Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)

347 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)

;

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
mark_alfred

The last thread got closed due to Babbler bickering.  So, I figured I'd open a new thread on the topic.

The Liberal Party made some very good promises (along with some potentially good but, alas, frustratingly vague promises) during the campaign.  A website was set up to keep track of how many of these promises the Liberals kept or broke:  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

The site is not perfect but it's a pretty good effort at government accountability.  Keeping government accountable for its promises seems a very good thing to discuss, I feel.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

The last thread got closed due to Babbler bickering.  So, I figured I'd open a new thread on the topic.

The Liberal Party made some very good promises (along with some potentially good but, alas, frustratingly vague promises) during the campaign.  A website was set up to keep track of how many of these promises the Liberals kept or broke:  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/

The site is not perfect but it's a pretty good effort at government accountability.  Keeping government accountable for its promises seems a very good thing to discuss, I feel.

I don't. I think it's biased to run a site like that. Over time there will be promises that nobody wants him to keep anyway. Already the pro-war rats are screaming for his neck if he brings the 6 bombers home. What's a boy Prime Minister to do? Ask Rex Murphy!

mark_alfred

If a situation changes drastically and a promise made in a different circumstance becomes ridiculous to keep in a current circumstance, then of course that's something that should be taken into consideration.  But, to simply disregard the mandate that a government was given (based on their campaign promises) from the people is reckless, in my opinion.  Governments should be accountable to the people for the promises they've made.  They got their mandate to govern from the people from these promises that they made to the people.  If the government breaks a promise, the government better have a good explanation for that.

Pondering

monty1 wrote:

I don't. I think it's biased to run a site like that. Over time there will be promises that nobody wants him to keep anyway. Already the pro-war rats are screaming for his neck if he brings the 6 bombers home. What's a boy Prime Minister to do? Ask Rex Murphy!

 

Even though I think changed plans can be justified I still think it is very useful to have a simplified way of evaluating how his actions compare to his platform by the end of his mandate.

If he fails to keep a promise but that is what Canadians want then they will dismiss criticism. Rex Murphy is wrong. People want politicians that can adjust plans if the situation changes or is not what was expected.

Only partisans expect 100% of a platform to be fulfilled to the letter but we should still examine which ones he fails to keep to decide if he is justified.

For example, today it was announced that there will be no gap in Canada's contribution to the war effort. That means the bombers only come home when we replace them with something else. Coalition partners have made requests some of which Canada will agree to and others not. I'm not happy with this outcome but I can see that it is an international diplomacy issue so realistically this is how these things are handled.

That site will make it much easier to keep track of the small but important promises. I want to know which ones he doesn't keep so I can decide how significant they are.

mark_alfred

Good news!  Liberals promised to repeal Bill C-36!  Bill C-36 is the Conservative anti-sex-worker law.

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/7206

https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-green...

Mind you, it was something that we hardly heard about during the campaign.  But, the commitment was made.  So, trudeaumetre did add this as a promise that was made.  We'll see if they live up to it. 

From the article:

Xtra's Kevin O’Keefe wrote:
Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill?

Liberal's Bill Morneau wrote:
Well, on this there’s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that — now, I know there’s no Conservative here — but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. It’s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Good news!  Liberals promised to repeal Bill C-36!  Bill C-36 is the Conservative anti-sex-worker law.

https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/7206

https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-green...

Mind you, it was something that we hardly heard about during the campaign.  But, the commitment was made.  So, trudeaumetre did add this as a promise that was made.  We'll see if they live up to it. 

From the article:

Xtra's Kevin O’Keefe wrote:
Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill?

Liberal's Bill Morneau wrote:
Well, on this there’s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that — now, I know there’s no Conservative here — but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. It’s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it.

Interesting. It was not a platform item and it was not made by Trudeau. Trudeau has named prostitution violence against women. I don't believe he will decriminalize or legalize prostitution. It isn't something he would want to be known for or have as part of his legacy.

mark_alfred

You think Morneau was just telling a lie to the people at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre that night?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

You think Morneau was just telling a lie to the people at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre that night?

I think he was saying what he believes and supports but he became minister of Finance not Justice.

It isn't included in the mandate letter to Jody Wilson-Raybould. I very much doubt that she would preside over the legitimization of prostitution given it's impact on indigenous women as an extension of colonialization.

http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-justice-and-attorney-general-canada-mandate...

