Canada rebellion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Order_in_Canada
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 21, 2018, 19:36:54
Perhaps some confusion on my part, conflating Ogle Robert Gowan's role as Grandmaster with the Orange Order at large.

Quote
He arrived in Leeds County, Upper Canada in 1829 and settled in Brockville. In 1830, he called a meeting which formed the Grand Orange Lodge of British North America; Gowan became its deputy grand master and later became Canadian grand master.

Gowan was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada for Leeds in 1834 and 1835 but was unseated due to violence at the polls by his Orange supporters. In 1836, he was elected in Leeds; despite his innate distrust of Roman Catholics, he had formed an alliance with Catholic voters to help bolster his support at the polls. In the same year, he founded the Brockville Statesman.

During the Lower Canada Rebellion of 1837, he helped raise a company of volunteers which also fought at the Battle of the Windmill. After the rebellion, Gowan declared his support for responsible government and the division of the clergy reserves among all recognized religious groups in the province. In 1844, he was elected to the 2nd Parliament of the Province of Canada for Leeds and Grenville. In the assembly, he supported John A. Macdonald against the interests of the Family Compact. In 1846, he was replaced by George Benjamin as grand master of the Orange Order in Canada. He helped lead the Orange opposition to the Rebellion Losses Bill in Canada West. In 1849, he stated his support for an elected Legislative Council. In 1852, he moved to Toronto where he served on city council in 1853 and 1854 and took over the publishing of the Toronto Patriot, formerly a Family Compact newspaper. In 1853, he regained the position of grand master, but Benjamin's supporters formed a separate Orange organization. In 1856, Gowan stepped down to allow the rift to be healed under a new grand master, George Lyttleton Allen. He was elected in an 1858 by-election to represent North Leeds and, in 1861, he retired from politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogle_Robert_Gowan
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 21, 2018, 21:01:41
Speaking of Orange, the new "new" message icons on milnet.ca look awfully NDPy   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 21, 2018, 21:06:45
Speaking of Orange, the new "new" message icons on milnet.ca look awfully NDPy   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 ;D

Subliminal messaging?  :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: daftandbarmy on February 21, 2018, 22:09:09
Subliminal messaging?  :)

More propaganda from the SNCOs Union? :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: beirnini on February 22, 2018, 09:39:13
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_Commission"):

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 09:52:41
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_Commission"):

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."

Interesting, this article pegs it at $60 million, although released in 2005, which was one year earlier than the CBC article referenced above.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gomery-cost-soars/article4114779/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gomery-cost-soars/article4114779/)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 22, 2018, 10:00:29
Perhaps some confusion on my part, conflating Ogle Robert Gowan's role as Grandmaster with the Orange Order at large.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogle_Robert_Gowan


It seems to me that Gowan was, rather like Mackenzie and Macdonald a politician first and was willing to build coalitions with whomever ... long spoons and all that.

I think Old Sweat and I raised our eyebrows at the thought of many Ontario Orangemen cooperating with Roman Catholics on much of anything.

My family's roots are in Dufferin and Wellington Counties (my paternal grandfather didn't move to Saskatoon until about 1920) ... that's about as Orange as you could get and I gather it remained so until the 1970s. I can guarantee, from observation, that in the 1960s, there were many active (some quite large) Orange Order lodges in Shelburne, Grand Valley, Orangeville (of course), Arthur, Mount Forest, Fergus and so on. Even today, as I pointed out to my wife last year, when I took her for a trip back there, the region is dominated by Presbyterian churches and a wee bit light on Roman Catholic ones.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 10:04:22
"Snapshots" from Another Taxpayer-Funded Holiday.

Lots of family-fun-times photographs in front of various landmarks dressed in Indian clothing (no cries of "cultural appropriation" from the SJW crowd yet, that I've seen, though), very little work, and his hosts seem irritated:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trudeau-s-unusual-india-visit-raises-eyebrows-criticised-by-canada-watchdog/story-Xg6UmLGX4g3AkPHhD87oVL.html

Justin Trudeau’s ‘unusual’ India trip raises eyebrows, panned by Canada watchdog

The Canadian prime minister’s schedule includes just half-a-day of official engagements in New Delhi.
world Updated: Feb 20, 2018 15:25 IST

Anirudh Bhattacharyya

Hindustan Times, New Delhi

"As Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues his eight-day visit to India, the fact that his schedule includes just half-a-day of official engagements in New Delhi is being described as “unusual” by veteran diplomats and criticised by a Canadian watchdog.

"A veteran Indian diplomat said in his long experience with bilateral visits, he had never experienced a trip of this nature, where the visiting dignitary spent so little time in official engagements with counterparts in the Indian government.

"In addition, he said, it was equally surprising that six cabinet ministers accompanying Trudeau had scant official engagements, except for foreign minister Chrystia Freeland, who will confer with external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj ahead of the meeting between the prime ministers in New Delhi on February 23.

The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity since he did not want to appear “churlish”.

"The low-key start to the visit on February 17 also raised eyebrows, with commentators noting that Trudeau was received at the Delhi airport by minister of state Gajendra Shekhawat.

"This, they noted, was in marked contrast to the warm welcome and hugs from Prime Minister Modi that marked the arrivals of US president Barack Obama, Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi crown prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

"Commentators also noted that there had been no tweet from Modi’s official account welcoming Trudeau and that he had not accompanied the Canadian leader to his home state of Gujarat. Reports have suggested that the Indian government is unhappy with Canada’s soft stance on Sikh radicals, who have increased pro-Khalitsan activities in recent years.

"Indian officials were also taken aback by the length and breadth of Trudeau’s visit, and the tacking on of an additional day for a town hall in New Delhi on February 24.

"The Ottawa-based Canadian Taxpayers Federation, an advocacy group, is not impressed with the itinerary. Its federal director, Aaron Wudrick, said in an email, “While it is understood that a Prime Minister will have to travel frequently, the proportion of time being spent actually meeting foreign counterparts on this trip does not suggest a good use of public money.

“A week is a long time for a PM to spend visiting one country, and a half of a day out of eight is very little official business.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/is-trudeau-hobnobbing-with-terrorists-why-india-doesnt-trust-canada-all-that-much

Is Trudeau ‘hobnobbing’ with terrorists? Why India doesn’t trust Canada all that much

There are real fears in India that Canada is a terrorist hotspot that could plunge their northwest regions into sectarian violence

Tristin Hopper

February 22, 2018 6:00 AM EST
Last Updated February 22, 2018 6:00 AM EST

"It’s pretty clear by now that Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is not having the most productive time in India. His itinerary is unusually light and, according to Indian media, high profile politicians seem to be actively avoiding him."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jaspal-atwal-invite-dinner-sophie-1.4545881

Convicted attempted murderer invited to formal dinner with Trudeau in India

B.C.'s Jaspal Atwal was convicted for 1986 attempt to assassinate Indian cabinet minister on Vancouver Island

By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2018 7:46 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 21, 2018 8:09 PM ET

"Atwal, who did not travel to India with the Trudeaus' entourage, was convicted of the attempted murder of an Indian cabinet minister, Malkiat Singh Sidhu, on Vancouver Island in 1986.

"At the time, he was a member of the International Sikh Youth Federation, banned as a terrorist group in Canada, the U.K., the U.S. and India.

"He's also been convicted in an automobile fraud case and was charged, but not convicted, in a 1985 near-fatal attack on Ujjal Dosanjh, an opponent of the Sikh separatist movement who later became premier of British Columbia.

"Trudeau has been under pressure throughout his India tour to answer Indian concerns about Sikh separatism in Canada. Today, he was asked about the public display of "martyr" posters honouring Talwinder Parmar, the leader of the 1985 Air India bomb plot, which took 331 lives.

"I do not think we should ever be glorifying mass-murderers," Trudeau said, "and I'm happy to condemn that."

India Report On Justin Trudeau & Sikh Radicalism In Canada https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vLzsZ3L0aI
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 10:24:58
Nice work if you can find it, as they say.  I hope he doesn't drown with his snout so deeply buried in the trough.   ::)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 22, 2018, 10:25:58
Trudeau "does not think we should be glorifying mass murderers".

You mean, he's not not even sure of that???
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 10:29:26
Trudeau "does not think we should be glorifying mass murderers".

You mean, he's not not even sure of that???

He was cool with Uncle Fidel...

He seems to attract the bad boys, doesn't he?   :rofl:


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-india-atwal-controversy-1.4546502
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Colin P on February 22, 2018, 11:23:40
"the reunited Conservative party was able to take power, with the help of the worst corruption scandal in a century"

If ever there was a mountain made from a molehill (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomery_Commission"):

"In the end, the ["Gomery" Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities] concluded that $2 million was awarded in contracts without a proper bidding system, $250,000 was added to one contract price for no additional work, and $1.5 million was awarded for work that was never done, of which $1.14 million was repaid. The Commission found that a number of rules in the Financial Administration Act were broken."

And as if that wasn't enough of an indignity upon our democracy, "The overall operating cost of the Commission was $14 million."

I had friends that had to deal with "Group Actionon" It was pretty clear they were a waste of time, never delivered a product, always late and always getting the contracts. I also suspected Ryder Travel of the same hanky panky.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 22, 2018, 12:05:14

It seems to me that Gowan was, rather like Mackenzie and Macdonald a politician first and was willing to build coalitions with whomever ... long spoons and all that.

I think Old Sweat and I raised our eyebrows at the thought of many Ontario Orangemen cooperating with Roman Catholics on much of anything.

My family's roots are in Dufferin and Wellington Counties (my paternal grandfather didn't move to Saskatoon until about 1920) ... that's about as Orange as you could get and I gather it remained so until the 1970s. I can guarantee, from observation, that in the 1960s, there were many active (some quite large) Orange Order lodges in Shelburne, Grand Valley, Orangeville (of course), Arthur, Mount Forest, Fergus and so on. Even today, as I pointed out to my wife last year, when I took her for a trip back there, the region is dominated by Presbyterian churches and a wee bit light on Roman Catholic ones.

Point taken.  Curiously my Presbyterian Uncle and Grandmother landed up in Orangeville.

I am familiar with the Orange Order in Northern Ireland.  I don't recall it having a strong following in Scotland (the Masons were more common).  The Canadian Orange Order is not as well known to me, although my RC wife's family from Saskatoon was well acquaint with them.

My understanding of the Religious Wars in Canada, a work in progress for me, is that it has made for some very strange bedfellows over the years.  George Brown, scion of the Liberals was a vehemently anti-Catholic Presbyterian and yet the Liberals became the party of Quebec and then the party of French and Irish RCs.    Meanwhile the Conservatives aligned Strachan's Scots and English Episcopalians of the Family Compact with the Seigneury and the Church of Quebec. 

And previously Frenchmen serving in the British Army were actively engaged in expelling the influence of the French Church from Quebec.

The point I keep coming to is that the simplistic division of Canada into Protestant English and Catholic French factions, mimicing Irish divisions, is a fiction born of modern political need.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 22, 2018, 12:50:12
"Snapshots" from Another Taxpayer-Funded Holiday.

Lots of family-fun-times photographs in front of various landmarks dressed in Indian clothing (no cries of "cultural appropriation" from the SJW crowd yet, that I've seen, though), very little work, and his hosts seem irritated:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/trudeau-s-unusual-india-visit-raises-eyebrows-criticised-by-canada-watchdog/story-Xg6UmLGX4g3AkPHhD87oVL.html
. . .

Seems like it's a bit much now for many Indians.

