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

446 posts / 0 new
Last post
quizzical

he should've spoke in language to those he wants to reach in language we can understand. i read the whole thing and don't what the issue is and what is shared services canda?

mark_alfred

Quote:

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...

 

It's gotta be said, Liberal Tory same old story.  The people were fooled again.

mark_alfred

Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly it is either.  Seems to be something that was initiated by the Harper gov't that Smith objected to and, since the Trudeau govern't is continuing it, Smith is continuing to object (and resign). 

Here's the site of Shared Services Canada.  Seems to be a government email platform and other tech data stuff.  Seems Smith feels the government forcing them to use this compromises Statistics Canada's independence. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here he explains it better. It seems that our info is not as protected from use and abuse by others as it should be. 

Quote:

Smith said he issued a warning that ever since the transfer began, the federal research department began losing control of the information it collects from Canadians through operations such as the long-form census.

"The Statistics Act prescribes a very strong level of protection for the confidential information of our respondents and other data providers," he wrote.

"It is my view that the Shared Services Canada model does not respect the provisions of the Statistics Act, which does not permit that such information be in the hands of anyone who is not meaningfully an employee of Statistics Canada."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is a link to the P3 project that is Shared Services. What he is complaining about is that a consortium of private companies is now in charge of our data. We have basically privatized our most sensitive information collection agengy and that information is under the control of third party actors not government employees.

Quote:

The winning consortium will design, build, finance, operate and maintain the data centre for 25 years. Construction of the new facility is expected to start in June, with the first of four phases completed in the fall of 2017.

https://www.dcc-cdc.gc.ca/english/dcc_at_work/2016/june/1606_article4/

 

mark_alfred

First Pheonix, now this.  The Trudeau Liberals are keeping Erin Weir, the NDP critic for public services and procurement, quite busy. 

Quote:

Erin Weir, the NDP's critic for public services and procurement, wants the Commons government operations and estimates committee to reopen its study of Shared Services when Parliament returns so Smith can appear and answer questions. 

"It's quite a dramatic and troubling development for the chief statistician to resign in protest; it really calls into question the Liberal government's promises to make Statistics Canada independent again," he said. 

Weir said "all the possibilities need to be on the table for consideration," including the dismantling of Shared Services if it proves the agency cannot be made to work.

It might seem to make sense to centralize systems across government, he added, but issues with Shared Services and the Phoenix pay system have demonstrated that making these systems work is a challenge the government may not be able to meet. 

"In both cases the federal government botched the implementation and we have these huge boondoggles," Weir said. "So I think we do need to re-examine this whole approach to trying to centralize government services and cut costs."

The Conservatives refused to comment. 

And of course the Conservatives refused to comment, since cutting and streamlining government services is right up their alley as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/statscan-wayne-smith-resigns-1.3765765

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

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.

As I said time is running out for them to put up the money.

I understand the Jordan principle -- you do it first and figure out who is going to pay for later to prevent people falling through the cracks. It is the delivery part -- program -- that is key.

I say this because governments can play the trick of putting the money in the envelope -- not spending it -- then clawing it back at the end of the year as unspent funds. This has been done to Indigenous people in Canada for decades.

So if you know the detail rather than insult my question, please just answer it. Give some examples where it is simply opening the tap for more money and the fix is there.

Chronic underfunding means systems and workforce atrophy. Are the people in place there to deliver? How quickly can the money flow dow to the ground and what stage is it at. This is a fair question.

What mechanisms -- specific ones -- exist where everything is in place but the money? Do we have healthcare workers who want to work there but don't have money? Is there a number of teachers willing to go there? Systems to build the infrastructure waiting for the money -- or is the money waiting for the infrastructure?

Do we have detail outlining the current situation with respect to the need that is not being covered and where the breakdown is?

Chronic underfunding is the cause -- lack of dollars -- but the solution, to be timley requires more than suddenly the dollars showing up. So where do we stand?

Is the government providing the money but no delivery system so the money is not spent or providing the delivery system but not funding it? How "shovel ready" are the solutions.

Now I simply asked the quesiton and did not pretend to have an answer. I said it was one of the two. so instead of being angry at the quesiton, please try to answer with the needed detail. This issue is important enough.

 

Sean in Ottawa

So since that was not posted here I went looking for it.