She has promised to listen to sex workers, not do their bidding.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/11/27/Justice-Minister-on-Sex-Work/

Federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's pledge to review the Harper government's prostitution laws is going to bring fire from both sides in the often-bitter debate over the issue.

But Wilson-Raybould has already staked out a different position than the Conservative government, promising to consult sex workers on yet-to-be determined reforms.

Wilson-Raybould, a 44-year-old former Crown prosecutor in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, skirted The Tyee's questions about the divisions on the issue.

"I definitely am committed to reviewing the prostitution laws, and sitting down with my officials to assess the best options, and with those they affect directly," she said in a phone interview.

Central to that review, Wilson-Raybould said, will be "listening to people who are impacted." The Conservatives were criticized for stacking the witness list for Senate hearings with people who supported their prostitution legislation.

Wilson-Raybould said her main objective will be "to reduce the incidence of violence against women." The new attorney general also said she would ensure any changes to the law "are consistent with the commitments that we've made, are consistent with the Charter, and certainly consistent with the values that we generally have as Canadians -- values of diversity, of inclusiveness and equality."....

The Native Women's Association of Canada supports the Conservative government’s approach, arguing that sex workers should not be charged but buyers, pimps and others involved in the trade should face criminal penalties.

"I get so frustrated with the conversation," the organization's president Dawn Lavell Harvard said in a phone interview Nov. 25, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. "We want to make sure that the women being victimized and exploited are not being punished when they are in fact the victims -- but that those who are exploiting, purchasing, pimping and making money are punished.”....

She will see through false arguments such as this one:

"They're putting women directly in harm's way … Robert Pickton preyed on the women knowing they wouldn't go to the police. Decriminalization is the only answer."

How could they go to police, they were dead. Pickton happened under the old laws. The women are no longer criminalized so they can go to police. Having longer to "size up Pickton" wouldn't have helped his victims as they willingly went to his farm to party.

Nobody is going to legalize or decriminalize prostitution in Canada because it would be electoral suicide. There are many more people strongly opposed than strongly in favor. Those that are okay with it cite red light districts in industrial areas with legally mandated health checks to protect the customers not New Zealands decriminalization model.

No politician in Canada is going to want to be responsible for or remembered for the spread of brothels and that includes the NDP.

C-36 will survive. The part that criminalizes sex workers based on location might be repealed. I think it's more likely that additional measures will be put in place to help women avoid or leave prostitution.

mark_alfred

Morneau answered yes to whether they would repeal or revise it, so I was mistaken to say they've promised to repeal it (though he did say they'd get rid of it).  We'll see if they live up their promises.

ETA:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

You think Morneau was just telling a lie to the people at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre that night?

I think he was saying what he believes and supports but he became minister of Finance not Justice.

No, it was a definite commitment rather than an I dunno what my party's gonna do, but I think that...

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

No, it was a definite commitment rather than an I dunno what my party's gonna do, but I think that...

I get that. He isn't the one with the authority to do it and it wasn't in his mandate letter. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has control over that file and I doubt she will consult the finance minister on it.

Trudeau has said that he won't fight the Supreme Court decisions and he is cancelling Harper's challenges of Supreme Court rulings. Sex workers claim C 36 is the same as the old laws but it isn't. It is substancially different and there has been no court challenge on C 36.

Other ministers have also made comments that don't mesh with official positions.

Here was the question:

Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill?

and here is the answer:

Well, on this there’s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that — now, I know there’s no Conservative here — but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. It’s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it.

This is what the NDP said in the same interview:

So absolutely you’ll see an NDP government making sure that we figure out what to do with the Supreme Court judgment that does not involve keeping this legislation.

That is not a commitment to decriminalize or legalize and the same goes for Monreau's comment. Notice Monreau said "we would not stand for it" not "we will not stand for it".  Monreau's focus was on Supreme Court challenges, the Liberals won't contest the court's rulings.

I think Monreau tossed it in with all the other cases in which Harper has challenged the Court but it is not clear in this case that he did. The court was very specific that parliament had the right to fashion another law against prostitution and acknowledged that Canadians would not be comfortable with an immediate suspension of the old law. C 36 has not been legally challenged.