Quote
Justin Trudeau is ridiculed by Indians for his 'fake, tacky and annoying' wardrobe of traditional outfits - and finally dons a suit after criticism

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5421779/Justin-Trudeau-ridiculed-Indians-fake-outfits.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5421779/Justin-Trudeau-ridiculed-Indians-fake-outfits.html)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 13:04:06
You could remove the reference to the clothing a keep the rest of the headline.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 22, 2018, 13:13:12
Spend, spend, spend. What a vacation. I asked CTV to look into who paid for all the all the outfits the Trudeau family are wearing. Any bets who?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/feds-use-taxpayer-money-to-fly-celebrity-chef-to-india-1.3814009

Feds use taxpayer money to fly celebrity chef to India - 21 Feb 18

Vancouver-based celebrity chef Vikram Vij, a vocal Liberal supporter, was flown to India on the government’s dime to cook for a group of top diplomats, CTV News has learned.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been travelling across India with his family in hopes of boosting business ties with the South Asian nation.

The government flew Vij to India to help prepare Indian cuisine for a reception at the residence of the Canadian High Commissioner on Thursday.

Vij’s flight and hotel were paid for by taxpayers’ dollars, CTV News has learned.

In a statement to CTV News, a government spokesperson confirmed that Vij was invited to the reception and that his “out-of-pocket expenses” are being covered.

“Where appropriate, it is accepted practice for Canadian missions to invite ‎chefs from Canada to showcase Canadian food products and cuisine. Vikram Vij ‎is a prominent Indo-Canadian whose Vancouver restaurants are world-renowned for melding Canadian ingredients and the traditions of Indian cuisine,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

“Mr. Vij generously offered a week of his time, away from his Canadian business, to assist with the menu and food preparation for the Canada Reception. (Global Affairs Canada) is undertaking to cover his out-of-pocket expenses (eg. airfare and accommodation). Mr Vij's involvement will contribute to make the event a memorable celebration of the Canada-India friendship.”

Vij publically threw his support behind Trudeau ahead of the 2015 federal election. He even helped fire up a crowd in Vancouver during one of Trudeau’s campaign rallies.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 13:28:35
https://globalnews.ca/news/4037948/trudeau-family-criticized-for-indian-outfits/

February 21, 2018 12:55 pm   Updated: February 22, 2018 8:53 am   
 
Trudeau family criticized for overdoing it on their traditional Indian outfits

By Marilisa Racco  National Online Journalist, Smart Living  Global News

"It’s one thing to pay respectful homage to a culture, but it’s another thing entirely when your traditional attire starts to veer into costume territory. That’s exactly what some are saying about the Trudeaus.

"Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is already ripe for the picking (or trashing) as many have criticized him for his official trip that includes his wife and three children, and that is being questioned on its political relevance. Although the PM announced a $1 billion Canadian-Indian investment deal yesterday, the family’s insistence on consistently donning traditional Indian attire is starting to draw less than flattering attention.

"Described as “too Indian, even for an Indian,” the Trudeaus have commissioned some of India’s most prestigious designers to outfit them for every photo op. What was perhaps most glaring was the juxtaposition between the Canadian political family and the Bollywood stars they met on Feb. 20. Sophie was in a cream-coloured and beaded sari, their children Xavier and Ella-Grace wore a sherwani and lehenga, respectively, and the PM donned a gold sherwani complete with traditional mojari shoes - while the Indian stars wore slacks and jackets.

"Some people have taken to Twitter to express fashion fatigue, including National Conference leader Omar Abdullah."

Associated tweets:

"Is it just me or is this choreographed cuteness all just a bit much now? Also FYI we Indians don’t dress like this every day sir, not even in Bollywood. pic.twitter.com/xqAqfPnRoZ

- Omar Abdullah (@OmarAbdullah) February 21, 2018"

"Have any foreign leaders arrived to Canada dressed in Mountie costumes? https://t.co/LaIaycGPCo #TrudeauinIndia pic.twitter.com/DvShaYlnWP

- Mark O'Henly (@SeeClickFlash) February 19, 2018"

"Meet the newly wed indian couple.#JustinTrudeau wearing indian groom costume and #KristyDuncan wearing typical indian bridal maroon dress standing outside Hindu Temple and Trudeau wearing wedding necklace (Indian wedding custom)
Perfect. #TrudeauInIndia pic.twitter.com/7P8hvEVL5j

- Navdeep Singh (@NavdeepDhingra) February 19, 2018"

"Wonder how much Canadians paid for the Trudeau family stylist plus cost of costume changes for this Conde Nast Traveller junket💰💰💰 🙄#TrudeauinIndia #cdnpoli

- Prem 🇨🇦👌🏻🙏🏻💕 (@Prem_S) February 21, 2018"
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 22, 2018, 13:43:32
Sorry to those offended, our PM looks like a duffus. He really is an embarrassment. Meanwhile the CF-18 will be flying into at least 2032. Fifty year old "fighters".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FJAG on February 22, 2018, 14:03:41
The BBC chimes in on the Trudeau wardrobe:

Quote
Justin Trudeau's 'Bollywood' wardrobe amuses Indians

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43151115 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43151115)

I won't post an extract. You need to read it with the pictures.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 14:11:29
More Sunny Ways....

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/information-watchdog-blasts-liberals-ahead-of-her-retirement/article38060282/

Information watchdog blasts Liberals ahead of her retirement

Daniel Leblanc

OTTAWA

Published 15 hours ago

Updated February 21, 2018

"In her last week in office, Canada's information watchdog is accusing the Liberal government of reneging on its promise to bring a new era of openness to Ottawa and of failing to defend the "Charter right" of Canadians to quick and easy access to federal documents and data."

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 22, 2018, 14:16:34
And I would be willing to bet that the chef wasn't flying in economy either!!  Round trip business on Air India is just a little over 12000 but a first class ticket is also available.  Meanwhile, we can't afford medical coverage for our vets!!!  Aren't YOU glad you voted for him?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 22, 2018, 14:23:11
There needs to be a concerted "point and laugh" campaign launched every time our esteemed leader shows up in his latest cosplay outfits. Even when he shows up in his leader of a western nation costume. Maybe especially when he shows up in his western leader costume.  Emperor's New Clothes, and all that.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: beirnini on February 22, 2018, 15:05:18
Interesting, this article pegs it at $60 million, although released in 2005, which was one year earlier than the CBC article referenced above.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gomery-cost-soars/article4114779/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/gomery-cost-soars/article4114779/)
I'm not sure which set of numbers is correct, but I am pretty sure of one thing: The spectacular political opportunism that sprung up around this relatively piddling "scandal" did our nation no favours. Considering our bloated federal procurement system the misallocation of millions, or even tens of millions does not remotely qualify as "scandal of the century" for a country as wealthy as Canada. But the way it's brought up by some you'd think we were brought to the brink of bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 15:28:58
If the biggest issues you guys have to talk about is what the people said about what the PM wore, and accident on the part of a High Commission staffer in regards to a dinner invitation, then I'd say we're not doing so bad.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 22, 2018, 15:40:43
If the biggest issues you guys have to talk about is what the people said about what the PM wore, and accident on the part of a High Commission staffer in regards to a dinner invitation, then I'd say we're not doing so bad.

He's a laughing stock around the world, and makes Canada one by extension. If you think that's okay, then I'd say we're boned.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 22, 2018, 15:49:43
If the biggest issues you guys have to talk about is what the people said about what the PM wore, and accident on the part of a High Commission staffer in regards to a dinner invitation, then I'd say we're not doing so bad.

Lumber, I think that that we are doing  a lot worse if we also just dismiss this as just what he is wearing and an "accidental invite" given to a convicted criminal.

I could care less about what he is wearing (he is looking a bit ridiculous though).  I won't put the accidental invite on him but I am concerned that he might be hurting relations with India.  India is a major player and emerging economy seen by some as a foil to China.  Accidental invites and other gaffes are not acceptable.  Not at that level and not when a lot is at stake.  Things like this can come back to haunt.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 16:06:33
He's a laughing stock around the world, and makes Canada one by extension. If you think that's okay, then I'd say we're boned.

No he's not; the world is fawning over the PM.

Lumber, I think that that we are doing  a lot worse if we also just dismiss this as just what he is wearing and an "accidental invite" given to a convicted criminal.

I could care less about what he is wearing (he is looking a bit ridiculous though).  I won't put the accidental invite on him but I am concerned that he might be hurting relations with India.  India is a major player and emerging economy seen by some as a foil to China.  Accidental invites and other gaffes are not acceptable.  Not at that level and not when a lot is at stake.  Things like this can come back to haunt.

No, this is doing a lot worse:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/905130/Paris-gang-violence-death-france (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/905130/Paris-gang-violence-death-france)

https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-corruption-pp-rajoy-never-ending-problem-graft-ignacio-gonzalez/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/spain-corruption-pp-rajoy-never-ending-problem-graft-ignacio-gonzalez/)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-if-true-this-is-the-worst-case-of-corruption-in-israel-s-history-1.5841423 (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-if-true-this-is-the-worst-case-of-corruption-in-israel-s-history-1.5841423)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/18/china-rights-crackdown-goes-global (https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/18/china-rights-crackdown-goes-global)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/mexico-maelstrom-how-the-drug-violence-got-so-bad (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/mexico-maelstrom-how-the-drug-violence-got-so-bad)

https://businesstech.co.za/news/general/163503/the-shocking-truth-about-rape-in-south-africa/ (https://businesstech.co.za/news/general/163503/the-shocking-truth-about-rape-in-south-africa/)

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/el-salvador-tps-trump-gang-violence/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/el-salvador-tps-trump-gang-violence/)

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 22, 2018, 16:08:03
No he's not; the world is fawning over the PM.

CTV News
January 23, 2018
"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were deemed the most respected leaders globally, while U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin received the dubious distinction of receiving the worst approval ratings."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 22, 2018, 16:19:26
CTV News
January 23, 2018
"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were deemed the most respected leaders globally, while U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin received the dubious distinction of receiving the worst approval ratings."


That's a pretty low bar these days. Kinda like being the best snow fort builder in Namibia.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 22, 2018, 17:08:16
If the biggest issues you guys have to talk about is what the people said about what the PM wore, and accident on the part of a High Commission staffer in regards to a dinner invitation, then I'd say we're not doing so bad.

True.  Only Canadian's would be so neurotic as to think the rest of the world actually gives a crap about us.  Our geopolitical reality that keeps us safe in the world is balanced by the fact that we are also irrelevant in many ways.

However the concern for Mr. Trudeau is as follows IMHO.

Omar Khadr- the out of court settlement
Daesh "rehab" instead of jail time. 
Accidentally invites a convicted attempted murderer and Indian terrorist to dinner.

These each are separate issues.  Each with their own particulars.  Some not so serious, others very serious.  However, together they create a narrative that is not favourable whether accidental or revealing (perhaps both).  I suspect the CPC strategists are sharpening their knives on this right now.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 22, 2018, 17:10:59
True.  Only Canadian's would be so neurotic as to think the rest of the world actually gives a crap about us.  Our geopolitical reality that keeps us safe in the world is balanced by the fact that we are also irrelevant in many ways.

However the concern for Mr. Trudeau is as follows IMHO.

Omar Khadr- the out of court settlement
Daesh "rehab" instead of jail time. 
Accidentally invites a convicted attempted murderer and Indian terrorist to dinner.

These each are separate issues.  Each with their own particulars.  Some not so serious, others very serious.  However, together they create a narrative that is not favourable whether accidental or revealing (perhaps both).  I suspect the CPC strategists are sharpening their knives on this right now.
Yup. They will be. And it's a shame. They are a party that has been accused of being overly negative and all they have done to date is attack and be negative about the liberal party.