BTW it is Cindy Blackstock not stone.

So the issues she raised today include:

"Blackstock pointed to a recent court case involving a young Alberta girl who requires dental treatment to ensure she can talk and eat without pain.... The federal government has spent $32,000 in legal fees fighting the matter as opposed to the $8,000 that would have been required for treatment, she said."

The government is saying:

"We know that the child welfare system on reserve needs to be overhauled, and that is why we are engaging with First Nations youth, First Nations leadership, service providers, the provinces and Yukon Territory,'' Bennett said.

But Blackstock's point is that they are not only not doing what they could do but are fighting doing so.

Blackstock is saying that the government is underfunding this year by some 130 million in immediate relief.

This is the point was missing from the conversation

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/16/cindy-blackstock_n_12043886.html

Until Mark Alfred introduced it after I raised the two possibilities. with this link:

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

Now Quizzical please don't use facts from a post AFTER I posted to criticize me for asking a question where the answer entered the thread after I raised the quesiton.

I think Blackstock has properly answer the question and the Liberals are failing to deliver and should be rightly hauled on the carpet for this.

Please don't blame me if I ask for logical support for a statement or ask a querstion that has not yet been answered .

Now it has.

Also please do not assume I am pondering anything with pondering -- thanks

quizzical

thanks for the noting i did exactly what i told myself not to do. use Blackstone and not Blackstock. grr i know some Blackstones and was worried i'd do it and i did.

Sean this whole issue goes right down to denying health care costs and arguing with the provinces as to who will pay the bill. the schools are there and need the money.

it's not about creating a government program to fund things right. no matter your saying so. it's about funding many things already in place period the mechanisms to do it are there.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

thanks for the noting i did exactly what i told myself not to do. use Blackstone and not Blackstock. grr i know some Blackstones and was worried i'd do it and i did.

Sean this whole issue goes right down to denying health care costs and arguing with the provinces as to who will pay the bill. the schools are there and need the money.

it's not about creating a government program to fund things right. no matter your saying so. it's about funding many things already in place period the mechanisms to do it are there.

 

 

Hey Quizzical we agree on lots of things -- please be more careful reading my posts. I said a while ago that there were only two possibilities and did not say which one. The Blackstock article was posted after my post. Then after you responded I read that article and then another one. I came back and agreed with you as to your interpretation.

I need evidence to rest my opinions on and there was not enough in this thread when I made my first comment. Mark introduced it. I read it and agreed with it. You do reach me and I do listen.

Sometimes you should just take the win.

 

quizzical

Sean if you go back to my post you'll see i was addressing pondering's post.

pondering was addressing Cindy Blackstocks positioning while invoking your post and trying to make a pathway between them.

it can't be done.

i was calling it on her. not so much as including you in the equation but stating she can't invoke your post with anything to do with Cindy's position on this.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean if you go back to my post you'll see i was addressing pondering's post.

pondering was addressing Cindy Blackstocks positioning while invoking your post and trying to make a pathway between them.

it can't be done.

i was calling it on her. not so much as including you in the equation but stating she can't invoke your post with anything to do with Cindy's position on this.

Sorry Quizzical -- this is what I responded to: "it's not about creating a government program to fund things right. no matter your saying so" and I did say that was a possibility but not a certainty and then responded to what Blackstock was saying and ruled it out. Thanks for clarifying.

The most disturbing thing is the government spending $32 million to argue that it should not do anything. How can that be justified in any possible context?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

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.

If all you want to do is vent that's fine, but I want actual change.

If what I wanted was to keep the Liberals in power I would be encouraging the NDP not to change a thing because they are doing an excellent job of losing.

It isn't good enough for the NDP just to oppose they have to oppose effectively. That means attacking strategically not blindly as you would have them do.

It's all about defeating the Liberals for you. If the NDP had the exact same policy you would be cheering them on and claiming it was the best they could do.

mark_alfred

mark_alfred

I did read somewhere yesterday that Trudeau was going to legalize heroin for medicinal uses and for treating addicts, rather than relying on methadone.  That's a good thing.  That's the thing about this "new era", in tone it's a bit better, but in overall substance it's the same as Harper.  Overall the government seems to be about empowering corporations and reducing public services.

ETA:  a link!  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/13/canada-has-...