Regardless of what he said or meant to say it's not up to him. This is under the purview of the Justice Minister and it wasn't included in her mandate letter. Decriminalization of prostitution is not a fly under the radar issue.

mark_alfred

You're doing that pretzel thing again.  He promised they would get rid of it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

You're doing that pretzel thing again.  He promised they would get rid of it.

Morneau doesn't have the power to do it. I don't believe it will happen. If you want to count it as a broken promise when it doesn't happen go right ahead. It won't matter a bit. Conservatives were mocked for accusing Trudeau of wanting to legalize prostitution so I don't believe this is something Canadians are expecting.

mark_alfred

Perhaps you're right.  Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Perhaps you're right.  Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.

There I agree. I really don't like Morneau. I forget what else he said that I didn't like and was right wing but I do remember there was something. My feeling is that this is going to be a guy I like less and less. He was a really weird and a bad choice to send for that interview. Why send a suit to an LGBTQ meeting? Mind you he is also a terrible choice for finance minister. I'm guessing Trudeau put him in that position to better justify the deficit spending.

quizzical

looks like Liberal men are speaking for the Justice Minister....they got Blair speaking for her re pot and now the Finance Minister re prostitution...

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The "TrudeauMetre" site may have had its merits, but is this new thread really about tracking His promises?

Or is it just a bunch more "Trudeau said!!!/Tom said!!!"

If it's really all about what each of us believed that Justin or Tom was REALLY saying eight months ago, is there a more accurate thread title we could use?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

looks like Liberal men are speaking for the Justice Minister....they got Blair speaking for her re pot and now the Finance Minister re prostitution...

The article is from September 27th, so there were no ministers at the time. Blair isn't speaking for her either. He has been placed at the head of the task force on that file because it is a major issue. We are so used to Harper centralizing everything we aren't used to delegation. Prior to his cabinet appointments there was talk about him having a wealth of talent that would not be satisfied as backbenchers. I think a lot more MPs that don't have portfolios will be given high profile tasks.

quizzical

oh fair enough then on sept 27th tks for pointing it out.

i'm all for governments working as a team and sharing "tasks" with all members fully engaged. i hope this is where it's going. i doubt it. i see more as a nobody has to take ownership if things go south and "waste" happens.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

oh fair enough then on sept 27th tks for pointing it out.

i'm all for governments working as a team and sharing "tasks" with all members fully engaged. i hope this is where it's going. i doubt it. i see more as a nobody has to take ownership if things go south and "waste" happens.

I have read that this style of open government, allowing everyone to speak, can and does lead to contradictions. Short of criminal behavior that was deliberately hidden the buck stops at Trudeau's desk.

For example, I am very pleased with the choice of defence minister, Sajjan. I hope Trudeau takes all of his advice, but the final decisions are in Trudeau's hands, and he chose Sajjan, therefore he is responsible for outcomes good or bad. Certainly Sajjan would also deserve blame or praise but that doesn't let Trudeau off the hook.

If Morneau, as finance minister, makes cuts to the budget Trudeau remains responsible for that.

mark_alfred

mark_alfred wrote:

Perhaps you're right.  Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.

In thinking about this, I do feel that Morneau, as a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, made this announcement of either revising or repealing Bill C-36 (which frankly is a good thing to do, IMO).  This was reported in the press during the campaign.  The Liberal Party of Canada did not, to my knowledge, issue any sort of contradiction to his statement (IE, they never identified it as an error).  So, as far as I'm concerned, that lack of action on part of the Liberal Party of Canada means it stands as a promise made during the campaign.

mark_alfred

Here's the latest tally.  They've been in office for 89 days.  There's 214 promises that have been identified.  Of these, 12 have been achieved, and 3 have been broken.

Trudeau Liberal government promises that have been achieved:

 

Trudeau Liberal government promises that have been broken:

mark_alfred

Regarding the list from the previous post, the broken promise above is particularly disappointing.

monty1

Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?

And the second to last one was only done at opposition party urging anyway.

And the third to last one, it's still possible that it will be revenue neutral.

mark_alfred

monty1 wrote:

Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?

Well, it appears that the folks at trudeaumetre struggled with this question, given what the site says,

trudeaumetre site wrote:
TrudeauMetre note: Originally, that promise had no clear timetable, although it would appear most were led to believe the mission would end in the short term. It's now been more than two months and according to the media, operations have intensified since then, and the government hasn't provided a timetable yet to repatriate the jets.