Which is fine, and it's their right, but at some point they are going to need to convince people of reasons why to vote for them other than we aren't the liberals.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 17:11:58
No he's not; the world is fawning over the PM.

As they do over his Kardashian siblings.

Who would have voted for him, or be "fawning over" him now, based upon his abilities, were he bald and named "Smith"?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 17:20:24
I am quite pissed off with these family vacations he's taking at our expense.  In an 8 day visit he's only going to do a 1/2 days work.  Flying this Chef in from BC etc etc.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 17:24:11
As they do over his Kardashian siblings.

Who would have voted for him, or be "fawning over" him now, based upon his abilities, were he bald and named "Smith"?

Moot. I wasn't arguing his popularity was based on merit instead of his hair. I was countering Kat Steve's assertion that "He's a laughing stock around the world," which he is clearly not.

You are all making the mistake of assuming that my saying "you're wrong about this or that" to mean the same thing as "Go Liberals! Go Trudeau!".

Maybe I'm just trolling because my indifference toward most Politics (notice I used a big P)...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 22, 2018, 17:26:56
Just check latest headlines:

1) Toronto Star (!!! on CP story):

Quote
India-Canada relations at ‘rock bottom’ after Trudeau invitation error, ex-Liberal cabinet minister says
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/22/trudeau-faces-more-trouble-on-india-trip-after-invitation-error-reports-of-snub-by-indian-pm-modi.html

2) Times of India:

Quote
On India trip, Khalistan keeps returning to haunt Canadian PM Justin Trudeau
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/canadian-pmo-does-damage-control-as-justin-trudeaus-trip-runs-into-khalistani-hitch-again/articleshow/63027955.cms

3) CNN (from New Delhi):

Quote
From 'snub' to scandal, Trudeau's India visit sparks outrage
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/asia/extremist-scandal-trudeau-india-visit-intl/index.html

I'd say our dear PM Dressup, if not actually wrecking Indo-Canadian relations, has put them back quite some ways--all in hope of domestic political pay-off:

CBC:

Quote
Analysis
How Trudeau's India trip lays the groundwork for the 2019 election
Indo-Canadians helped Liberals win the 2015 federal election, but the party faces new challenges in 2019
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4545182.1519231955!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/trudeau-india-20180221-topix.jpg)
[at Sikh Golden Temple] Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Amritsar, India during his visit to the country that is part foreign policy, international trade — and local politics. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-trudeau-india-1.4544010

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 22, 2018, 17:28:15
Who would have voted for him, or be "fawning over" him now, based upon his abilities, were he bald and named "Smith"?

Change your name and find a hair specialist?  :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 22, 2018, 17:29:12
... at some point they are going to need to convince people of reasons why to vote for them other than we aren't the liberals.
???  Hmmm, yet "ABC - Anyone But Conservatives" was an acceptable platform 18 months ago.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 22, 2018, 17:33:43
???  Hmmm, yet "ABC - Anyone But Conservatives" was an acceptable platform 18 months ago.
If it's ABL, one can easily shift their vote to the NDP, no?

CPC still need to try show people why they should vote for them, and not just focus on being a group focused of raging against the liberals.

Say what you will of the NDP, but they have their message back on track and a bunch of policy ideas out. The conservatives...no carbon tax, liberals suck, anything else?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 22, 2018, 17:53:13
If it's ABL, one can easily shift their vote to the NDP, no?

CPC still need to try show people why they should vote for them, and not just focus on being a group focused of raging against the liberals.

Nope.  Governments change only when Canadians want to vote someone out.  I can't think of a single government change since Mulroney where Canada voted someone in.

Say what you will of the NDP, but they have their message back on track and a bunch of policy ideas out. The conservatives...no carbon tax, liberals suck, anything else?

Conservatives don't need anything until election time.  No one pays attention too opposition platforms until an election is called.  Then approximately 20% of us always vote Conservative, 22% always vote Liberal,  12% always vote NDP,  10% minds can be changed and remainder don't vote.  So how does a platform matter right now again?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 22, 2018, 17:59:13
Conservatives don't need anything until election time.  No one pays attention too opposition platforms until an election is called.  Then approximately 20% of us always vote Conservative, 22% always vote Liberal,  12% always vote NDP,  10% minds can be changed and remainder don't vote.  So how does a platform matter right now again?
If that's the case, nothing really matters before the election campaign starts.

Regardless, I guess no real hard can come from yelling you suck for a few years, but I don't think that's the best way to go about things personally.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 22, 2018, 19:17:40
Lumber, I think that that we are doing  a lot worse if we also just dismiss this as just what he is wearing and an "accidental invite" given to a convicted criminal.

I could care less about what he is wearing (he is looking a bit ridiculous though).  I won't put the accidental invite on him but I am concerned that he might be hurting relations with India.  India is a major player and emerging economy seen by some as a foil to China.  Accidental invites and other gaffes are not acceptable.  Not at that level and not when a lot is at stake.  Things like this can come back to haunt.

I share Remius  concern that this silly, almost patronizing behaviour could harm relations with India, one of the world's most important countries, and a coming economy we could tap into. What is the point of this Mr Dress Up business? When an Indian PM comes to Canada, do we hope to see him wearing a plaid shirt, or a curling team windbreaker, or snowshoes? It seems like another case of quite bad judgement.

And I voted for his government!!  Yow. That stings.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 22, 2018, 19:30:44
When an Indian PM comes to Canada, do we hope to see him wearing a plaid shirt, or a curling team windbreaker, or snowshoes?

"When in Rome..."  :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 19:35:11
I share Remius  concern that this silly, almost patronizing behaviour could harm relations with India, one of the world's most important countries, and a coming economy we could tap into. What is the point of this Mr Dress Up business? When an Indian PM comes to Canada, do we hope to see him wearing a plaid shirt, or a curling team windbreaker, or snowshoes? It seems like another case of quite bad judgement.

And I voted for his government!!  Yow. That stings.

I think it would be awesome if a foreign head of government or state put on a flannel jacket and got photographed in line for a double-double at tims, or was scene sporting a québec style toque while eating poutine, or wearing a stetson and cowboy boots, swigging a Keyston XL.

I'm proud of our Canadian stereotypes and our cultural garb, and to see a foreign dignitary sporting it in good fun would make me smile. :)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: ModlrMike on February 22, 2018, 19:38:21
There's a difference between symbolically experiencing cultural touchstones, and dressing up like a parody of someone's culture.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 22, 2018, 19:38:47
What matters politically is the opposition making the gov't look bad.  All gov't have a best before date.  The opposition tries to hasten that timeline.  Platforms matter during an election year and right after the election.  In between those times they don't really matter, except to those who are politics watchers or party members.  Policy conventions can be useful in that they can create a "feel" for the public/press but generally the part brass throw those ideas out to run a campaign.

québec style toque
Avec les pom pom?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2018, 19:39:22
Avec les pom pom?

'ben oui! Toujours avec les pom pom!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 19:49:16
When an Indian PM comes to Canada, do we hope to see him wearing a plaid shirt, or a curling team windbreaker, or snowshoes?

Not in a completely different costume at each of several different locations every day over and over and over again. Once is fine, and also enough.

His son looks like he's had enough in some of these as well.

Are there any still-living FLQ members that this hypothetical Indian Prime Minister could invite to dinner while here? If not, maybe Omar could be available.

Somebody's going to photoshop a clown nose and smile onto the brighter-coloured get-ups in this portfolio. I can't be the only one who's thought of that.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 22, 2018, 20:50:01
I think it would be awesome if a foreign head of government or state put on a flannel jacket and got photographed in line for a double-double at tims, or was scene sporting a québec style toque while eating poutine, or wearing a stetson and cowboy boots, swigging a Keyston XL.

I'm proud of our Canadian stereotypes and our cultural garb, and to see a foreign dignitary sporting it in good fun would make me smile. :)

I think that it would be just as insulting to Canadians if a foreign Head of State came here and dressed up as an aboriginal, as much as this costumed 'actor' is insulting the populace of India.  He and his family are being ridiculed in the Press all around the world now.  If his socks didn't do it before, this visit to India has made him a laughing stock; a National embarrassment.

Making matter worse is the inclusion of a convicted assassin, whom he has been photographed with at least three times in the past decade, in his entourage.  Not taking responsibility; but blaming one of his Cabinet Ministers for the inclusion on the trip is yet another failure on his part.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 22, 2018, 21:38:32
Bonus cartoon included:

https://www.surreynowleader.com/news/surrey-mp-apologizes-for-inviting-criminal-to-trudeau-reception/

Surrey MP apologizes for inviting criminal to Trudeau reception

Posing for photos with controversial people has been a bane for politicians

Amy Reid/Tom Zytaruk

Feb. 22, 2018 1:11 p.m.

"Surrey Liberal MP Randeep Sarai has offered in a prepared statement an “apology without reservation” for his role in what is proving to be a public relations disaster for the federal Trudeau government."

http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/guest-column-still-clueless-in-ottawa

GUEST COLUMN: Trudeau's trip to India lacks purpose

By Arthur G. Rubinoff, Special to Postmedia Network

"Prior to Prime Minister Paul Martin’s visit to India in January 2005, I was approached by the Privy Council to provide a rationale for his trip and explain to the Indians why he was going there and what he should say.

"It was clear that the prime minister did not know the reason for his trip, other than to escape Ottawa in the middle of winter. I suggested that Mr. Martin commend India for “being a responsible nuclear power,” and he did just that. I reported this in an article for the McGill International Review Vol. VI., No 2. (Spring 2006) entitled “Clueless in Ottawa, Canada’s Need for an India Policy.”

"It is evident in the tepid reception that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has received that Canada still lacks a policy to engage India. There does not seem to be any purpose for, or proper planning to, his visit. The Indians do not seem to know why he is there. Is Mr. Trudeau merely reliving his childhood visit to the Taj Mahal with his own offspring? An equivalent visit by Indian prime minister Narendra Modi would be coming to Canada to see Niagara Falls."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 22, 2018, 21:58:24
If it's ABL, one can easily shift their vote to the NDP, no?

CPC still need to try show people why they should vote for them, and not just focus on being a group focused of raging against the liberals.

Say what you will of the NDP, but they have their message back on track and a bunch of policy ideas out. The conservatives...no carbon tax, liberals suck, anything else?

I don't know.  The leader of the big Orange Machine has been making quite a few gaffs in the media lately, as well.  I am not sure that all those ABC crowd will have many alternatives next election.  Both the Red Machine and Orange Machine seem to have very similar leanings when it comes to recognized "terrorist groups/organizations" and how we handle anyone affiliated with them here in Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 22, 2018, 22:56:10
This seems to be a constant problem for what I like to call "moderate conservatism" (or maybe Red Toryism  ;D ) in the last few years. There appears to be an almost irresistible temptation to begin drifting towards the right wing and angry populism.
You don't have to look as far as the US however to see the issue. We had our own "divide/reunite" the right period with the Reform party. (which I do not put in the same category as the Tea Party, Alt-Right etc.). The trouble is that conservatism is a numbers game and one constantly has to enter into unholy alliances. The best thing would be if the more conservative Liberals and the more liberal Conservatives could create a true centrist party and leave the NDP and the more extreme right to the fringes where they belong.
I don’t think a new centrist party is what we need.  I think it would be better to roll-back/undo the Unite the Right merger. I think there were a lot of “blue Liberals” who could regularly be counted upon to vote LPC but would have comfortably voted PC given any dissatisfaction with their usual party, and there were a lot of “red Tories” who could regularly be counted upon to vote PC baring any specific dissatisfiers.  With the merger of Progressive Conservatives and social conservatives, the CPC is now far enough right so as to no longer compete for the centrist vote against the Liberals. With his right flank secured, Justin Trudeau was free to lead the Liberals to flank the NDP to the left during the last election.