Sean in Ottawa

Ok Mark I am going to get outside in the sun but that last picture is the funniest I have seen in a while.

Looked out but there is no sun now rain. Crap.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Ok Mark I am going to get outside in the sun but that last picture is the funniest I have seen in a while.

Looked out but there is no sun now rain. Crap.

Yeah, it's raining in Toronto too.  I'm going venture out anyway.

First, here's an article about government negotiations with PSAC:

Quote:

After a week at the bargaining table, the head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada says union negotiators are frustrated and disappointed with the Liberal government.

"They told our teams they don't have a mandate," said Robyn Benson, PSAC president. "Well, if you don't have a Liberal mandate, then you still have a Conservative mandate."

Benson said the government's agenda has changed very little since the Liberals were elected almost a year ago.

Some new era.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/public-service-union-bargaining-fru...

NorthReport

After 10 Harper years the new era is that Canada's natural governing party is back on top, the Conservatives are second, and the NDP are now languishing about in their usual last place in the polls, barely ahead of the Greens, and if an election was held this year, the NDP would probably would lose their official party status. Mulcair's biggest fans these days must be the Liberals and the Cons. It is quite hard to change things without holding the levers of power, but somehow that idea seems to escape many NDPers. I wonder why.

Geoff

NorthReport wrote:

After 10 Harper years the new era is that Canada's natural governing party is back on top, the Conservatives are second, and the NDP are now languishing about in their usual last place in the polls, barely ahead of the Greens, and if an election was held this year, the NDP would probably would lose their official party status. Mulcair's biggest fans these days must be the Liberals and the Cons. It is quite hard to change things without holding the levers of power, but somehow that idea seems to escape many NDPers. I wonder why.

The Libs might be happy to dance on the NDP's grave, but not the Cons, as they rely on a good showing from us to give themselves a shot at winning. Politics makes strange bedfellows, I guess.

I'm not sure why anyone would suggest that New Democrats don't understand the importance of holding the levers of power to change things. The problem is not that we don't understand the importance of winning; we're just not very good at it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

If all you want to do is vent that's fine, but I want actual change.

You must be having an off day. The slogan is Real Change not Actual Change.  

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If all you want to do is vent that's fine, but I want actual change.

You must be having an off day. The slogan is Real Change not Actual Change.  

Not my slogan. I'm still hoping a party will rise that is willing to fight neoliberalism. Until then the Liberals are still better than the Conservatives.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If all you want to do is vent that's fine, but I want actual change.

You must be having an off day. The slogan is Real Change not Actual Change.  

Not my slogan. I'm still hoping a party will rise that is willing to fight neoliberalism. Until then the Liberals are still better than the Conservatives.

That is the part yopu just don't get. When it comes to fighting neoliberalism they are exactly the same. In some other areas they are marginally better but not in matters that involve the economy.  One thing is for sure, Trudeau is better eye candy half naked than Harper ever was.

mark_alfred

Quote:

Not my slogan. I'm still hoping a party will rise that is willing to fight neoliberalism. Until then the Liberals are still better than the Conservatives.

Quote:
It isn't good enough for the NDP just to oppose they have to oppose effectively. That means attacking strategically not blindly as you would have them do.

If it's not "effective opposition" (whatever that means) then these social democrats should just be silent in opposing harmful policies of the Liberals.  Don't want those Conservatives to take power, after all.

mark_alfred
Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If all you want to do is vent that's fine, but I want actual change.

You must be having an off day. The slogan is Real Change not Actual Change.  

Not my slogan. I'm still hoping a party will rise that is willing to fight neoliberalism. Until then the Liberals are still better than the Conservatives.

That is the part yopu just don't get. When it comes to fighting neoliberalism they are exactly the same. In some other areas they are marginally better but not in matters that involve the economy.  One thing is for sure, Trudeau is better eye candy half naked than Harper ever was.

Yes, I agree with you. Trudeau may even be worse than Harper when it comes to the trade deals which are the tools of neoliberalism.

He will do better than Harper on indigenous peoples because longterm it will be better for Canada's economy. He will legalize marijuana because it will bring in tax revenues and boost Canada's economy not because it is the right thing to do morally.

He will try to get pipelines through but he is not as beholden to Alberta as Harper was so he will also pay attention to Ontario's economy.

