And so a new era begins in Canadian politics.......

446 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

It's interesting to see how the Liberals vilified the Conservatives for spending issues that Cons had back when the Cons were in power.  It's like the two parties simply switched roles and are continuing in the same play.

http://www.ndp.ca/news/reality-check-how-do-liberals-really-feel-about-i...

mark_alfred

Ashton is advocating that the government end the use of unpaid internships in the civil service.  Be interesting to see how the government responds. 

Quote:

In November 2014, Liberal MP Scott Brison said the government should “ban unpaid internships.” Today Brison is the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for overseeing the public service.

“During the election the Liberals proposed to create opportunities for young Canadians, however shortly after taking office, the Liberal government chose to move ahead with the Conservatives’ plan to standardize the use of unpaid labour,” stated Ashton. “The longer this government waits to take real action, the longer young workers remain exposed to exploitation.”

http://www.ndp.ca/news/liberal-government-must-end-use-unpaid-internship...

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Ashton is advocating that the government end the use of unpaid internships in the civil service.  Be interesting to see how the government responds. 

Quote:

In November 2014, Liberal MP Scott Brison said the government should “ban unpaid internships.” Today Brison is the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for overseeing the public service.

“During the election the Liberals proposed to create opportunities for young Canadians, however shortly after taking office, the Liberal government chose to move ahead with the Conservatives’ plan to standardize the use of unpaid labour,” stated Ashton. “The longer this government waits to take real action, the longer young workers remain exposed to exploitation.”

http://www.ndp.ca/news/liberal-government-must-end-use-unpaid-internship...

This is a good position for the NDP to take and more worthwhile that going to town on the spending controversies (the media noted these and really until there are more the media should carry the story).

There are times when a scandal loses steam when it is so obvious that another party is getting into it for their partisan interest.

The NDP would be wise to focus on substance like the Ashton proposal and jump in when there is a narrative regarding the spending if it goes that far not at this early stage. It would make the NDP look less opportunistic and morefocused on doing something positive.

Knowing when to go for the throat and when not to is a skill in politics that the NDP has sometimes done well at and at other times failed miserably. Sometimes just holding off for a few months makes a difference. In a multiparty system the NDP can count on the Conservatives keeping it going especially during their race. the NDP does not need to get in that mud for now. Its bit of attention as a third party would be better spent earning respect with proposals like Ashton's than trying to knock a small chink of the Liberals right now.

If the NDP wanted to truly get into the Ministerial expenses game they would be better off tabling a code of conduct for MPs and Ministers. Constrast the Liebrals not to a criticism that people will see as noise but a proposal to prevent it.

mark_alfred
mark_alfred

Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

but it's ok Justin takes selfies  and the NDP isn't pure enough.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

but it's ok Justin takes selfies  and the NDP isn't pure enough.

Whether or not Justin takes selfies is immaterial. Justin selfies is not one of the major, or even mildly significant, problems Canada is facing. The NDP is a political party. Purity is not an option. An approach like the Leap Manifesto is bound to fail.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Ashton is advocating that the government end the use of unpaid internships in the civil service.  Be interesting to see how the government responds. 

Quote:

In November 2014, Liberal MP Scott Brison said the government should “ban unpaid internships.” Today Brison is the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister responsible for overseeing the public service.

“During the election the Liberals proposed to create opportunities for young Canadians, however shortly after taking office, the Liberal government chose to move ahead with the Conservatives’ plan to standardize the use of unpaid labour,” stated Ashton. “The longer this government waits to take real action, the longer young workers remain exposed to exploitation.”

http://www.ndp.ca/news/liberal-government-must-end-use-unpaid-internship...

This is a good position for the NDP to take and more worthwhile that going to town on the spending controversies (the media noted these and really until there are more the media should carry the story).

There are times when a scandal loses steam when it is so obvious that another party is getting into it for their partisan interest.

The NDP would be wise to focus on substance like the Ashton proposal and jump in when there is a narrative regarding the spending if it goes that far not at this early stage. It would make the NDP look less opportunistic and morefocused on doing something positive.