So there is a void where red Tories and blue Liberals. I think that void is best filled not by dropping a new party into it but by getting the old parties to start fighting for it again.  Split the CPC back into its old parts.  Ignoring the fringes: on the right would be Libertarians and a social conservative party, at right of centre would be a revived PC party, on the left of centre would be LPC, and on the left would be Green and NDP.  And to avoid the split vote problem that gave rise to the Chrétien majorities, ranked ballots using a condorset system.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 22, 2018, 23:22:37
The "leader" of a G7 country making chappati on an eight day vacation. Do you think the PM is missed by anyone in Ottawa? Butts probably just wanted to get rid of him for a while figuring he could do no harm.

Quote
In this photograph released by the Amritsar District Public Relations Officer on February 21, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (second from right), his wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau (left), daughter Ella-Grace and son Xavier prepare chappati for a communal vegetarian meal known as 'langar' at a community kitchen at the Golden Temple in Amritsar.HANDOUT / AFP/Getty Images

I have asked around for someone to find out how much all these different items of dress are costing us.

Duffus he is.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 23:27:10
I just read a comment on CBC that stated " I just hope he goes next to one of those countries that put a big disk in their lip"

 :rofl:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 22, 2018, 23:34:39
 http://nationalpost.com/commodities/b-c-to-seek-reference-case-in-courts-over-pipeline-dispute/wcm/875e4768-b85a-4d67-8aab-a8085cb59a11

Quote
After weeks of mounting tensions, Alberta and British Columbia moved Thursday to cool off the trade war that had threatened to escalate into a full-blown constitutional crisis.

“In a small way today, B.C. blinked,” Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said after B.C. softened its stance on the most controversial of a five-point plan to boost oil-spill preparedness on the West Coast. As a result, she said, Alberta would lift its ban on B.C. wine.

B.C. Premier John Horgan denied that he was backing down from a fight with Alberta when he announced earlier Thursday that his government would proceed with the first four points of his environmental protection plan but send the fifth and most controversial point – restricting the flow of diluted bitumen from Alberta – to the courts in a reference case.

To that end, Horgan said he was assembling a legal team to make the case that B.C. does have the jurisdictional power to limit the interprovincial trade of oil, which Ottawa and Alberta both dispute.
Crisis over.

No need for the feds to get nasty. Everyone happy?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 23:37:46
http://nationalpost.com/commodities/b-c-to-seek-reference-case-in-courts-over-pipeline-dispute/wcm/875e4768-b85a-4d67-8aab-a8085cb59a11
 Crisis over.

No need for the feds to get nasty. Everyone happy?

But your pal didn't save the day...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 22, 2018, 23:45:01
But your pal didn't save the day...
As I said at the time,  the BC government hadn't done anything yet. 

Should they proceed I definitely think the federal government would have stepped up and squashed the move by BC.

But while there were a lot foaming at the mouth demanding immediate action,  this has been resolved without the federal government having to get nasty with BC. A much better way,  no?

Now the courts will get this and in all likelyhood side with transmountain and the federal government. And with BC now not able to stop the pipeline,  who now doubts that it gets built?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 22, 2018, 23:49:57
The proof will be in the doing.  And nothings doing yet.  As the Brits say " there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip".   I'll believe it when l see it and not before else we'd be living like the Jetsons by now.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 22, 2018, 23:51:44
http://nationalpost.com/commodities/b-c-to-seek-reference-case-in-courts-over-pipeline-dispute/wcm/875e4768-b85a-4d67-8aab-a8085cb59a11
 Crisis over.

No need for the feds to get nasty. Everyone happy?
I think the word you are looking for is “postponed”.  The crisis is not averted ... not yet.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 22, 2018, 23:51:55
Sorry, but until the oil has been squirted down the tube and onto a tanker, I'll save my happy dance. Things have a way of getting mired in the courts.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 22, 2018, 23:56:15
Sorry, but until the oil has been squirted down the tube and onto a tanker, I'll save my happy dance. Things have a way of getting mired in the courts.
That’s the right answer.

BC is fighting a delay.  It does not even need to win in the courts.  It just needs to last until the investors bail (and they know this).  Hopefully, if that comes to pass, the federal government will still see the proceedings through to conclusion for the next time.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 23, 2018, 00:09:34
That’s the right answer.

BC is fighting a delay.  It does not even need to win in the courts.  It just needs to last until the investors bail (and they know this).  Hopefully, if that comes to pass, the federal government will still see the proceedings through to conclusion for the next time.
they are not going to be restricting the oil flowing through the pipelines until they win the court case.
Quote

his government would proceed with the first four points of his environmental protection plan but send the fifth and most controversial point – restricting the flow of diluted bitumen from Alberta – to the courts in a reference case.

BC needs to win in order to do any damage. Unless you believe they have a case,  crisis over.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 23, 2018, 00:31:24
they are not going to be restricting the oil flowing through the pipelines until they win the court case. 
BC needs to win in order to do any damage. Unless you believe they have a case,  crisis over.
Pipelines need to be built.  BC can do the damage it wants by delaying.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 23, 2018, 01:19:28
Pipelines need to be built.  BC can do the damage it wants by delaying.
Transmountain can build the pipeline, increase the amount of oil flowing through it when it's built and if, and only if BC wins their court case can the flow of oil be effected. That can be years away. And in all likelyhood, they will not win.

What delay?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 23, 2018, 01:33:40
Is the province not still backing Burnaby’s appeal to block the pipeline via bylaw?  And what are investors going to do if KM starts building a pipeline while the province threatens to block its use once built?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 23, 2018, 01:46:48
Is the province not still backing Burnaby’s appeal to block the pipeline via bylaw?  And what are investors going to do if KM starts building a pipeline while the province threatens to block its use once built?
That city bylaws can hold up a national energy project?

I don't think the city has a leg to stand on, do you?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MCG on February 23, 2018, 01:59:49
Well, the first court did not seem to think they had a leg to stand on (that’s why it is going to appeal), but that does not matter.  As I already stated, BC and its municipalities don’t need to win in the court.  They can achieve their aim through delay.

It worked for Montreal and the TransCanada pipeline.  BC knows it can work again ... especially if the federal government remains disengaged.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 23, 2018, 02:21:51
Every municipality and regional district along the proposed line can ask for court injunctions against construction until the impact on the mating cycle of the red striped racing worm can be ascertained, or any of a jillion other reasons to study environmental impact. They could tie it up for decades.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 23, 2018, 03:08:45
I for one will be happy when this nonsense is over with, and I hope for the sake of Alberta and Canada on a whole that these pipelines are built.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 23, 2018, 11:03:13
I'm proud of our Canadian stereotypes and our cultural garb, and to see a foreign dignitary sporting it in good fun would make me smile. :)

Yes. Yes...I see now that it probably would...... ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 23, 2018, 11:06:40
I for one will be happy when this nonsense is over with, and I hope for the sake of Alberta and Canada on a whole that these pipelines are built.

I bet the PM wishes that too. I know I do. I live one block from the CN main line in Kingston, and I don't like seeing those long drags of dozens of tanker cars, even at the reduced running speed. IMHO, far far more risky and accident-prone than any properly engineered pipeline would ever be.

I don't believe that we can't exploit our resources in an intelligent way and still protect our environment to a prudent and reasonable degree that our children will not curse us for. To me it isn't "either/or".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 23, 2018, 11:18:24
More new outfits. Video from Canada House as the PM dances the night away.

https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/justin-trudeau-breaks-into-bhangra-at-delhi-event-twitter-is-divided-1816200  (Video at Link)

Justin Trudeau Breaks Into Bhangra At Delhi Event. Twitter Is Divided - 23 Feb 18
Dressed in a black shervani and accompanied by wife Sophie Trudeau, the 46-year-old danced to the beats of a dhol at a venue that was decked up like a big, fat Delhi wedding.



Crikey, even Don Martin!

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-martin-blog/don-martin-if-this-is-trudeau-putting-canada-back-on-the-world-stage-we-should-get-off-1.3815230  (Video at Link)

Don Martin: If this is Trudeau putting Canada 'back' on the world stage, we should get off - 22 Feb 18

First, that testy unproductive China visit last fall. Then there was the angry group of Pacific Rim partners left stewing as Canada waffled back from a free trade agreement. And let's not get started on how repeated soothing Justin Trudeau visits have only ramped up President Donald Trump’s trash-talking of Canada for re-negotiating NAFTA in bad faith. Now add India to the list of countries which have lowered their opinion of Canada as a result of prime ministerial visits.

If this is Trudeau putting Canada back on the world stage, we should get off.

This week’s far-too-long tour of India by a prime minister looking for campaign-friendly photo-ops has become a cross between the Keystone Cops and Mr. Dressup. Poor advance team scouting, lousy political intelligence-gathering, awkward fashion advice and a major security breach have turned a minor snub at the arrival gate into a sustained epic failure. For six days Trudeau has wandered the country with a collection of mediocre cabinet ministers in tow who have little reason to be there beyond being Sikh.

Meanwhile his foreign affairs and international trade ministers stayed home.

This is not to begrudge the effort. India is an overlooked economic giant with unlimited potential for Canadian interests. It's in the mission delivery where things have fallen apart. In the quest for perfect optics, they missed the big picture problem of an India whose leaders believe, rightly or wrongly, that Canada is too cozy with Khalistani extremists.

And you knew this was truly a voyage of the damned when, just as Punjab was pacified, it fell apart all over again. A Canadian Sikh extremist, convicted in the attempted murder of an India cabinet minister, was discovered as an honored reception guest.

By the time CTV News discovered the nonsensical inclusion of a celebrity Indian cuisine chef from Canada, flown at taxpayers’ expense to whip up a dinner in India, well, it was almost comic relief.

Given his now-proven tendency to bring tension to otherwise calm international relationships, Justin Trudeau should just stay home. For the next while, for the preservation of our good name, the world doesn’t need more Canada.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 23, 2018, 13:12:05
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-in-the-real-world/

Justin Trudeau in the real world

Paul Wells: The prime minister’s so-called ‘state visit’ trip to India was so tone-deaf, hopeless and unserious he might as well never have gone

February 22, 2018

"In most of the world, secession is not a once-in-a-generation five-week downer that causes awkward moments around the dinner table. In India, the 1947 partition that led to the creation of Pakistan created a river of blood, hundreds of thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of rapes, millions internally displaced, betrayal, upheaval and grief. In much of India it’s hard to walk into any room without meeting people whose family stories prominently feature harrowing tales of this massive human tragedy.

"Visitors aren’t expected to sit for an essay exam on the ramifications of all this for the modern-day Sikh independence movement. Maybe a highly-hypothetical secession of the Sikh homeland would go more smoothly! But this is the emotional landscape within which such questions are considered, in a real place with real people.

"So maybe if you visit India, don’t spend the week parading across the landscape dressed like the Griswolds, to be met at a couple of stops by an easily-identifiable convicted violent extremist who has a well-documented recent history of popping up in British Columbia at Liberal events and on Liberal organizational charts. Especially if the fellow in question specialized in violence related to the very sectarian disputes Trudeau is suspected of taking too lightly."

"This trip began with an omen when the official PMO news release announcing it called it a “state visit.” Canadian heads of government don’t make state visits; governors-general do. Prime Ministers make official visits. In Ottawa, people familiar with the distinction are so common they are practically falling from the trees."