Here's the actual promise:

Liberal Party of Canada wrote:
We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq. We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.

I feel that the trudeaumetre site made the right call.  In cases where there's a lack of clarity, it's important to look at how the promise was both presented by the LPC and how the public understood the promise.  I feel both the presentation and the understanding of the promise by the public was that "we will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq" meant that it would end shortly after they took office, rather than being intensified and extended to March (or beyond, we still don't know from the government).  So I feel the trudeaumetre site made the right call.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Perhaps you're right.  Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.

In thinking about this, I do feel that Morneau, as a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, made this announcement of either revising or repealing Bill C-36 (which frankly is a good thing to do, IMO).  This was reported in the press during the campaign.  The Liberal Party of Canada did not, to my knowledge, issue any sort of contradiction to his statement (IE, they never identified it as an error).  So, as far as I'm concerned, that lack of action on part of the Liberal Party of Canada means it stands as a promise made during the campaign.

Revise maybe, repeal no. There is a huge difference. The mainstream press never reported it and Harper was mocked for saying Trudeau would legalize prostitution. The Conservatives did not double down on the accusation. So no, I don't think Canadians thought that Trudeau intended to legalize prostitution and I think if they had he would have lost the election.

You can believe he's going to do it, or believe it is a broken promise, all that really matters is if it is what Canadians want.

mark_alfred

Quote:
all that really matters is if it is what Canadians want.

Just in general, regarding this idea, I tend to lean more toward principle than populism when it comes to government policy.  For instance, if the population of Canada overall wants capital punishment returned, should that become government policy?  No, because the population overall wants "peace, order, and good government", and (I assume) studies and experience show that capital punishment can lead to very harmful effects not in line with the desire for "peace, order, and good government".  So this trumps the desire for capital punishment to be enacted.  Likewise for protections of minorities and the disenfranchised.  If a segment of Canada's minorities and/or its disenfranchised is seen to be unduly put in unsafe circumstances due to some of the laws of the land, then regardless of what the majority feels about the minority's plight, the government should, by principle, be obligated to act (rather than opting not to act via the populism of wishing to appease the majority).

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?

Well, it appears that the folks at trudeaumetre struggled with this question, given what the site says,

trudeaumetre site wrote:
TrudeauMetre note: Originally, that promise had no clear timetable, although it would appear most were led to believe the mission would end in the short term. It's now been more than two months and according to the media, operations have intensified since then, and the government hasn't provided a timetable yet to repatriate the jets.

Here's the actual promise:

Liberal Party of Canada wrote:
We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq. We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.

I feel that the trudeaumetre site made the right call.  In cases where there's a lack of clarity, it's important to look at how the promise was both presented by the LPC and how the public understood the promise.  I feel both the presentation and the understanding of the promise by the public was that "we will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq" meant that it would end shortly after they took office, rather than being intensified and extended to March (or beyond, we still don't know from the government).  So I feel the trudeaumetre site made the right call.


The planes were supposed to be back by the end of March. The Liberals promised to bring them home early. When the Liberals were elected there was a little over 5 months to go before the expiry date. As of tomorrow we have less than two months to go. So, the promise is 60% broken and climbing every day.

monty1

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?

Well, it appears that the folks at trudeaumetre struggled with this question, given what the site says,

trudeaumetre site wrote:
TrudeauMetre note: Originally, that promise had no clear timetable, although it would appear most were led to believe the mission would end in the short term. It's now been more than two months and according to the media, operations have intensified since then, and the government hasn't provided a timetable yet to repatriate the jets.

Here's the actual promise:

Liberal Party of Canada wrote:
We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq. We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.

I feel that the trudeaumetre site made the right call.  In cases where there's a lack of clarity, it's important to look at how the promise was both presented by the LPC and how the public understood the promise.  I feel both the presentation and the understanding of the promise by the public was that "we will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq" meant that it would end shortly after they took office, rather than being intensified and extended to March (or beyond, we still don't know from the government).  So I feel the trudeaumetre site made the right call.

The planes were supposed to be back by the end of March. The Liberals promised to bring them home early. When the Liberals were elected there was a little over 5 months to go before the expiry date. As of tomorrow we have less than two months to go. So, the promise is 60% broken and climbing every day.

I've never heard of a promise 60% broken. It's either broken or it's not. And as yoiu say, there's two months to go. Thank you for your civil  reply!

jjuares

monty1 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?