Knowing when to go for the throat and when not to is a skill in politics that the NDP has sometimes done well at and at other times failed miserably. Sometimes just holding off for a few months makes a difference. In a multiparty system the NDP can count on the Conservatives keeping it going especially during their race. the NDP does not need to get in that mud for now. Its bit of attention as a third party would be better spent earning respect with proposals like Ashton's than trying to knock a small chink of the Liberals right now.

If the NDP wanted to truly get into the Ministerial expenses game they would be better off tabling a code of conduct for MPs and Ministers. Constrast the Liebrals not to a criticism that people will see as noise but a proposal to prevent it.

Yes absolutely. The NDP cannot fight Trudeau on his ground or just be reactive and blindly critical. There is solid ground for the NDP to fight on.

This is another important angle:

http://www.erinweir.com/next_ndp_leader_needs_strong_corporate_tax_plan

A federal corporate tax rate of 19.5% is ambitious but realistic. With an average provincial rate of 12%, it would produce a combined rate of 31.5% - leaving Canada well below the United States (40%) and in line with other G-7 countries such as France (33.3%), Japan (32.3%), Italy (31.4%) and Germany (29.7%).

I tried telling my sister that Canada's corporate tax rate is now lower than in the US and she just didn't believe me. I would have to come up with proof and even then she would think it is some kind of numbers trick. Her response to me was "then why are US companies closing plants in Canada and expanding them in the US?"

People literally don't know this:

Liberal and Conservative governments slashed the federal corporate tax rate in half, from 29% in 2000 to 15% today.

If it is framed as an attack on the Liberals or Conservatives the information becomes suspect and the listener's guard goes up. The better way to communicate it is:

The federal corporate tax rate has been slashed in half from 29% in 2000 to 15% today.

An even better way than that would be a visual. A graph showing the decline in corporate taxation right next to a graph of the rise in the deficit. Once that is rooted in people's minds the natural progression is to want corporate taxes to be restored. Then people look around to see which political party plans on doing it.

At the moment that is the NDP but if the public was agitating for it perhaps the other parties would compete and also promise to raise corporate taxes in which case that would be fine too right?  To me at least which party makes the changes doesn't matter to me as long as the changes happen.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Quote:

mark_alfred wrote:
Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

but it's ok Justin takes selfies  and the NDP isn't pure enough.

Whether or not Justin takes selfies is immaterial. Justin selfies is not one of the major, or even mildly significant, problems Canada is facing.

The problem is the Trudeau government said one thing in opposition and are now doing the opposite when in power.  Hopefully the government will smarten up.

Quote:

The Trudeau Liberals are facing criticism at home and abroad for not closing a controversial legal loophole that allows the Canadian Forces to operate alongside allies, such as the United States, which use cluster bombs.

In opposition, the Liberals along with the NDP pushed unsuccessfully for amendments to the bill that would categorically rule out any connection to the use of cluster bombs — tennis-ball sized submunitions that can lie dormant for decades and have maimed or killed civilians, often young children, in dozens of post-war countries.

After almost a year in power, the Liberal government has yet to change the law and faces the same criticism as the Conservatives.

Paul Hannon, the executive director of Mines Action Canada, said it is "curious" the Liberals have not amended the "flawed legislation" given that Garneau and two Liberal senators "gave a very spirited, comprehensive and logical case for amending the legislation" during parliamentary hearings while in opposition.

Hannon said he realizes the first year of a new government can be busy, so his organization is being patient.

"But the government missed a significant opportunity" at the Geneva meeting, he said, to signal "a new approach."

 

mark_alfred

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201609/...

Government sources apparently told LaPresse that Harper's greenhouse gas reduction targets will stay in place and no new target will be proposed to the premiers by Trudeau when he meets with them in November.  The new era seems very similar to the old.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

I agree it would be better to sign without any "escape" clauses but the grand majority of Canadians would support Trudeau in this. Few Canadians would support tying our hands so we couldn't join in operations with the US military. I don't believe the NDP would do any different. The US is just too important to Canada. It's one thing to refuse to act in a particular instance, as Chretien did, another to not have that choice.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Liberals, like Tories before them, won't amend cluster bomb treaty loophole

This new era seems to be remarkably similar to the old era.