"Apparently none fell on anyone in Trudeau’s staff. And so this kind of is a state visit after all, insofar as it’s premised on the assumption that its protagonist is a ceremonial figure who is not authorized to make executive decisions. It follows a China trip in which the PM arrived in chinos and left with no trade deal, and an APEC summit in Danang that went so badly the Liberals had to send a sometime Liberal party factotum to Tokyo weeks later to mend fences. It’s not a great thing when the question that arises, consistently, when a prime minister travels is what the hell he thinks he’s doing."

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 23, 2018, 13:16:57
"Just not ready.  Nice hair though."  The words of those commercials ring so true still for me and it appears to increasing numbers of peoplekind as well. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: E.R. Campbell on February 23, 2018, 13:22:51
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-in-the-real-world/

Justin Trudeau in the real world

Paul Wells: The prime minister’s so-called ‘state visit’ trip to India was so tone-deaf, hopeless and unserious he might as well never have gone

...


My comments are in the India (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39917.msg1522168.html#msg1522168) thread, so I will not repeat them here.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 23, 2018, 13:23:47
John Robson: Trudeau's next mind-bogglingly ambitious policy he won't deliver on

The federal Liberal administration intends to assess every policy based on how it will affect everything to do with gender. And after lunch, world peace

John Robson   
 
February 22, 2018 10:47 AM EST
   
"Trudeau is the reductio ad absurdum of the illusion that the whole concept of practical difficulties is either a failure of imagination or a plot to thwart social justice. Hence his response to the failure of any high-minded sweeping promise to which no real practical thought was given, is to make an even more sweeping one with even less thought, including his recent third pledge of total transformation of Aboriginal policy in Canada. But this “gender-based policy analysis” is far more astoundingly cosmic."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 23, 2018, 13:36:18
I bet the PM wishes that too. I know I do. I live one block from the CN main line in Kingston, and I don't like seeing those long drags of dozens of tanker cars, even at the reduced running speed. IMHO, far far more risky and accident-prone than any properly engineered pipeline would ever be.



I'd be more worried of CN cars full of chlorine.  When it comes in contact with air 1 cup of liquid chlorine will turn in to 300 square feet of gas, so a cracked train car would be some 150'431'100(?) square feet of chlorine gas.
:trainwreck:



As for Trudeau he's an actor. He's just staying in his arcs.  I'm anxiously waiting to see what's in store next for dress-up time, hoping he dresses up like the dog filter from snap chat.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 23, 2018, 13:41:58
I'd be more worried of CN cars full of chlorine.  When it comes in contact with air 1 cup of liquid chlorine will turn in to 300 square feet of gas, so a cracked train car would be some 150'431'100(?) square feet of chlorine gas.
:trainwreck:



As for Trudeau he's an actor. He's just staying in his arcs.  I'm anxiously waiting to see what's in store next for dress-up time, hoping he dresses up like the dog filter from snap chat.


Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: mariomike on February 23, 2018, 13:49:40
I'd be more worried of CN cars full of chlorine.  When it comes in contact with air 1 cup of liquid chlorine will turn in to 300 square feet of gas, so a cracked train car would be some 150'431'100(?) square feet of chlorine gas.
:trainwreck:

Remembering Mississauga in 1979. Good thing Mavis and Dundas was sparsely populated - back then.
The train was eastbound via downtown Toronto.

106-cars of chemicals and explosives including styrene, toluene, propane, caustic soda, and chlorine.

"Death from Above:

It ran off the track, 11-79
While the immigrants slept, there wasn’t much time
The mayor came calling and got ’em outta bed
They packed up their families and headed upwind
A poison cloud, a flaming sky, 200,000 people and no one died
And all before the pocket dial, yeah!”

It was the largest peacetime evacuation in North America until the New Orleans evacuation of 2005.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 23, 2018, 14:21:47
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-may-have-lost-the-foreign-press-and-not-just-fox-news/

Justin Trudeau may have lost the foreign press (and not just Fox News)

It’s hard to miss the change in tone over just the last week, amidst a disastrous visit to India: the Prime Minister’s glow has faded

Murad Hemmadi

February 22, 2018

"The foreign press does not love Justin Trudeau, not any more."

I feel sorry for Xavier. Once again, he appears to be the only one in these photographs who realizes how they all look, and wishes that it would end quickly.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 23, 2018, 15:13:06
Remembering Mississauga in 1979. Good thing Mavis and Dundas was sparsely populated - back then.
The train was eastbound via downtown Toronto....It was the largest peacetime evacuation in North America until the New Orleans evacuation of 2005.
My family and I lived through that. Fortunately a few km north of us. The wreck site was actually quite close to a suburban housing area, and there were businesses and plants along Mavis Rd. Thank God it turned out as it did: it could have been a Lac Megantic.

Quote
I'd be more worried of CN cars full of chlorine.  When it comes in contact with air 1 cup of liquid chlorine will turn in to 300 square feet of gas, so a cracked train car would be some 150'431'100(?) square feet of chlorine gas.

Right...and I don't want that either. and I REALLY don't want a mixed  trainload of nasties, which I see from time to time. But oil comes in various grades, and a good ignition source can get it going fairly easily. Not too long ago, an OPP Sgt I know attended a derailment in which tank cars left the line and ruptured a gas line, which by huge good fortune didn't ignite.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 23, 2018, 15:17:55
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-may-have-lost-the-foreign-press-and-not-just-fox-news/

Justin Trudeau may have lost the foreign press (and not just Fox News)

It’s hard to miss the change in tone over just the last week, amidst a disastrous visit to India: the Prime Minister’s glow has faded

I was watching CBC this AM (as I do each AM) and he was getting quite a working over. The panelists used words such as "incompetence" and "pointless".

I really don't understand WTF he was trying to do, or who he thought he was appealing to. Perhaps politicians of all stripes would be well advised to stop trying to pander to one particular ethnic group or another: it can backfire.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 15:29:41

Right...and I don't want that either. and I REALLY don't want a mixed  trainload of nasties, which I see from time to time. But oil comes in various grades, and a good ignition source can get it going fairly easily. Not too long ago, an OPP Sgt I know attended a derailment in which tank cars left the line and ruptured a gas line, which by huge good fortune didn't ignite.

Agreed.  Also, Canada already has several pipelines.  All are unsecured, which creates several problems.  Furthermore, with age, pipelines corrode causing leakage. As there is a shift away from fossil fuels, we should be looking at the future of energy, not the past. 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Underway on February 23, 2018, 15:35:58
Agreed.  Also, Canada already has several pipelines.  All are unsecured, which creates several problems.  Furthermore, with age, pipelines corrode causing leakage. As there is a shift away from fossil fuels, we should be looking at the future of energy, not the past.

Barring a massive breakthrough in solar panels to increase their efficiency in normal operating conditions to past 14%, our future includes oil.  Lots and lots of it.  Pipelines are orders of magnitude better than moving the oil through trains which have far more problems and are far more dangerous to people and the environment.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 15:45:34
Barring a massive breakthrough in solar panels to increase their efficiency in normal operating conditions to past 14%, our future includes oil.  Lots and lots of it.  Pipelines are orders of magnitude better than moving the oil through trains which have far more problems and are far more dangerous to people and the environment.

Your statement has merit, as I understand our global need for energy.  However, there are other - read cleaner - options that will take time to develop.  We should be the world leader in promoting cleaner energy, instead of selling one of our non-renewable resources at a discount to other nations.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 23, 2018, 15:47:30
So we need lots and lots of hamsters to spin the turbine wheels. That'll work.  Oil derivative combustible fuels will continue to be one of the primary ways to develop energy for mechanical motion for a long, long time. Add in the growing practice of using more plastics than we can recycle and materials derived from oil used in manufacturing, like 3D printing, the fossil fuel industry has a bright future everywhere but Canada.     
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 15:51:31
So we need lots and lots of hamsters to spin the turbine wheels. That'll work.  Oil derivative combustible fuels will continue to be one of the primary ways to develop energy for mechanical motion for a long, long time. Add in the growing practice of using more plastics than we can recycle and materials derived from oil used in manufacturing, like 3D printing, the fossil fuel industry has a bright future everywhere but Canada.     
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 23, 2018, 16:01:48
Good luck with that, pipelines have better prospects than any new CANDU reactors.     
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 23, 2018, 16:55:29
And, we can make plastic out of the spent fuel rods. Win/win! Wait, what was that? Okay, never mind.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 17:03:08
And, we can make plastic out of the spent fuel rods. Win/win! Wait, what was that? Okay, never mind.

Recycling, a new concept!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Kat Stevens on February 23, 2018, 17:07:54
Recycling, a new concept!

That requires large amounts of energy. Old concept!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 17:15:33
That requires large amounts of energy. Old concept!

Q: Can recycling save energy?

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127472.0.html
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 23, 2018, 17:22:57
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-story-of-how-b-c-supported-benefited-from-then-double-crossed-trans-mountain

The story of how B.C. asked for, benefited from, then double-crossed Trans Mountain - 23 Feb 18
Former head of the National Energy Board remembers a time when the province couldn't wait for the pipeline to be built

"Lengthy posts and fully quoted articles are posted here. Link to these large posts in the regular boards."
https://milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,127473.0.html

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 23, 2018, 17:26:24
So we need lots and lots of hamsters to spin the turbine wheels. That'll work.  Oil derivative combustible fuels will continue to be one of the primary ways to develop energy for mechanical motion for a long, long time. Add in the growing practice of using more plastics than we can recycle and materials derived from oil used in manufacturing, like 3D printing, the fossil fuel industry has a bright future everywhere but Canada.     

Good luck with that, pipelines have better prospects than any new CANDU reactors.

And our diesel subs are the best in the world. Good old fossil fuel!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 23, 2018, 18:12:07
Somebody's feelings were hurt...

https://www.outlookindia.com/website/amp/liberal-canadian-pmo-bars-outlook-from-high-commissions-reception-for-trudeau-ov/308666

Outlook India

22 February 2018 National

'Liberal' Canadian PMO Bars Outlook From High Commission’s Reception For Trudeau Over Khalistan Coverage

Outlook, in its February 12, 2018 issue, with a cover "Khalistan-II- Made in Canada" had carried seven articles in a package questioning Canadian cabinet's proximity and appeasement policies towards the Sikh radicals

Outlook Web Bureau

"‘Liberal’ Canadian Prime Minister's Office on Thursday withdrew invitation to High Commissioner dinner for Outlook magazine.

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau feted the world over as the new face of “liberalism” seem to find it difficult to accommodate critical media coverage. An hour-before the high commissioner’s reception cum for dinner for Trudeau the invitation to Outlook was withdrawn.

"An Indian official called up to apologise in withdrawing the invitation at the last minute. But admitted that he was instructed by the Canadian PM’s Office to withdraw the invite because Outlook which had done a cover story on “ Khalistan - II made in Canada” cannot be in guest list to welcome Trudeau."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 23, 2018, 19:12:21
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/sarai-trudeau-atwal-meeting-1.4548705

MP Sarai will be in the principal's office next week.  That, would be a hoot to listen to.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 23, 2018, 20:08:31
It will probably be: YOU, and YOU alone will take full responsibility, to one and all, for this ****-up and and leave me and Gerald (Butts) completely out of it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 23, 2018, 20:16:21
It will probably be: YOU, and YOU alone will take full responsibility, to one and all, for this ****-up and and leave me and Gerald (Butts) completely out of it.


...don’t forget Katie Telfer.