Seeing as all of our political parties embrace neoliberalism I picked the party best able to run a neoliberal economy.

Now show me a party willing to fight neoliberalism and I'll vote for them. Until that happens, as you said, the Liberals are marginally better than the Conservatives.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Great article by Michael Harris:  Time's up, Justin. Going shirtless doesn’t undo Site-C, Middle-East betrayals

I read that thi morning and was going to post it but you beat me too it. 

Quote:

The Emperor has no shirt, but that’s OK, people apparently like that. And they love Justin Trudeau.

But popularity, even of the feverish variety, is like glacier water. There is only so much of it and then it is gone. The lesson? Use this precious commodity wisely. Like credibility, it is a non-renewable resource.

Rather than authenticating his popularity with promises kept, the new Liberal government is beginning to draw too heavily on Trudeau’s charisma as the antidote to the first signs of uneasiness that’s building out there.

Are Canadians really headed to Camelot or back to Bullshit City?

Selfies, canoe sorties, sunrise rituals and tattoos all have their place in post-substance politics. But they do not replace credible legislative action in the long run.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/09/18/times-up-justin/

 

quizzical

canoe sorte = DAD

and why do people think glacier water is so wonderful?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..if class war (however you want to define it) exists as i believe it does, why is the framing always so heavily focused on federal powers and elections. i quite honestly find this disturbing on a progressive board. and i quite honestly don’t understand it. i see politics as a struggle no matter who gets into and because the powers that be are still functioning as usual. without skipping a beat.

..where is the connection to community outside the party bases. where is the grassroots political organizing outside of elections. while it may exist i just don’t see it here on babble on any significant scale. and i find this very sad. while some take potshots at the leap they offer nothing different. at least the leap is based in community and community issues.

..this new era of politics is looking like the old era. time for a change.   

quizzical

leap can't possibly know all community issues in Canada. only the ones the authors are familar with. and maybe even then they don't.

the reality is many communities themselves are changing and driving their own change. for their own perceived needs.

i like the regional block model of governance.

 

quizzical
mark_alfred

Oh brave new era...

Quote:

A survey this month from TransUnion found 718,000 Canadians can’t even absorb a 25-basis point increase in interest rates without being in a negative cash flow situation. One percentage point would drive 917,000 over the edge, the credit rating agency found.

In another recent study, the Canadian Payroll Association said 48 per cent of Canadians couldn’t make ends meets if they missed just one paycheque – a dire picture of a country living paycheque-to-paycheque.

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/debt/canadians-are-ju...

mark_alfred

Analysis:  B.C. LNG project the latest Harper scheme to win Liberal nod

Terry Milewski wrote:

In election campaigns, of course, parties must claim to be vastly different from the nincompoops they hope to replace.

Once in office, though, they seem to differ little on Canada's enduring interests. So it is that Stephen Harper's modest targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions now exert a strange appeal upon the not-so-different Liberals. And, once painted as parsimonious, Harper's health-care budget is suddenly portrayed as equally prudent.

Citing both miraculous conversions on Tuesday, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair demanded of Trudeau, "Was this always the Liberal plan? Attack Stephen Harper's policies to get elected and then, once in government, adopt those exact same policies?"

Trudeau side-stepped and talked about his different style of "co-operation and collaboration." But there's no way around it. Conservative or Liberal, governments do tend to agree, even when it's embarrassing to do so, on what the nation's real interests are.

In other words, Terry Milewski is saying, 'Liberal Tory same old story'.

mark_alfred
mark_alfred

mark_alfred

mark_alfred wrote:

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.

So, finally heard back from Dion (I guess he finally decided to get to his "to do" list since he's leaving cabinet soon).

Stéphane Dion wrote:

Dear mark_alfred,

Thank you for your email of September 13, 2016, concerning Canadian policy with respect to legislation implementing the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). I regret the delay in replying to you.

Canada is fully committed to the goals and objectives of the CCM and continues to work to reduce the devastating impact these weapons have on civilians.

As required by the Convention, Canadian implementation legislation establishes penal sanctions for all activities prohibited by the CCM. Among other things, it prohibits Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members from directly using cluster munitions at any time, even when they are on exchange with a non‑state party’s military unit. CAF directives were also put in place to add further restrictions relating to training and transport that go beyond the requirements of the CCM. Although Canada may continue to conduct combined operations with non‑state parties, CAF members will never fire, drop, launch or transport cluster munitions, including while on secondment or exchange with such states. Canada believes that the CCM strikes an appropriate balance between humanitarian considerations and security interests and this balance is reflected in the government’s CCM implementation legislation.