I agree it would be better to sign without any "escape" clauses but the grand majority of Canadians would support Trudeau in this. Few Canadians would support tying our hands so we couldn't join in operations with the US military. I don't believe the NDP would do any different. The US is just too important to Canada. It's one thing to refuse to act in a particular instance, as Chretien did, another to not have that choice.

It does not rule out our joining operations with the US. It places a condition that we will not join with them where they are using these bombs. That is a huge difference. The US has promised not to use them. A condition that Canada would not enter a theatre where they were being used by the US is reasonable. If Canada actually had these convictions in government this would not be a difficult thing to agree to. The Us if they wanted Canada's participation could refrain (and they don't normally use them now). Canada is giving up its persuasiveness on this by abandoing that condition of participation.

The Liberals in opposition had no problem with this.

Pondering this is bullshit unless you advance some data to support it: "but the grand majority of Canadians would support Trudeau in this. Few Canadians would support tying our hands so we couldn't join in operations with the US military."

We have a lot of problems between us in these threads Pondering. I don't start looking for trouble with you but you make up any fact and deny anything you please in order to write the stuff you do. I respect people with a little more respect for facts than you have. You sometimes have some good ideas and posts but we keep coming back to this type of thing where you assert things without any support at all.

The argument is baloney: Australia and New Zealand, which are also U.S. allies, ratified the convention without similar exemptions.

All that said Israel used them in Lebanon ten years ago. Perhaps it is that country Canada does not want to irritate.

Now some Canadian companies are invested in companies that make CLuster bombs: Royal Bank, Manulife Financial, Sun Life Financial and CI Financial.

Liberal Senator on the topic in 2015:

"It just takes the spirit and the intent of the convention and completely destroys it," Hubley said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cluster-bomb-bill-in-limbo-after-house-r...

So where is the poll saying that Canadians support the NEW Liberal position over the OLD Liberal position.

ETA: The Pondering default position is an assertion that Canadians will support ANYTHING Trudeau does.

swallow swallow's picture

From Mark's link...

Quote:

Earl Turcotte, Canada's former chief negotiator for the treaty, said he is "surprised and disappointed" by the government's inaction.

Turcotte quit the federal government in protest five years ago over the then Conservative government's decision to include the controversial clause.

"I had expected far more from Mr. Trudeau's government," Turcotte said. "I will continue to advocate for amendments to avoid further loss of civilian life from these indiscriminate weapons."

As always: [email protected] 

Please write a letter: it takes about as long as typing a reply on this thread.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It does not rule out our joining operations with the US. It places a condition that we will not join with them where they are using these bombs. That is a huge difference. The US has promised not to use them. A condition that Canada would not enter a theatre where they were being used by the US is reasonable. If Canada actually had these convictions in government this would not be a difficult thing to agree to. The Us if they wanted Canada's participation could refrain (and they don't normally use them now). Canada is giving up its persuasiveness on this by abandoing that condition of participation.

The Liberals in opposition had no problem with this.

Pondering this is bullshit unless you advance some data to support it: "but the grand majority of Canadians would support Trudeau in this. Few Canadians would support tying our hands so we couldn't join in operations with the US military."

We have a lot of problems between us in these threads Pondering. I don't start looking for trouble with you but you make up any fact and deny anything you please in order to write the stuff you do. I respect people with a little more respect for facts than you have. You sometimes have some good ideas and posts but we keep coming back to this type of thing where you assert things without any support at all.

The argument is baloney: Australia and New Zealand, which are also U.S. allies, ratified the convention without similar exemptions.

All that said Israel used them in Lebanon ten years ago. Perhaps it is that country Canada does not want to irritate.

Now some Canadian companies are invested in companies that make CLuster bombs: Royal Bank, Manulife Financial, Sun Life Financial and CI Financial.

Liberal Senator on the topic in 2015:

"It just takes the spirit and the intent of the convention and completely destroys it," Hubley said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cluster-bomb-bill-in-limbo-after-house-r...

So where is the poll saying that Canadians support the NEW Liberal position over the OLD Liberal position.