Sarai will likely have one of the PMO’s junior minion Starbucks fetchers swing by Sarai’s Office to drop off the “not-to-be-modified-in-any-way” text for him to read.  I bet he even is ordered to squeeze out a tear or two of regret and deep personal shame. :pop:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 23, 2018, 20:37:29
MARCH IN THE SACRIFICIAL BACKBENCHER!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 23, 2018, 21:02:38
And our diesel subs are the best in the world. Good old fossil fuel!

That speaks of the sad state of the world I guess.  They are pretty good running on electric, fairly quiet unless beans were served with brekky.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on February 23, 2018, 21:06:32
I tend to agree with ERC's take on the India-Trudeau situation, but does anyone else think this guy Jaspal Atwal should have been flagged as a security risk? Like to our own PM?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 23, 2018, 21:17:32
I would agree that the PM is a security risk too.   :nod:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on February 23, 2018, 21:20:54
I would agree that the PM is a security risk too.   :nod:

yes I think he is too sadly
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 23, 2018, 22:20:09
I tend to agree with ERC's take on the India-Trudeau situation, but does anyone else think this guy Jaspal Atwal should have been flagged as a security risk? Like to our own PM?

Trudeau has known Atwal for years.  There are photos of the two of them together from over a ten year or more period of time.  Atwal, a failed assassin and involved in automobile insurance fraud 9http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-we-know-about-jaspal-atwal) has been a Surrey Fleetwood-Port Kells Liberal riding association executive.  (https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/convicted-assassin-sits-on-liberal-party-ridings-executive-board-of-directors/)
I suspected that Trudeau overrode the security advice from his security people when he met with Joshua Boyle.  I am even more convinced that Trudeau overrode the advice of his security people on the Atwal matter.  He, following his usual MO, is not taking any blame, and a 'sacrificial lamb' is being brought forward to absorb all blame.
Can Canada's international reputation get any worse?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 23, 2018, 22:29:29
Can Canada's international reputation get any worse?

Yup.  He can be given a second peopledate in 2019.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 23, 2018, 22:30:54
Quote
Can Canada's international reputation get any worse?

Waiting for the shoe to drop.


https://www.thespec.com/news-story/2219070-sex-pizza-and-politics-with-justin-trudeau/

Sex, pizza and politics with Justin Trudeau - 13 Oct 11

Extract: “The intensity, the excitement of being in the middle of a political campaign — it’s heavy, it’s fun stuff,” started Trudeau. “There’s pizza, sex and all sorts of fun things.”

It was one of several lighter moments in a student town hall session at McMaster Wednesday afternoon, in which the son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau took questions on student concerns and the future of the country.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: suffolkowner on February 23, 2018, 22:32:53
Trudeau has known Atwal for years.  There are photos of the two of them together from over a ten year or more period of time.  Atwal, a failed assassin and involved in automobile insurance fraud 9http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-we-know-about-jaspal-atwal) has been a Surrey Fleetwood-Port Kells Liberal riding association executive.  (https://bcblue.wordpress.com/2012/03/03/convicted-assassin-sits-on-liberal-party-ridings-executive-board-of-directors/)
I suspected that Trudeau overrode the security advice from his security people when he met with Joshua Boyle.  I am even more convinced that Trudeau overrode the advice of his security people on the Atwal matter.  He, following his usual MO, is not taking any blame, and a 'sacrificial lamb' is being brought forward to absorb all blame.
Can Canada's international reputation get any worse?

I guess there's no one to save him from himself
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: RangerRay on February 23, 2018, 23:01:49
I thought I heard of this guy before.  Atwal was not an unknown quantity.

http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/what-we-know-about-jaspal-atwal

What we know about Jaspal Atwal, the attempted murderer invited to dine with Trudeau

Quote
But Jaspal Atwal, who was photographed with Sophie Grégoire Trudeau and Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi at an event in Mumbai on Tuesday, already had something of a history of inserting himself into Canadian Liberal politics before he was invited to the event on Thursday by MP Randeep Sarai.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 24, 2018, 09:38:39
I feel that the PMO is the ones who should take all the heat for this. They seem to think they are smarter than everyone else and when their tidy little plans blow up in their face they are unable to deal with the fall out effectively.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: BeyondTheNow on February 24, 2018, 09:45:21
(Sorry to throw this in the centre of current flow. It’s related, but a little off course.)

This was a good read, especially as its source isn’t the typical media go-to for me.

Quote
...The worst part is none of this was necessary. The differences we have with Canada should have been left for the formal discussions. That is where they are best addressed. But if you’ve invited someone to your home it behooves the host to ensure he’s received graciously. Once an impression to the contrary is created, repeated and spread many will believe you’ve treated your guest badly. This is very far removed from Atithi Devo Bhava. I fear the Trudeaus will go home believing they were an exception to this much-touted commitment...

https://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/the-truth-about-the-snub-to-trudeau/story-LEu1KgxNvniVvI7ruJVfNM.html (https://m.hindustantimes.com/columns/the-truth-about-the-snub-to-trudeau/story-LEu1KgxNvniVvI7ruJVfNM.html)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 24, 2018, 10:04:12
Posting this picture less as an attempt at humour and more to make a point.   I think the "heterosexual" one is lame but for the remainder of the pictures it shows the actor-PM's fascination (or obsession) with playing dress up.


(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/28167020_351403805339180_1347593228933148038_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9&oh=2bad1d0ea6d2f145e695218cc86c3dee&oe=5B48F7FF)
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: YZT580 on February 24, 2018, 10:08:34
Did the Indian government actually invite the Trudeau's or was his visit more like 'Oh dear, Aunt Matilda just 'phoned and she is stopping in tonight for an extended visit'?   I have gotten the impression that this was more his idea and he more or less foisted himself upon his hosts:hence his reception
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 24, 2018, 13:19:54
Quote
At the detective’s desk, a story of crime is pieced together from multiple sources, but even then, a charging document is not the truth; it is subject to challenge. In literature, truth is an investigation, not an end point, so the story is an instrument for revealing the complexity of being alive, and wisdom, rather than certainty, is the hope.
In politics, truth tends to be whatever those holding the bullhorn say it is.

A long, and well worth reading, dissertation on truth, sex, power and victimhood, and religion. 

From the well known hard right organ "The Nation"

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-metoo/
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 24, 2018, 19:20:00
Yea nah Trudeau will just arrange for a second cross Canada tour to engage with every day Canadians in town halls, again, and reconnect with everyone. Maybe a pit stop or to at whatever culture he hasn't played dress up with yet.

Nothing to see here (except some selfies) ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 24, 2018, 19:39:52
Yea nah Trudeau will just arrange for a second cross Canada tour to engage with every day Canadians in town halls, again, and reconnect with everyone. Maybe a pit stop or to at whatever culture he hasn't played dress up with yet.

Nothing to see here (except some selfies) ;D
3rd cross country town hall tour.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 24, 2018, 20:26:09
Justin time for Montreal's Just For Laughs Festival.  He'll fit right in.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 24, 2018, 20:39:09
Quote
https://globalnews.ca/news/4044543/david-akin-analysis-justin-trudeaus-bengal-bungle/

ANALYSIS: How Justin Trudeau’s India trip went from bad to ‘Bengal Bungle’ - David Akin - 23 Feb 18

Extract: 1. And then “worse” turned to “farce” when the PMO trotted out one of the most senior members of the civil service, someone who is one of the handful of bureaucrats privy to literally all the secrets of our national security agencies, to engage in frantic damage control.

According to Twitter https://twitter.com/brianlilley?lang=en

Quote
@BrianLilley is the first to officially report Trudeau's top security official was the one who lied to the media about Atwal.

Quote
When did it become ok for national security director Daniel Jean, to help @justintrudeau politically?

The National Security Advisor (Full title: National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister (French: Conseiller en matière de sécurité nationale auprès du Premier ministre)) is an associate secretary in the Privy Council Office (PCO) responsible for Security and Intelligence. He or she is supported by the Security and Intelligence Secretariat and the International Assessment Staff.

The current National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister is Daniel Jean (previously the deputy minister at Foreign Affairs) appointed May 16, 2016, filling the vacancy left when his predecessor, Richard Fadden, who retired.


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/trudeau-appoints-new-national-security-advisor

Trudeau's pick for security adviser shows focus on foreign affairs expertise - 5 May 16

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has picked an experienced deputy minister in foreign affairs rather than a senior security bureaucrat as his new national security adviser. The national security adviser wields much influence. He has the prime minister’s ear on security and intelligence issues, foreign and defence policy and acts as a conduit for conveying the prime minister and cabinet’s directions to the national security community.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 25, 2018, 09:27:26
Is playing Mr Dress Up the same as "cultural appropriation?"  :orly:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 25, 2018, 10:19:43
Justin time for Montreal's Just For Laughs Festival.

 :rofl:

Did you miss the space bar ('Just in'), or was that intentionally brilliant?   ;D
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 25, 2018, 10:27:42
:rofl:

Did you miss the space bar ('Just in'), or was that intentionally brilliant?   ;D

I like puns
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 25, 2018, 12:23:57
Am I reading this right? The PMs staff tried to say that they didn't screw up but some kind of conspiracy by Indian saboteurs was the reason this failed assassin was invited out for supper?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 25, 2018, 13:49:30
Am I reading this right? The PMs staff tried to say that they didn't screw up but some kind of conspiracy by Indian saboteurs was the reason this failed assassin was invited out for supper?

No. It is even worse than that: they apparently got the National Security Advisor (a public servant) to say that.

It is bad enough for political staff to blame the Indians, but a senior public servant?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 25, 2018, 13:56:09
Makes me wonder at how far down they're willing to stoop to try and deflect attention from this mobile clown show the PMO has become.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Chris Pook on February 25, 2018, 14:00:46
No. It is even worse than that: they apparently got the National Security Advisor (a public servant) to say that.

It is bad enough for political staff to blame the Indians, but a senior public servant?

And not just any Indians - but the Indian Government, or Security Agencies, or super-secret subversive factions within the Indian Government.....

Dale Carnegie is not on the staff.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 25, 2018, 14:07:37
I think we're jumping to conclusions here. The Liberal government just isn't going to cohearse a public servant to lie about a foreign ally in order to try and make the Prime Ministers office save face while they're making a series of very minor and not-at-all embarrassing mistakes.

I for one totally believe the story about this secret cabal of Shadowy Indian agents     :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 25, 2018, 14:13:13
Did you read Akin's article?

The National Security Advisor:

Quote
This individual, in describing the theory, couched every possibility with words like “maybe” and “possibly,” yet offered no proof or evidence of any allegation and did all of this from behind the cloak of anonymity.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Journeyman on February 25, 2018, 14:18:51
...couched every possibility with words like “maybe” and “possibly,” yet offered no proof or evidence...
Ah, a Military Intelligence briefing.   :whistle:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 25, 2018, 14:44:17
Ah, a Military Intelligence briefing.   :whistle:

They didn't describe him as "overweight" and "a failure in his three previous occupations" though...
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 25, 2018, 14:59:48
I don't know about you people but I could sure go for a selfie of the PM dressed up like a detective in a trench coat investigating this caper.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Old Sweat on February 25, 2018, 15:10:55
I don't know about you people but I could sure go for a selfie of the PM dressed up like a detective in a trench coat investigating this caper.