Well, it appears that the folks at trudeaumetre struggled with this question, given what the site says,

trudeaumetre site wrote:
TrudeauMetre note: Originally, that promise had no clear timetable, although it would appear most were led to believe the mission would end in the short term. It's now been more than two months and according to the media, operations have intensified since then, and the government hasn't provided a timetable yet to repatriate the jets.

Here's the actual promise:

Liberal Party of Canada wrote:
We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq. We will refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces, while providing more humanitarian support and immediately welcoming 25,000 more refugees from Syria.

I feel that the trudeaumetre site made the right call.  In cases where there's a lack of clarity, it's important to look at how the promise was both presented by the LPC and how the public understood the promise.  I feel both the presentation and the understanding of the promise by the public was that "we will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq" meant that it would end shortly after they took office, rather than being intensified and extended to March (or beyond, we still don't know from the government).  So I feel the trudeaumetre site made the right call.

The planes were supposed to be back by the end of March. The Liberals promised to bring them home early. When the Liberals were elected there was a little over 5 months to go before the expiry date. As of tomorrow we have less than two months to go. So, the promise is 60% broken and climbing every day.

I've never heard of a promise 60% broken. It's either broken or it's not. And as yoiu say, there's two months to go. Thank you for your civil  reply!


You're right. It's broken.

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-new-years-airstrikes-1.3387459

Quote:
The former Conservative government committed to keeping the warplanes involved in coalition air strikes until March.

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan confirmed that the planes would be home in "less than six months".  Otherwise no time was given.  That inspired the following analysis from the Terry Milewski (bolding added):

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

Quote:

Plainly, the government has just not figured out how to square the evident utility of the bombing with the promise to end it.

Sajjan, though, insists that the jets will be withdrawn in "less than six months." Which is interesting, because he did not pledge to withdraw them by the end of March, when the mission's existing mandate expires. 

"Less than six months," in other words, suggests an extension of the bombing, not the end of it.

They haven't ended the bombing as they promised, and are even now talking about extending it beyond what the HarperCons had pledged.  They have broken this promise in spades!!

 

scott16

Has Trudeau set this electoral reform committee up yet?

He's only got until May 2017 to have a bill in the HoC on the issue.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Perhaps you're right.  Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.

In thinking about this, I do feel that Morneau, as a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, made this announcement of either revising or repealing Bill C-36 (which frankly is a good thing to do, IMO).  This was reported in the press during the campaign.  The Liberal Party of Canada did not, to my knowledge, issue any sort of contradiction to his statement (IE, they never identified it as an error).  So, as far as I'm concerned, that lack of action on part of the Liberal Party of Canada means it stands as a promise made during the campaign.

Revise maybe, repeal no. There is a huge difference. The mainstream press never reported it and Harper was mocked for saying Trudeau would legalize prostitution. The Conservatives did not double down on the accusation. So no, I don't think Canadians thought that Trudeau intended to legalize prostitution and I think if they had he would have lost the election.

You can believe he's going to do it, or believe it is a broken promise, all that really matters is if it is what Canadians want.

It seems to me Pondering, that when you talk about "what Canadians want", its what YOU think it iss they want!

mark_alfred

Deny it as we will, I think all of us post from a subjective point of view.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-new-years-airstrikes-1.3387459

Quote:
The former Conservative government committed to keeping the warplanes involved in coalition air strikes until March.

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan confirmed that the planes would be home in "less than six months".  Otherwise no time was given.  That inspired the following analysis from the Terry Milewski (bolding added):

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

Quote:

Plainly, the government has just not figured out how to square the evident utility of the bombing with the promise to end it.

Sajjan, though, insists that the jets will be withdrawn in "less than six months." Which is interesting, because he did not pledge to withdraw them by the end of March, when the mission's existing mandate expires. 

"Less than six months," in other words, suggests an extension of the bombing, not the end of it.

They haven't ended the bombing as they promised, and are even now talking about extending it beyond what the HarperCons had pledged.  They have broken this promise in spades!!

 

No they haven't. As jjuares says, it's 60% broken and that means it's not broken. Why is everybody so anxious to see the promise broken? It's as if that's more important than the principle. I have no difficulty at all of being mad at Trudeau is he doesn't follow through with his promise. Maybe some of the NDP supporters would like to try the opposite and be mad if he does bring them home. 