ETA: The Pondering default position is an assertion that Canadians will support ANYTHING Trudeau does.

This wording:

"The Trudeau Liberals are facing criticism at home and abroad for not closing a controversial legal loophole that allows the Canadian Forces to operate alongside allies, such as the United States, which use cluster bombs. - See more at: http://www.timescolonist.com/liberals-like-tories-before-them-won-t-amen..."

Is what made me thing it would interfere with US/Canadian cooperation. Now I understand they are referring to an amendment the Liberals have failed to make. I agree the Liberals are in the wrong and should make the amendment they supported in opposition. They are hypocritical not to do so.

Canadians may not support this failure on the part of the Liberals but it won't negatively impact them anyway because it will never make it onto the radar of swing voters and if it did the economy and management of Canada would still be the deciding factors.

Regardless of similarities with the Conservatives on important files Trudeau is doing enough differently for people to dismiss any accusations that there is no difference between them.

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ETA: The Pondering default position is an assertion that Canadians will support ANYTHING Trudeau does.

Canadians may not support this failure on the part of the Liberals but it won't negatively impact them anyway because it will never make it onto the radar of swing voters and if it did the economy and management of Canada would still be the deciding factors.

Gee Sean she did it in the very next post. Pondering why don't you just post this paragraph and leave off with the long inane posts that always lead to it anyways?

mark_alfred

Quote:

As always: [email protected] 

Please write a letter: it takes about as long as typing a reply on this thread.

That's a good idea.  The issue is I'm not sure what exact bill is being referred to, since the article doesn't specify.  I'll have a quick look.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ETA: The Pondering default position is an assertion that Canadians will support ANYTHING Trudeau does.

Canadians may not support this failure on the part of the Liberals but it won't negatively impact them anyway because it will never make it onto the radar of swing voters and if it did the economy and management of Canada would still be the deciding factors.

Gee Sean she did it in the very next post. Pondering why don't you just post this paragraph and leave off with the long inane posts that always lead to it anyways?

Do you disagree? Do you believe this will negatively impact Trudeau and if so why?

C-51 was a huge deal and Trudeau has failed to alter it even though it was one of his campaign promises that he would do so. He is more popular than when he was elected even with people who voted NDP.

How is this clause on cluster bombs more important to swing voters or to voters perception of Trudeau than C 51?

mark_alfred

Thanks Unionist, that's a great help.

So,

Quote:

Dear Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion, and Dear Honourable Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan,

I call on you and your government to amend the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act to close the legal loophole that allows the Canadian Forces to operate alongside allies, such as the United States, which at times may use cluster bombs. I wish to see it guaranteed that Canadian Forces will ensure that any operation, including with allies such as the United States, will not involve the use of cluster bombs.

Sincerely,

mark_alfred

address, phone #

cc Hélène Laverdière, NDP foreign affairs critic; Thomas Mulcair, leader of the Progressive Opposition; Randall Garrison, NDP defence critic.

[deleted -- long self-indulgent saga of me getting into the middle of a near-brawl btw 2 neighbours in the hallway of my apartment]

And then I finished the letter to Stephane Dion and Harjit Sajjan.  I'm looking forward to getting a reply four months from now:  "Dear Mr. mark_alfred, thank you for your correspondence.  We have forwarded your letter to the appropriate department."  At which time I'll wonder, what the hell is that about?  Why is the government bugging me?  Regardless, I finally did get it done, I'm pleased to say.

mark_alfred

[deleted -- unnecessary snark]

Sean in Ottawa

I do remember people referring to Harper's teflon.

I remember Conservatives being so proud that their guy could get away with anything.

They said none of that stuff mattered.

Until it did.

Of course they could be proud of all the shit he did until people wised up. Proud of the fact that the population missed it.

For some reason I am reminded of all that.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:

[deleted -- long self-indulgent saga of me getting into the middle of a near-brawl btw 2 neighbours in the hallway of my apartment]

i loved your story don't think it was  self-indulgent at all.

Unionist

mark_alfred wrote:

Quote:

As always: [email protected] 

Please write a letter: it takes about as long as typing a reply on this thread.