Indeed, looking for a Clue, so.  ;D

Missed my attempt at a pun: Clue, so = Clouseau
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 25, 2018, 15:46:07
He may have two clues; but one is most likely lost, while the other one is out looking for it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2018, 01:41:25
http://www.timescolonist.com/atwal-says-he-bowed-out-of-event-in-india-to-save-trudeau-embarrassment-1.23184805

Atwal says he bowed out of event in India to save Trudeau embarrassment

Amy Smart and Gemma Karstens-Smith / The Canadian Press
February 25, 2018 02:09 PM

"SURREY, B.C. - A man convicted of attempted murder who was invited to a dinner reception with Justin Trudeau in India says he has a friendly relationship with the prime minister, and stayed away to save him from further embarrassment."

"Atwal said he has known Trudeau for years. During one of Trudeau's visits to B.C. in 2008 or 2009, he said the pair sat together in Atwal's Hummer and chatted.

"We know each other. He knows my name, he'll come and say, 'Hey Jas, how you doing?' We have a good relationship I never see any problem," he said in the interview on Saturday. "But now he says, 'Oh Jaspal's not supposed to be here, this and that.' It surprised me."
Trudeau's spokesman, Cameron Ahmad, said the prime minister and Atwal are not friends.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 26, 2018, 07:30:51
Kate Purchase is in overdrive and the CBC is fighting hard to regain the image of Mr. Dress Up (http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/photo/the-mr-dressup-prime-minister/) image by casting the trip as an entire success that was well planned and smoothy executed:
ANALYSIS
What really happened on Trudeau's India trip: Trade concerns overshadowed by wardrobe choices, extremism talk
By Evan Dyer, CBC News Posted: Feb 25, 2018 6:23 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 25, 2018 3:13 PM ET

"Everywhere Trudeau went, roads were lined with welcome billboards, many showing his smiling countenance next to Modi's or local chief ministers. Indian officials expressed bewilderment at the "snub" narrative, a lot of which hinged on the fact that Modi didn't go to the airport.

More on link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/india-trudeau-trip-wrap-up-1.4550703
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: FSTO on February 26, 2018, 09:46:52
Kate Purchase is in overdrive and the CBC is fighting hard to regain the image of Mr. Dress Up (http://www.macleans.ca/multimedia/photo/the-mr-dressup-prime-minister/) image by casting the trip as an entire success that was well planned and smoothy executed:
ANALYSIS
What really happened on Trudeau's India trip: Trade concerns overshadowed by wardrobe choices, extremism talk
By Evan Dyer, CBC News Posted: Feb 25, 2018 6:23 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 25, 2018 3:13 PM ET

"Everywhere Trudeau went, roads were lined with welcome billboards, many showing his smiling countenance next to Modi's or local chief ministers. Indian officials expressed bewilderment at the "snub" narrative, a lot of which hinged on the fact that Modi didn't go to the airport.

More on link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/india-trudeau-trip-wrap-up-1.4550703

Lost all respect for Evan Dyer after that fluff piece.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 26, 2018, 11:45:26
I know some folks love slagging the CBC,  but I regularly watch the CBC, listen to it driving to and from work, and read the news website. (I also look at BBC, ABC and even occasionally FOX as sanity checks) I've listened to "As It Happens" for 30 years.

As far as I can tell, if you look broadly across all forms of CBC coverage, the message has come through pretty clearly that this whole India trip thing has been a questionable venture with all sorts of embarrassing aspects. I don't get the impression, at all, that CBC is working for the PMO.

Since Harper appointed a number of the currently sitting board of CBC directors, the CBC is no longer the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation"  it once undoubtedly was (circa early 90s). If you pay close attention, as opposed to cherry-picking, it usually appears pretty objective, which means reporting both good and bad.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 26, 2018, 11:55:23
I know some folks love slagging the CBC,  but I regularly watch the CBC, listen to it driving to and from work, and read the news website. (I also look at BBC, ABC and even occasionally FOX as sanity checks) I've listened to "As It Happens" for 30 years.

As far as I can tell, if you look broadly across all forms of CBC coverage, the message has come through pretty clearly that this whole India trip thing has been a questionable venture with all sorts of embarrassing aspects. I don't get the impression, at all, that CBC is working for the PMO.

Since Harper appointed a number of the currently sitting board of CBC directors, the CBC is no longer the "Communist Broadcasting Corporation"  it once undoubtedly was (circa early 90s). If you pay close attention, as opposed to cherry-picking, it usually appears pretty objective, which means reporting both good and bad.

Rex Murphy is proof of that.  He wouldn't be working at CBC if it were still the "Liberal Propaganda Machine".
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Piece of Cake on February 26, 2018, 12:02:42
Rex Murphy Don Cherry is proof of that.  He wouldn't be working at CBC if it were still the "Liberal Propaganda Machine". Oh wait...   :rofl:

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 26, 2018, 12:35:28
Rex Murphy is proof of that.  He wouldn't be working at CBC if it were still the "Liberal Propaganda Machine".

Andrew Coyne is also a regular commentator.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2018, 14:09:59
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/geopolitics/article/2134781/trump-jr-outshines-trudeau-thats-how-bad-india-canada-ties

Trump Jr outshines Trudeau - that’s how bad India-Canada ties are

While US president’s son kept his mouth shut and stuck to business, Canadian PM turned himself into a joke who is either genuinely foolish or is cynically playing to his Sikh vote-bank in Canada

By Vir Sanghvi

26 Feb 2018

"Events have a way of surprising you. When it was announced that Donald Trump Jr.and Justin Trudeau would visit India at roughly the same time, Indians prepared to see what gaffes the younger Trump would commit. Trudeau, on the other hand, was expected to wow India with his charisma and youthful charm.

"It simply hasn’t worked out that way."

"Trudeau’s Liberal Party is popular with Canada’s Sikh community and with those Sikhs who still harbour Khalistani sentiments. India has repeatedly complained about the Liberal Party’s willingness to associate with Sikhs who regard the bombers of the Air India plane as heroes. But Trudeau has not distanced himself from such figures and the Indian government believes that some Sikh legislators still support Khalistan.

"Such foolishness was enough to make sure that no one in a position of authority in India took Trudeau seriously. But things got worse when a photo of Trudeau’s wife Sophie with a man called Jaspal Atwal emerged. The photo was taken at an event in Mumbai where Atwal also posed with Amarjeet Soni, a Canadian minister who was part of Trudeau’s delegation."

"Atwal, a former member of a Khalistan terror group, was convicted by a Canadian court of trying to murder an Indian minister in Vancouver in 1986. And yet, here he was, posing happily with the Canadian leader’s wife. Worse still, it emerged that Atwal had also been invited to the official reception for Trudeau at the Canadian High Commission in Delhi.

"The Atwal incident confirmed everything New Delhi had suspected about the Liberal Party’s links with Khalistani terrorists and an embarrassed Trudeau rescinded the invitation which he described as “unfortunate” without actually condemning Atawal’s terrorist background.

"Why had the Canadian golden boy disappointed his many admirers and pushed India-Canada relations into the abyss? The short answer appears to be: given a choice between relations with India and more votes from Canadian Sikhs, Trudeau will take votes over foreign policy anytime even if, in doing so, he seems like a cartoonish lightweight. Even Donald Trump Jr outshone him; a turn of events nobody could have predicted."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 26, 2018, 14:24:22
Ouch....But I don't think relations have been pushed to the abyss. Maybe floating like garbage on Ganges, but not yet in the abyss. Next time though!
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2018, 14:37:52
Video at link:

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/26/watch-trudeau-says-top-complaint-canadians-youre-not-bringing-enough-immigrants/

WATCH: Trudeau Says Top “Complaint” Of Canadians Is “You’re Not Bringing In Enough Immigrants”

News Spencer Fernando February 26, 2018
 
"All the polls say otherwise, showing how totally out-of-touch Trudeau is from the Canadian people.

"Justin Trudeau said many dumb and dishonest things on his trip to India.

"Among those dumb and dishonest things was a comment that is totally at odds with all the facts when it comes to what Canadians think about immigration.

"While in Mumbai, Trudeau said that the most common complaint he hears from Canadians is “you’re not bringing in enough immigrants.”

"Of course, we know that the polls say the exact opposite.

"For example, a 2017 poll by Angus Reid found that 57% of Canadians say Canada “should accept fewer immigrants and refugees.”

"Also in 2017, the Association for Canadian Studies found 38% of Canadians said Canada is taking in “too many” immigrants, 41% say we are taking in “about the right number,” while just 10% say Canada is taking in “too few.”"
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 26, 2018, 15:18:27
Down goes Brown once again.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: pbi on February 26, 2018, 18:03:08
Down goes Brown once again.

At the hands of a fixture of the Tories in Ontario, Randy Hillier no less!! It will be interesting to see what the Commissioner finds, or doesn't.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2018, 18:54:48
Tired out?

Can't stand the anticipated heat?

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/02/26/hiding-trudeau-skipping-question-period-take-personal-day-disastrous-india-vacation/

HIDING: Trudeau Skipping Question Period To Take ‘Personal’ Day After Disastrous India Vacation

News Spencer Fernando February 26, 2018

"Apparently, Trudeau’s 8 day long taxpayer-funded vacation in India wasn’t enough.

"Justin Trudeau is hiding from Question Period.

"The PMO issued an advisory saying he is taking a ‘personal’ day:"
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 26, 2018, 19:15:50
Maybe too much dancing the bahangra to the amusement of the world has tuckered him out. Or jumping to conclusions about being set up by the Indian government, all the exercise would tire anyone out.  Poor guy... :nod:
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 26, 2018, 19:32:17
He's had secret meetings with a terrorist, a shady religious convert prisoner turn criminal, an assassin and convicted criminal.

Who the heck can he be meeting with now?
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: beirnini on February 26, 2018, 19:36:59
Quote
Trudeau invests in Confederate Soldier’s uniform for next visit to White House (https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/02/trudeau-invests-confederate-soldiers-uniform-next-visit-white-house/)

[...]Trudeau plans to accessorize with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, a blank copy of the bible, and a pair of Confederate flag socks, which he claims were “a gift.”[...]

 ;D

I'm guessing a Klan outfit would've overdone it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2018, 20:04:38
I'm guessing a Klan outfit would've overdone it.

"“After all, when in Rome… you dress in a complete replica of papal vestments,” she added."
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 26, 2018, 21:55:43
"“After all, when in Rome… you dress in a complete replica of papal vestments,” she added."

Perhaps Trudeau saw his predecessor?

Trudeau was over the top, but lets not pretend like he's the first PM to dress up.

Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Breacher on February 26, 2018, 22:48:26
Perhaps Trudeau saw his predecessor?

Trudeau was over the top, but lets not pretend like he's the first PM to dress up.

Context makes all the difference. In the first image, PM Harper was being honoured by the blood tribe.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/harper-honoured-by-alberta-s-blood-tribe-1.1088181 (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/harper-honoured-by-alberta-s-blood-tribe-1.1088181)

As for the second image, at the link you will find numerous images of his trip to India. In only one image is he wearing Indian cultural attire (and then only the headdress). I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was being respectful.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-pictures-stephen-harper-in-india/article4958699/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-pictures-stephen-harper-in-india/article4958699/)

In the third image, PM Harper, a Calgary MP, was dressed in cowboy attire as is the custom for many Albertans, for the Calgary Stampede.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/06/photos_stephen_harper_at_the_calgary_stampede_1.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/06/photos_stephen_harper_at_the_calgary_stampede_1.html)

I don't see a valid comparison between PM Harper and PM Trudeau's behaviour.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: dapaterson on February 26, 2018, 22:56:08
Every politician panders to voters and potential voters.