*actually, according to this from you on the 6 months, now I'm prepared to give Trudeau some leeway. and for heavens sake, it's not like the majority of the Canadian people wouldn't give him six years!

heh, now all we have to do is find out who that majority is and what label they're hiding behind? We know there's a solid 30% or so who are Conservatives.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Monty, the desire of New Democrats to show any leeway to Trudeau and his thugs disappeared the night he tried to assume the mantle of Jack Layton (blessed be his memroy), and totatlly, arrogantly, dismissed the NDP, its leaders, and all of its members and its supporters. Sorry, if you are having issues with the hostility and animus that New Democrats feel for the Liberals and Le Dauphin, some self reflection might be in order. Look in the mirror, Mac.

monty1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Monty, the desire of New Democrats to show any leeway to Trudeau and his thugs disappeared the night he tried to assume the mantle of Jack Layton (blessed be his memroy), and totatlly, arrogantly, dismissed the NDP, its leaders, and all of its members and its supporters. Sorry, if you are having issues with the hostility and animus that New Democrats feel for the Liberals and Le Dauphin, some self reflection might be in order. Look in the mirror, Mac.

Hey Mac, maybe you think that the people around here are the NDP, but sorry, they're not. You'll find a lot of NDP members supporting Trudeau, and even moreso than in the election. Where does all Trudeau's support come from. It's not all from the Conservatives and there's little doubt Trudeau has it now.

Voters aren't as dogmatic in their politics as you may think. Trudeau has offered an agenda that pleases most NDP supporters by the looks of it. That's the issue. What can the NDP do to get them back? That may change as we go forward and as I have said, the Liberals may once agian be black cats or white cats.

mark_alfred

monty1 wrote:

No they haven't. As jjuares says, it's 60% broken and that means it's not broken. Why is everybody so anxious to see the promise broken? It's as if that's more important than the principle. I have no difficulty at all of being mad at Trudeau is he doesn't follow through with his promise. Maybe some of the NDP supporters would like to try the opposite and be mad if he does bring them home. 

*actually, according to this from you on the 6 months, now I'm prepared to give Trudeau some leeway. and for heavens sake, it's not like the majority of the Canadian people wouldn't give him six years!

I wish they had kept the promise.

You've questioned the assessment of the trudeaumetre.ca site as to whether the promise was broken or not.  You contend it hasn't been, saying that your interpretation of "We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," means ending it before the Conservative's end date of March.  My interpretation of the promise was that it meant soon after they were elected -- IE, they were going to "refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces while providing more humanitarian support" from the Conservative approach of bombing.  But they're still bombing. 

However, since no date was given on this promise, it's important to look at both what was implied by the promise and what was understood by the public regarding the promise.  I feel the public understood the Liberal promise as changing the mission without delay, and I feel the Liberals implied this with the promise.  So, given that they are delaying ending "Canada's combat mission in Iraq", and given what was implied and understood of the promise, that it is therefore a broken promise.  I feel this is the opinion of most people, regardless of whether people approve of keeping the jets there or not.  Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this, I figure.  The trudeaumetre.ca site does list it as broken, for what it's worth, and I agree with their assessment.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

monty1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Monty, the desire of New Democrats to show any leeway to Trudeau and his thugs disappeared the night he tried to assume the mantle of Jack Layton (blessed be his memroy), and totatlly, arrogantly, dismissed the NDP, its leaders, and all of its members and its supporters. Sorry, if you are having issues with the hostility and animus that New Democrats feel for the Liberals and Le Dauphin, some self reflection might be in order. Look in the mirror, Mac.

Hey Mac, maybe you think that the people around here are the NDP, but sorry, they're not. You'll find a lot of NDP members supporting Trudeau, and even moreso than in the election. Where does all Trudeau's support come from. It's not all from the Conservatives and there's little doubt Trudeau has it now.

Voters aren't as dogmatic in their politics as you may think. Trudeau has offered an agenda that pleases most NDP supporters by the looks of it. That's the issue. What can the NDP do to get them back? That may change as we go forward and as I have said, the Liberals may once agian be black cats or white cats.