That's a good idea.  The issue is I'm not sure what exact bill is being referred to, since the article doesn't specify.  I'll have a quick look.

It was [url=https://mgarneau.liberal.ca/en/cluster-munitions-bill-passes-committee-u... C-6[/url], "Act to Implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions".

Its legislative history, from first reading in the House in October 2013, to passage by the Senate and Royal Assent in November 2014, is [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Mode=1&billId=6263567&L....

As for who said what when about it, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader.

 

kropotkin1951

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do remember people referring to Harper's teflon.

I remember Conservatives being so proud that their guy could get away with anything.

They said none of that stuff mattered.

Until it did.

Llberal Tory same old story. The shills for both parties love it when the population is asleep and they mistake that for acquiescence. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do remember people referring to Harper's teflon.

I remember Conservatives being so proud that their guy could get away with anything.

They said none of that stuff mattered.

Until it did.

Of course they could be proud of all the shit he did until people wised up. Proud of the fact that the population missed it.

For some reason I am reminded of all that.

Are you seriously claiming that was the deciding factor because from reading this Canadians were ready to elect Harper again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct1-...

The CBC Poll Tracker shows the Conservatives holding a modest lead over the Liberals, with 32.5 per cent support against 30.4 per cent for the Liberals. The New Democrats sit in third with 27.2 per cent of the vote.

There have been some clear trends working in favour of the Conservatives. In the week of Sept. 13-17, the party was averaging 29 to 30 per cent in the Poll Tracker. That increased to between 30 and 31 per cent in the following week, and between 32 and 33 per cent this week.

The Liberals have held steady over that time, averaging 30 to 31 per cent over the last two weeks.

Instead, the New Democrats have felt the brunt of the Conservatives' increase. From an average of 31 to 32 per cent in the week of Sept. 13-17, the party fell to 29 to 30 per cent and now to between 27 and 28 per cent support.

This shift has largely been driven by dropping support levels in Quebec. The NDP currently stands at 33.9 per cent in Quebec, followed by the Liberals at 23.4 per cent, the Conservatives at 21 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois at 18.5 per cent. That represents a drop of nine to 11 points for the New Democrats since the week of Sept. 13-17, with the Conservatives and Bloc each gaining six to seven points. The Liberals are also down slightly in Quebec.

The ten year mark is often when voters get tired of a government and vote for change. The shit Harper pulled during his ten year tenure is far far far worse than anything Trudeau has done so far. Trudeau hasn't reversed everything but neither has he added to it. Harper had the personal appeal of a dead fish and he still stayed in power for ten years.

You absolutely know that Trudeau is a more formidable opponent than Harper ever was. Eventually Trudeau's government will fall but it will likely take at least 2 terms and he could easily end up the longest sitting PM in Canadian history. I would not be at all shocked if he lasts 16 years.

I am not "proud" that he can get away with anything. I am 100% against the use of cluster bombs and I agree that Canada should not take part in any battles that include their use even if we are not dropping them. I'm just not so stupid as to think this is anywhere on the radar of average voters especially swing voters.

Apparently people, including yourself, are still deluding yourselves about what Canadians notice and what they priorize. You are still using the loser argument "liberals tories same ol story" as if 20 years of that approach still hasn't taught you that it doesn't work. You are still beating the old drum that if only Canadians realize how terrible the Conservatives and Liberals are they will give the NDP a chance. It's like you are determined to lose then when you do you decide Canadians are stupid. Anything to avoid taking responsibility for your own losses.

mark_alfred

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

[deleted -- long self-indulgent saga of me getting into the middle of a near-brawl btw 2 neighbours in the hallway of my apartment]

i loved your story don't think it was  self-indulgent at all.

Thanks quizzical.  Yeah, it was a fun story to write (and therapeutic also).  Ironic too, since it happened right in the middle of writing a letter to the government about overseas conflict and rules on weapons and such. 

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

quizzical wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

[deleted -- long self-indulgent saga of me getting into the middle of a near-brawl btw 2 neighbours in the hallway of my apartment]

i loved your story don't think it was  self-indulgent at all.