But for another take on the trip to India, America's favourite Briton has this to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDdUMaJ5D4&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on February 26, 2018, 23:59:21
Context makes all the difference. In the first image, PM Harper was being honoured by the blood tribe.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/harper-honoured-by-alberta-s-blood-tribe-1.1088181 (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/harper-honoured-by-alberta-s-blood-tribe-1.1088181)

As for the second image, at the link you will find numerous images of his trip to India. In only one image is he wearing Indian cultural attire (and then only the headdress). I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was being respectful.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-pictures-stephen-harper-in-india/article4958699/ (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/in-pictures-stephen-harper-in-india/article4958699/)

In the third image, PM Harper, a Calgary MP, was dressed in cowboy attire as is the custom for many Albertans, for the Calgary Stampede.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/06/photos_stephen_harper_at_the_calgary_stampede_1.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/07/06/photos_stephen_harper_at_the_calgary_stampede_1.html)

I don't see a valid comparison between PM Harper and PM Trudeau's behaviour.

There wasn't a comparison being made. Trudeau was over the top, but the costumes was hardly the biggest issue with his trip. The point was that Harper also partook in costume wearing as have most PMs so it's not a unique incident like some would make it out to be. In fact, it detracts from the fact that the PM was unable to make inroads in India and may have potentially hurt relations with the Atwal issue. Costumes are a side show.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Altair on February 27, 2018, 00:00:16
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/scheer-says-tories-will-recognize-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-if-elected (http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/scheer-says-tories-will-recognize-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-if-elected)

If PM trudeau continues to **** up his brand and finds a way to fumble the election away to the conservatives Canada will be next to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Quote
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer says if his party forms government in 2019, it will follow Donald Trump’s lead and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Scheer’s declaration comes in the form of a pledge posted to the Conservative party website designed to gather signatures from members of the public.

“Canada’s Conservatives led by Andrew Scheer will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital when we form government in 2019,” the pledge says, describing the party as “a strong voice for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community.”
And like I said before,  stop being negative nancies and come out with actual reasons why Canadians should vote for you,  and look at that,  some actual policy.

Looks good on them.  They should do it more often.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Breacher on February 27, 2018, 00:06:48
There wasn't a comparison being made. Trudeau was over the top, but the costumes was hardly the biggest issue with his trip. The point was that Harper also partook in costume wearing as have most PMs so it's not a unique incident like some would make it out to be. In fact, it detracts from the fact that the PM was unable to make inroads in India and may have potentially hurt relations with the Atwal issue. Costumes are a side show.

That is your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Good2Golf on February 27, 2018, 02:39:35
There wasn’t a comparison being made.........The point was that Harper also partook in costume wearing as have most PMs so it's not a unique incident like some would make it out to be.

Yeah...what’s that word for when someone performs a juxtaposition of one to another in a variety of similar contexts?  Oh wait, it’s called a....comparison.

G2G
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: George Wallace on February 27, 2018, 11:51:33
........ The point was that Harper also partook in costume wearing as have most PMs so it's not a unique incident like some would make it out to be.

Yes.  He did.  Much like many of us have for a Mess Dinner.   ;D  As part of the 'group' he did at times partake in wearing a prescribed costume.
Trudeau, and family, turned their 'vacation' to India into a circus act.  They were doing that all on their own; not as part of a 'State function'.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 27, 2018, 12:05:58
That is your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

So costumes are the biggest take away for you from this gong show? Sorry no.  Bird_Gunner is correct.  it detracts from the more serious issue of screwing up relations with a potential trading partner not to mention a serious security breach and error in judgement.

But some people just want to chew on the bone that is thrown at them rather than the actual meat they are trying to hide.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Loachman on February 27, 2018, 13:17:26
There was a comment from one Indian commentator to the effect that "nobody of importance in India takes him seriously", based upon his costume choices and poses. So, yes, even before the Atwal incident, he had severely compromised his secondary reason for being there.

His stupid fashion choices did not detract from his other failures. They set the stage for the others, and reinforced his overall weakness.

And it's not only the Indian government that takes him less seriously than it previously did because of this clown-like performance (if any government ever did).
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 27, 2018, 13:23:24
Trudeau's fascination with playing dress up and acting isn't the main take away from his performance in India but it's a great segue into his priorities and what he's all about.  Into the main show, if you will  ;D

Comparing Trudeau's dress-up with Harper? Not even close.

It actually doesn't bother me that much. Trudeau is a drama teacher so he's rolling with what he knows in his comfort zone. Canadians elected a drama teacher so this is what they get.   
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: jollyjacktar on February 27, 2018, 13:34:12
So costumes are the biggest take away for you from this gong show? Sorry no.  Bird_Gunner is correct.  it detracts from the more serious issue of screwing up relations with a potential trading partner not to mention a serious security breach and error in judgement.

But some people just want to chew on the bone that is thrown at them rather than the actual meat they are trying to hide.

I disagree.  By turning this trip into a National Lampoon's Indian Vacation comedy, he dicked around for 90% plus of the time with the wife and kids.  This "Hey everybody! It's a party!!!" attitude, led to dragging along every Indo/Canadian on team Red, who in turn dragged in the convicted arsehole that made Indian heads explode.  It's no wonder they don't take us seriously with the Canadian Kardashians showing up on vacation.   

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sites/default/files/bm_cartoon/CH-deAdder-27_02_2018-MD.jpg
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Remius on February 27, 2018, 16:35:53
The problem with Trudeau critics is that they always attack superficial things like his costumes like his hair, his socks like the fact he's a drama teacher etc etc.  No wonder he'll get elected again.  No one seems to attack his policies his judgement etc etc.  The opposition better start getting it together or electors aren't going to buy the hair or costume stuff just like they didn't buy it last time.

Scheer finally did indeed do that but it's being drowned out with shiny stuff that is clearly distracting from the more serious things.

TBH I really think that he might be doing this all on purpose to keep people focused on those trivial things and people are falling for it.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: whiskey601 on February 27, 2018, 16:53:58
TBH I really think that he might be doing this all on purpose to keep people focused on those trivial things and people are falling for it.

... and even if not on purpose, at least the outcome will be the same. Sigh.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Furniture on February 27, 2018, 17:01:27
The problem with Trudeau critics is that they always attack superficial things like his costumes like his hair, his socks like the fact he's a drama teacher etc etc.  No wonder he'll get elected again.  No one seems to attack his policies his judgement etc etc.  The opposition better start getting it together or electors aren't going to buy the hair or costume stuff just like they didn't buy it last time.

Scheer finally did indeed do that but it's being drowned out with shiny stuff that is clearly distracting from the more serious things.

TBH I really think that he might be doing this all on purpose to keep people focused on those trivial things and people are falling for it.

I wouldn't say his detractors are focused on the fluff, I'd say the media is and that leads it to be the "news" you hear about. People comment on it frequently because it's the media narrative surrounding the man. Policy and serious matters aren't even considered by the average voter until the election comes around, and one could make a strong argument that even at election time most people don't care about policy.
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 27, 2018, 17:09:58
Justin Trudeau's excellent Indian adventure:

1) CP:

Quote
Trudeau backs official who said Indian government factions sabotaged trip

Justin Trudeau is standing by a senior government official who suggested factions within the Indian government were involved in sabotaging the prime minister's visit to India last week.

During his first question period since arriving back in Canada, opposition MPs are grilling Trudeau about invitations issued to Jaspal Atwal – a B.C. Sikh convicted of attempting to assassinate an Indian cabinet minister in 1986 – to attend two events with the prime minister in India.

In a background briefing arranged by the Prime Minister's Office, a government official suggested that Atwal's presence was arranged by factions within the Indian government who want to prevent Prime Minister Narendra Modi from getting too cosy with a foreign government they believe is not committed to a united India.

Conservatives are identifying the official as Trudeau's national security adviser, Daniel Jean, and they're pressing Trudeau to say whether he agrees with Jean's "conspiracy theory."

Trudeau is defending the official as a professional, non-partisan public servant who provides quality advice.

He says when a top diplomat and security official says something "it's because they know it to be true."..
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-backs-official-who-said-indian-government-factions-sabotaged-trip/article38130663/

2) Times of India--India's foreign intelligence agency--the Research and Analysis Wing, RAW (nice cover name, what?), is known to be active in Canada with regard to Khalistanis amongst other things:

Quote
SAD: Govt agencies conspired to eclipse Canadian PM Trudeau's India visit

ALANDHAR: BJP's alliance partner in the Centre [federal gov't New Delhi] and the state [Punjab, recently in coalition with BJP but lost most recent state election], Shiromani Akali Dal [a Sikh party] has now alleged that the Indian intelligence agencies had hatched a conspiracy to ruin Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's visit to India. The party has also accused the BJP and the Congress of playing a part in this.

SAD Delhi unit chief Manjit Singh G K, who is also president of the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, minced no words in flaying the Centre for the treatment meted out to Trudeau. He said there were attempts to malign the image of Sikhs.

"While one hand our Prime Minister can go to Pakistan uninvited despite the hostilities on the border or welcome Chinese president with great warmth despite its adversities, Canadian PM was cold shouldered even as Canada has done nothing against India," he said in a statement issued on Monday. "Sikhs could never imagine that the PM of a country which provided them opportunities of employment and growth would be treated so badly by the Indian government," he said.

He said the DSGMC was writing to the Union ministries of external affairs, home affairs and information and broadcasting to register their protest against the way Trudeau was cold shouldered and brazen attempts were made to embarrass him.

Giving details of sequence of visits by Jaspal Atwal and his posts from his Facebok account, G K pointed out Atwal had even posted a picture with a BJP national spokesperson, who is also holding important official positions in the central government bodies, as a guest on Media Waves radio talk show. He said there was a strong suspicion that the Indian intelligence/security agencies had hatched a conspiracy to sabotage Trudeau's visit to India so that he could be branded a Khalistan supporter and some section of the media also played a role in it [emphasis added]...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/sad-govt-agencies-conspired-to-eclipse-canadian-pm-trudeaus-india-visit/articleshow/63087810.cms?from=mdr

Mark
Ottawa
 
Title: Re: Politics in 2018
Post by: Breacher on February 27, 2018, 17:34:35
So costumes are the biggest take away for you from this gong show? Sorry no.  Bird_Gunner is correct.  it detracts from the more serious issue of screwing up relations with a potential trading partner not to mention a serious security breach and error in judgement.

But some people just want to chew on the bone that is thrown at them rather than the actual meat they are trying to hide.

Sigh. I guess I should have provided more detail on my thoughts. I will attempt to rectify that now.

In his rebuttal, BG45 claims to be making no comparisons. In order for me to validate his statement “let’s not pretend he was the first PM to dress up”, I have to compare PM Trudeau’s performance to that of his predecessors. BG45 then provides examples to assist in making a comparison. I’m a thumperhead, so maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t know what else to call it other than a comparison. I wanted see if BG45’s examples supported his point of view. This is where I have the problem. The photos he posted are without context and that makes them pretty much meaningless. I attempted to put them into context by providing the links and after doing so I felt that the representations in the photos didn’t qualify as “dressing up” or “costume wearing” (this is the point I was trying to make). Here’s why:

In the first image, PM Harper is seen wearing a ceremonial headdress. This was no doubt given to him as an honour from the Blood Tribe. To put it in soldier terms, it would be like being presented the MMM at Rideau Hall by the GG. To categorize it as “dress up” is in my mind, being insensitive to First Nations culture. IMHO, it is not dress up.

In the second series of images, there is one image of PM Harper wearing headdress and a business suit. I wasn’t there and so I do not know the circumstances. However, I can surmise that he was asked by his hosts to wear the headdress or he was advised by his staff that wearing it was the appropriate cultural or religious custom for the circumstance. I could be wrong. If so, I still don