Canada sees the eventual universalization of the CCM as the best path toward the elimination of cluster munitions and we intend to redouble our efforts to encourage all states to join the Convention and to cease the use of these weapons, which can have a long‑lasting humanitarian impact.

Thank you for writing and your interest in this important matter.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Edzell Edzell's picture

quizzical wrote:
why do people think glacier water is so wonderful?

Most analogies are full of holes - like Swiss Cheese, and this analogy.

Edzell Edzell's picture

mark_alfred wrote:
Oh brave new era...
Quote:
.....In another recent study, the Canadian Payroll Association said 48 per cent of Canadians couldn’t make ends meets if they missed just one paycheque – a dire picture of a country living paycheque-to-paycheque.

I don't doubt the truth of this broad paycheque-to-paycheque situation but I do suspect it's not a sign of a new era. I think it's been true for many, many decades.

The danger of multplie mortgage defaults has been present and demonstrated too, in the past, but maybe not so frighteningly probable or potentially widespread.

 

quizzical

are we seeing ageism at play in the Trudeau government's dispensing of 2 senior MP's? i think so.

when are the 2 bi-elections going to be?

NorthReport

Politically Trudeau is doing the right thing by getting rid of the losers. 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Politically Trudeau is doing the right thing by getting rid of the losers. 

Some might say that this would be hard for him to accomplish.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

are we seeing ageism at play in the Trudeau government's dispensing of 2 senior MP's? i think so.

when are the 2 bi-elections going to be?

They are perhaps relatively safe seats and the replacements make be Trudeau loyalists on their way to cabinet.

As far as Liberals go I never really disliked Dion despite the Clarity Act which I presumed came from a source above him.

I remain more concerned about Liberal policies than their MPs ambitions. While the Liberals kissed the butts of upper income people things continue to deteriorate for the people they are ignoring. While I do not appreciate ageism, one unemployed Liberal up or down is nothing to me compared with a housing crisis for millions without a liveable wage.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
are we seeing ageism at play in the Trudeau government's dispensing of 2 senior MP's? i think so.

when are the 2 bi-elections going to be?

They are perhaps relatively safe seats and the replacements make be Trudeau loyalists on their way to cabinet.

As far as Liberals go I never really disliked Dion despite the Clarity Act which I presumed came from a source above him.

I remain more concerned about Liberal policies than their MPs ambitions. While the Liberals kissed the butts of upper income people things continue to deteriorate for the people they are ignoring. While I do not appreciate ageism, one unemployed Liberal up or down is nothing to me compared with a housing crisis for millions without a liveable wage.

are they safe seats now with what Trudeau has pulled and the flash back happening over everything from pipeline approval, too many holidays including the latest to Aga Khan's Bell Island to the non-payment of federal employees?

i liked Dion he always made me think of the shy good guy nerd in every class at school. someone who only wanted everyone to get along and do well. the concience of the class.

i think this is a shitty move by Trudeau.

just maybe or hopefully Dion's at present non acceptance of a buy out and his public ahead of the government announcement indicate he is not on board with the actions of the PMO beyond the cabinet shuffle i mean.

none of it means anything to me in the face of the continuing genocide against the Peoples this land really belongs to. but whattayagointodo? be angry all the time?

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
are we seeing ageism at play in the Trudeau government's dispensing of 2 senior MP's? i think so.

when are the 2 bi-elections going to be?

They are perhaps relatively safe seats and the replacements make be Trudeau loyalists on their way to cabinet.

As far as Liberals go I never really disliked Dion despite the Clarity Act which I presumed came from a source above him.