Thanks quizzical.  Yeah, it was a fun story to write (and therapeutic also).  Ironic too, since it happened right in the middle of writing a letter to the government about overseas conflict and rules on weapons and such. 

I am sorry I missed it

mark_alfred
quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do remember people referring to Harper's teflon.

I remember Conservatives being so proud that their guy could get away with anything.

They said none of that stuff mattered.

Until it did.

Llberal Tory same old story. The shills for both parties love it when the population is asleep and they mistake that for acquiescence. 

is the blush is already wearing off?

Trudeau and Liberals dip slightly in latest poll

Quote:
The Liberals have the support of 48 per cent of Canadians, down two points over the last month, according to Forum Research Inc.

The Conservatives are at 30 per cent, down 1 point, and the New Democrats have the backing of 11 per cent of Canadians, up one point since early August.

 

quizzical

quizzical wrote:
The Liberals have the support of 48 per cent of Canadians, down two points over the last month, according to Forum Research Inc.

The Conservatives are at 30 per cent, down 1 point, and the New Democrats have the backing of 11 per cent of Canadians, up one point since early August.

more informative than the blush wearing off of Justin is the increased NDP support. though only 1 point it shows alot.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

quizzical wrote:
The Liberals have the support of 48 per cent of Canadians, down two points over the last month, according to Forum Research Inc.

The Conservatives are at 30 per cent, down 1 point, and the New Democrats have the backing of 11 per cent of Canadians, up one point since early August.

more informative than the blush wearing off of Justin is the increased NDP support. though only 1 point it shows alot.

 

Since the NDP is quiet it did not earn the point -- the Liberals lost it. Assuming this is not polling noise which it could be.

I think the NDP could be more effective on a number of issues now that the Liberals are backing off from more progressive policies in a number of areas.

quizzical

hmmm i see it differently.

Mulcair was doing interviews on the networks around then. he made some great points about the Liberal short falls on  some promises even.

i didn't even bother mentioning it here. i see a correlation to his appearances in August. i don't pass it off to "Liberals fell". 

kropotkin1951

I see these polls very differently. Until we get a trend that is significant these polls are meaningless. The change in numbers are well within the margin of error of 3%. The NDP could be down from the last poll or up by 4% but you can't tell because of the margin of error.

 

quizzical

i would bet more on the up 4% or they wouldn't even have reported the NDP up.

JKR

quizzical wrote:

quizzical wrote:
The Liberals have the support of 48 per cent of Canadians, down two points over the last month, according to Forum Research Inc.

The Conservatives are at 30 per cent, down 1 point, and the New Democrats have the backing of 11 per cent of Canadians, up one point since early August.

more informative than the blush wearing off of Justin is the increased NDP support. though only 1 point it shows alot.

 

What was the poll's margin of error?

JKR

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I see these polls very differently. Until we get a trend that is significant these polls are meaningless. The change in numbers are well within the margin of error of 3%. The NDP could be down from the last poll or up by 4% but you can't tell because of the margin of error.

 

I think the trend for the last while has been consistent with the Liberals polling around 50%, the Conservatives in the high 20's, and the NDP just above 10%.

NorthReport

!!!

Pondering

To be fair the other two parties don't have leaders and Trudeau was bound to have a very long honeymoon. Numbers will fluctuate for the next few years but what does it matter? Numbers changed so dramatically during the 11 week election period that what happens between now and then matters little. All that matters right now is figuring out the positioning and strategy for the next election and choice of leader is going to have a huge influence over that.

NorthReport
Sean in Ottawa

Trudeau's numbers are going down becuase it is getting cool and he has to put his shirt back on.

Sean in Ottawa

This is me responding to you just so you know I don't think you are one ;-)

Interesting actually.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is me responding to you just so you know I don't think you are one ;-)

Interesting actually.

Are you guys going to get a secret handshake?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is me responding to you just so you know I don't think you are one ;-)

Interesting actually.

Are you guys going to get a secret handshake?

We already have one. And you are not in on the secret.

NorthReport

Why is Trudeau following Harper's lead and giving special protections to powerful corporations?