Look, you tone deaf, ponticiating politico, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? I said the hostility we feel towards liberals, like you, is because of the idiotic and arrogant, stupid things you and your party do. Trudeau assumed Jacks (blessed be his memory) and he did it full well knowing how hurtful it would be to Ollivia, and anyone who cared about Jack. It summed up what is wrong with you, your fellow LPC sycophants, and the LPC in general. It isn't even tone defness; its just plain arrogance. Canada's Natural Governing Party, eh? The problem is, you guys actually believe that!

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mac!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Talking about sticking things in pipes and smoking it. LEGALIZE CANNABIS ALREADY!

Goddammit.

The kid made a promise he knew he couldn't keep and no intention of keeping. Forget it, it ain't happening.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Just 'cause these things occur to me, shouldn't the site be called Trudeaumeter (a device to measure) rather than Trudeaumetre (a unit of measurement).

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Liberals not only promised to legalize cannabis but it was part of the Throne Speech. I'm confident they will act in some respect. But it's an easy process really. Just reschedule it. Or decriminalize it. Or adopt the Dutch policy. They could and should instruct the RCMP to make it a very low priority until legislation is passed that will at least decriminalize simple possession.

It's going to happen,Arthur. Sorry to disappoint you.

scott16

alan smithee wrote:

The Liberals not only promised to legalize cannabis but it was part of the Throne Speech. I'm confident they will act in some respect. But it's an easy process really. Just reschedule it. Or decriminalize it. Or adopt the Dutch policy. They could and should instruct the RCMP to make it a very low priority until legislation is passed that will at least decriminalize simple possession.

It's going to happen,Arthur. Sorry to disappoint you.

I agree it will happen as well but not by Trudeau or the Libs in this term.

Debater

Liberals move to kill anti-labour bills

January 28, 2016

The federal government has taken the first step in repealing two controversial labour bills.

On Thursday, MaryAnn Mihychuk, Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour; and her parliamentary secretary, Cape Breton-Canso MP announced that the department had filed a letter of notice to introduce legislation that will repeal Tory-backed private members bills C-377 and C-525. The legislation is expected to go before the House of Commons next week.

Speaking with reporters, Mihychuk said the legislation is a move toward restoring fairness and balance to the labour landscape.

“The prosperity of workers, employers and our economy as a whole depends on a sound labour relationship. So we cannot allow these bills to disrupt the vital relationship between employers and employees,” she said.

Labour unions across Canada welcomed the announcement, with many taking to social media to express their approval.

---

Full article:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1338022-liberals-move-to-kill-an...

Debater

Unifor welcomes the motion to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377

OTTAWA, Jan. 28, 2016 /CNW/ - Unifor commends the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377. These two anti-labour bills, a direct attack on unions by the previous Conservative government, undermined the charter right to form a union for workers in federally-regulated sectors and imposed unnecessary and onerous reporting burdens on all unions. Unifor had been outspoken about the problematic nature of these bills since they were first brought forward.

"The union movement worked diligently to repeal these undemocratic and unjust bills," said Unifor National President Jerry Dias.

"I applaud the action taken today by the government, however it's important to note that we have simply been given back rights that were taken from us by the Harper government as part of their agenda to restrict and weaken the rights of trade unions. This is an important first step to undo the damage that has been done."

Unifor members made the defeat of the Harper Conservatives the union's top priority in the federal election last fall. Thousands of members from across the country were engaged in the election, volunteering on local campaigns and participating in workplace canvasses.

---

Full article:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/unifor-welcomes-the-motion-to-repea...

mark_alfred

Debater wrote:

Unifor welcomes the motion to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377

OTTAWA, Jan. 28, 2016 /CNW/ - Unifor commends the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377.

---

Full article:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/unifor-welcomes-the-motion-to-repea...

A good thing.  The trudeaumetre has this as "in progress":  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/2601

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

No they haven't. As jjuares says, it's 60% broken and that means it's not broken. Why is everybody so anxious to see the promise broken? It's as if that's more important than the principle. I have no difficulty at all of being mad at Trudeau is he doesn't follow through with his promise. Maybe some of the NDP supporters would like to try the opposite and be mad if he does bring them home. 

*actually, according to this from you on the 6 months, now I'm prepared to give Trudeau some leeway. and for heavens sake, it's not like the majority of the Canadian people wouldn't give him six years!

I wish they had kept the promise.