I remain more concerned about Liberal policies than their MPs ambitions. While the Liberals kissed the butts of upper income people things continue to deteriorate for the people they are ignoring. While I do not appreciate ageism, one unemployed Liberal up or down is nothing to me compared with a housing crisis for millions without a liveable wage.

are they safe seats now with what Trudeau has pulled and the flash back happening over everything from pipeline approval, too many holidays including the latest to Aga Khan's Bell Island to the non-payment of federal employees?

i liked Dion he always made me think of the shy good guy nerd in every class at school. someone who only wanted everyone to get along and do well. the concience of the class.

i think this is a shitty move by Trudeau.

just maybe or hopefully Dion's at present non acceptance of a buy out and his public ahead of the government announcement indicate he is not on board with the actions of the PMO beyond the cabinet shuffle i mean.

none of it means anything to me in the face of the continuing genocide against the Peoples this land really belongs to. but whattayagointodo? be angry all the time?

Quizzical, I think you and I are entirely in agreement on this.

Unfortunately, I do not think enough of the population are there yet.

Dion's seat (according to Wicki is the second safest seat for the LPC in Quebec. Now it may have gone up or down a little but in that ranking but it is a pretty safe seat. Liberal through the Mulroney years and ever since.

John McCallum's seat, you may have a point but it is still a steep hill for the Conservatives (more for the NDP). The Conservatives have won various incarnations of that seat over the years -- recently as well -- Callandra and Kent represented parts of it. Redistributed, the Liberals had this during the Harper majority. At this point the Liberals are still above their election popularity but you are right they should not count on this seat which in a byelection could go Conservative (byelections often do not favour governments). To make matter worse for them, the Liberal provincial party is mud right now. The Conservatives might be able to take this in a byelection if it came at a bad time. However, McCallum did have a 23% lead over the Conservative. The NDP sat at under 11%. If the NDP did not recover, much of their vote could go Liberal even as some Liberal vote could go Conservative. I think the NDP might need to do better than in 2015 for the Conservatives to have a good shot but we can't count them out. Now after the NDP has a new leader, if this leader is effective then you might have to review all this. Is a strong Liberal seat if not entirely safe.

quizzical

Sean, thanks for the insight on their seats. it's close to what i figured in the ON seat but wasn't sure about Dion's.

a poster in another thread said something about Dion being a compentant MP. maybe his expertise and being a concience were too much for the wanna run with the billionaires crowd? i don't get how the social service background ministers can stomach this.

can we look forward to the other 2 older and experienced cabinet ministers being dismissed too?  don't suppose they could get rid of Goodale his being their beach head in SK or Garneau with his celebrity attraction.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean, thanks for the insight on their seats. it's close to what i figured in the ON seat but wasn't sure about Dion's.

a poster in another thread said something about Dion being a compentant MP. maybe his expertise and being a concience were too much for the wanna run with the billionaires crowd? i don't get how the social service background ministers can stomach this.

can we look forward to the other 2 older and experienced cabinet ministers being dismissed too?  don't suppose they could get rid of Goodale his being their beach head in SK or Garneau with his celebrity attraction.

 

I am not so sure. I suspect that Dion in that role was not a good fit now. Perhaps there are other portfolios that might have been better. I don't fault Trudeau for making this change actually, as much as I am sympathetic to Dion. There may be reasons Trudeau wanted McCallum in China. I suspect that this was about how to handle three key relationships: China, the US and Europe. Dion being offered Europe might have reflected a priority for Europe that Dion is not taking as well as he could. Trudeau has taken three people and allocated each to manage key relationships -- the new Foreign Minister to handle the situation presented by the US, Europe, I think generally is a good fit with Dion and China.

As I have said in other places I have much bigger concerns about the Liberals than this. I think their finance and domestic policy is the bigger problem that should worry Canadians and these reflect the patterns we have seen from the Liberals in the past. Historically I think the Liberals do tend to do better in external affairs. They talk big and deliver less on social policy and really betray Canadians domestically. I see little evidence that this has changed. Now I do accept that my views lie to the left of theirs so I do see them through that strong bias/ I consider myself incompatible with their domestic social policy and vision. They tend to want to pat the population on the head and give them crumbs when I think we can do way better. You know that I am very bitter about this tax policy sop to the "middle class" as just an example. I do want the NDP to be in a position to blast them on this and concentrate less on some of the lesser issues. Naturally relations with Indigenous people, the environment, financial and taxation and social policy are directly connected -- it is in those areas that I choose to attack the Liberals most and where I think they are weakest. Now I take as a given the need for Canada to further a peace agenda -- problem is none of the parties are really strong on this. I would love to see that improved as the NDP has looked like it had potential there at times.

Pages