For instance, along with the extensive set of rights foreign investors will receive, there could be a corresponding set of responsibilities, which would hold these foreign interests accountable if they flout international labour, environment or consumer standards, notesOsgoode Hall law professor Gus Van Harten, an expert in international investment laws.

But no such responsibilities have been added, including in the ISDS revisions.

Similarly, while the ISDS revisions give governments the "right to regulate," they impose the burden of proof on governments to show that their regulations are "necessary" and aimed at achieving "legitimate" objectives.

But this means that the "right to regulate" is limited and open to interpretation. A report by four European environmental groups and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, released in April, examined five major ISDS lawsuits -- including two involving Canada -- and concluded that merely affirming the "right to regulate" wouldn't have prevented any of them.

Rather than pussyfooting around with half-hearted revisions of Stephen Harper's corporate-embracing policies, the Trudeau government should refuse to sign any trade deal with such sweeping privileges for foreign investors.

The absurdity of that special privilege is highlighted by Van Harten. He notes that, under CETA, a foreigner tortured by Canadian authorities wouldn't be able to bring a lawsuit against Canada -- unless he was also an investor with assets in Canada, and the torture negatively affected his assets.

Although Trudeau has shown no inclination to protect Canadian democracy from over-empowered investors, there's hope yet -- overseas. Resistance in Europe to CETA, particularly the ISDS provisions, could prevent the treaty's ratification. In the Netherlands, there are already 175,000 signatures on a petition that could trigger a referendum.

After we helped liberate the Dutch in the Second World War, they might just return the favour.


http://rabble.ca/columnists/2016/09/why-trudeau-following-harpers-lead-a...

kropotkin1951

So what do you care about democracy North Report. You are willing to override all the elected governments in BC who are opposed to your cherished carbon projects. These trade deals will only help corporations seeking to proceed with projects that people oppose, so for you and your ilk it is a winning scenario.

mark_alfred

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/09/15/tribunal-orders-canada-again-to-comply-wi...

How many times does this Liberal government have to be warned by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal before it finally takes action?

Quote:

The federal government continues to drag its heels on fully complying with the landmark decision of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in January that found Ottawa discriminates against First Nation children on-reserve.

The tribunal ruled for far too long the feds funded First Nation children living on-reserve less than non-Indigenous children off of reserve.

It gave the government a list of areas that needed to fixed and issued a compliance order.

They did so again in April.

On Thursday, the tribunal did so again.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/09/15/tribunal-orders-canada-again-to-comply-wi...

How many times does this Liberal government have to be warned by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal before it finally takes action?

Quote:

The federal government continues to drag its heels on fully complying with the landmark decision of Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in January that found Ottawa discriminates against First Nation children on-reserve.

The tribunal ruled for far too long the feds funded First Nation children living on-reserve less than non-Indigenous children off of reserve.

It gave the government a list of areas that needed to fixed and issued a compliance order.

They did so again in April.

On Thursday, the tribunal did so again.

Either:

1) The government is dragging its feet and breaking a promise

or

2) the government is developing responses and programs that take time in order to make sure they are effective -- money spent has maximum impact.

Honestly I don't know which. The state of affairs was deplorable not just in terms of the situation on the ground but also the departments with responsibility. The government has to hire the people to design the programs and then to implement them. I am not sure how much could have been done in the first year and I don't know the status of the efforts.

Of course much of these are emergencies and ought to be responded to as such. But the volume, scale and scope are immense.

I would love to hear what someone on the inside is seeing. Is there something being worked on nearing completion that will make this difference? Or is there lethargy within the process.

I don't know if we could tell from here. Communities waiting for overdue support have every right to be angry and frustrated but understanding what the root cause of the delays is important information if you are trying to make a difference as opposed to a political point.

Time will soon run out for the Liberals if theya re not making a sincere effort already. As 2017 dawns we should expect to have seen some significant measureable improvements and that is not far off.

Pondering

I too trust Cindy Blackstone's position on the issue but I also agree with Sean.

Politically the danger lies in a repeat of the "Trudeau has no policy" line of attack in the years leading up to the election. As soon as he had policy the attack was not only neutered it was also perceived as weak by anyone paying attention. Every argument against someone that gets dismissed risks backfiring.