You've questioned the assessment of the trudeaumetre.ca site as to whether the promise was broken or not.  You contend it hasn't been, saying that your interpretation of "We will end Canada’s combat mission in Iraq," means ending it before the Conservative's end date of March.  My interpretation of the promise was that it meant soon after they were elected -- IE, they were going to "refocus Canada’s military contribution in the region on the training of local forces while providing more humanitarian support" from the Conservative approach of bombing.  But they're still bombing. 

However, since no date was given on this promise, it's important to look at both what was implied by the promise and what was understood by the public regarding the promise.  I feel the public understood the Liberal promise as changing the mission without delay, and I feel the Liberals implied this with the promise.  So, given that they are delaying ending "Canada's combat mission in Iraq", and given what was implied and understood of the promise, that it is therefore a broken promise.  I feel this is the opinion of most people, regardless of whether people approve of keeping the jets there or not.  Anyway, we can agree to disagree on this, I figure.  The trudeaumetre.ca site does list it as broken, for what it's worth, and I agree with their assessment.

Unfortunaely the Trudeaumeter doesn't make it official or the law but I appreciate you thinking that it's the last word.  But I bet if the public was asked they would say that the Liberals haven't broken any promise and they also hope the Liberals do break the promise.

Thank you for you 'respectful disagrement.

monty1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Monty, the desire of New Democrats to show any leeway to Trudeau and his thugs disappeared the night he tried to assume the mantle of Jack Layton (blessed be his memroy), and totatlly, arrogantly, dismissed the NDP, its leaders, and all of its members and its supporters. Sorry, if you are having issues with the hostility and animus that New Democrats feel for the Liberals and Le Dauphin, some self reflection might be in order. Look in the mirror, Mac.

Hey Mac, maybe you think that the people around here are the NDP, but sorry, they're not. You'll find a lot of NDP members supporting Trudeau, and even moreso than in the election. Where does all Trudeau's support come from. It's not all from the Conservatives and there's little doubt Trudeau has it now.

Voters aren't as dogmatic in their politics as you may think. Trudeau has offered an agenda that pleases most NDP supporters by the looks of it. That's the issue. What can the NDP do to get them back? That may change as we go forward and as I have said, the Liberals may once agian be black cats or white cats.

Look, you tone deaf, ponticiating politico, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? I said the hostility we feel towards liberals, like you, is because of the idiotic and arrogant, stupid things you and your party do. Trudeau assumed Jacks (blessed be his memory) and he did it full well knowing how hurtful it would be to Ollivia, and anyone who cared about Jack. It summed up what is wrong with you, your fellow LPC sycophants, and the LPC in general. It isn't even tone defness; its just plain arrogance. Canada's Natural Governing Party, eh? The problem is, you guys actually believe that!

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mac!

I have to make it clear that the Liberals aren't my party but they 'are' my govenment. Otherwise I'll ignore your continuing rudeness. You need to get used to the idea that you can't stamp your foot and demand agreement with your ideas. 

monty1

Debater wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Debater wrote:

Unifor welcomes the motion to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377

OTTAWA, Jan. 28, 2016 /CNW/ - Unifor commends the Liberal government's decision to repeal Bills C-525 and C-377.

---

Full article:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/unifor-welcomes-the-motion-to-repea...

A good thing.  The trudeaumetre has this as "in progress":  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/2601

I'm not saying that the Liberals will be perfect when it comes to unions or be their best friend, but what this does show is that the Liberals are different from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives are angry about this and are threatening to hold up the repeal in the House of Commons this week.

Perfect opportunity for the NDP to show what theyl're made of in parliament. 

Don't blow it boys, you can't afford many more mistakes!

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-new-years-airstrikes-1.3387459

Quote:
The former Conservative government committed to keeping the warplanes involved in coalition air strikes until March.

Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan confirmed that the planes would be home in "less than six months".  Otherwise no time was given.  That inspired the following analysis from the Terry Milewski (bolding added):

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

Quote:

Plainly, the government has just not figured out how to square the evident utility of the bombing with the promise to end it.

Sajjan, though, insists that the jets will be withdrawn in "less than six months." Which is interesting, because he did not pledge to withdraw them by the end of March, when the mission's existing mandate expires. 

"Less than six months," in other words, suggests an extension of the bombing, not the end of it.

They haven't ended the bombing as they promised, and are even now talking about extending it beyond what the HarperCons had pledged.  They have broken this promise in spades!!

 


Yes, if the bombing contiunes beyond March 31 then the promise id broken in spirit and letter.

Pages