There are two possibilities. Trudeau won't address the problem and will indeed be "just like Harper" or he will address it if not to the satisfaction of Cindy Blackstone, at least to the satisfaction of the general public. if he does, then the criticism becomes empty.

The whole "Trudeau is just like Harper under the gliz" line is a losing argument because he is very obviously quite different from Harper in many ways and many people approve of many of the things Harper did and still believe he was a good economic manager and still support his foreign policy. Harper would not have unmuzzled scientists or restored funding to the experimental lakes nor refunded closed coast guard stations or veteran affairs offices so obviously Trudeau is not just like Harper.

Trudeau is just like Harper or worse on trade deals and possibily more dangerous because his charm offensive could work in Europe on CETA or on signing CETA like deals with individual countries. I would never present the argument that way because it takes the focus off the issue which is that the trade deals are bad not similarities between Trudeau and Harper.

It is absolutely right for Cindy Blackstone to go full out on Trudeau on this. He made huge promises to First Nations people far beyond what he needed to to get elected. Time to pay the piper.

To be taken seriously politically the NDP reaction should be more measured expressing serious concerns and asking questions about what has been done so far to move forward and which government member is taking ownership of tracking progress on the file. The NDP should absolutely hold the government's feet to the fire on this issue but it has to be done constructively or the NDP will be perceived as if their main concern is campaigning against Trudeau not addressing the issues of indigenous peoples.

Whatever the similarities in policy between Trudeau and Harper into it seems to be an attempt at getting back voters who switched from the NDP to the Liberals both before and after the election. If so it's a poor strategy and a misread of swing voters.

kropotkin1951

Here is an even worse indictment of the new Liberal government. Like many of the issues they have done a little to make it apper they are progressive i.e. reinstituting the long form census but then they let stand the Conservative changes that were even more damaging but have effectively given them as government control over the statistics instead of an independent agency.

Quote:

Canada's Chief Statistician has resigned amid accusations the Liberal government is compromising the independence of Statistics Canada.

PressProgress has learned Wayne Smith, head of Statistics Canada, announced his resignation Friday morning.

In an e-mail to the National Statistical Council, Smith – who joined Statistics Canada in 1981 – explained that he had a "deeply held view" that the previous Harper government had "significantly compromised the independence of Statistics Canada."

But as the new Liberal government moves forward with initiatives that "purport" to restore independence to the agency, Smith says he is not willing to "preside over the decline" of the agency:  

"I cannot lend my support to government initiatives that will purport to protect the independence of Statistics Canada when, in fact, that independence has never been more compromised. I do not wish to preside over the decline of what is still, but cannot remain in these circumstances, a world leading statistical office."

https://www.pressprogress.ca/statistics_canada_head_resigns_accuses_trud...

 

 

quizzical

ya i don't know what you and Sean are pondering about, pondering.

if you agreed with Cindy Blackstone you would not be agreeing with Seans statements re maybe the Liberals are developing programing and wanna do it ight.

it's NOT about the government developing programming. its about under-funding health, educational and social services for FN children which are already in existence to the tune of 140 million or so. and the narrowing of the scope of Jordan's Principal restricting services even more.

and here you are pontificating on something you quite clearly know sfa. and could care less imv. with you it has to do with keeping the Liberals in power and nothing more.

mark_alfred

Cindy Blackstock has been pissed off with the government over this issue.  I trust her judgement on the matter.  The tribunal demanded immediate action on the issue.  And then issued two subsequent compliance orders on it.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/human-rights-tribunal-demands-swift-actio...

CTV news article from 27 April 2016 wrote:
In the scathing order released Tuesday, the tribunal gave the Indigenous Affairs Department two weeks to confirm it has implemented Jordan's Principle -- a policy designed to ensure First Nations children can access services without getting caught in red tape.

So, it's not dragging its feet and "breaking a promise".  Rather, it's dragging its feet and breaching an order.

First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 10 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gppjk>, retrieved on 2016-09-16 wrote:

INAC will report to the Panel within two weeks of this ruling to confirm this order has been implemented.

The fact that there's been another compliance order after this one is stunning, IMO.  Some brave new era this is.

Pages