Almost all Conservative sources interviewed for this article were surprised by Au’s decision to hold both positions. Most initially questioned whether it was legally permitted, and some expressed doubt about whether the information was accurate that the B.C. MP was in fact doing two full-time paid jobs.
Quote:
A senior Conservative interviewed for this article said that as is clear from the salary paid to MPs, being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job, and those who perform it properly by attending committee meetings and House sittings in person cannot realistically hold another full-time position. This is particularly challenging for MPs from B.C., given that it takes about five hours to fly to Ottawa one way. The source added that if Au was concerned about the cost of a byelection, he should have considered it before running for federal office.
“That’s ridiculous. MPs are remunerated as a full-time job. People should pick a lane,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the subject.
“If [Liberal MP] Chrystia Freeland cannot be collecting $209,800 from taxpayers while working for a foreign government, that’s [Au holding two positions] ridiculous. I don’t care what party someone represents, somebody should not be sitting in two different elected roles at the same time.”
Yeah that's not kosher. Pick one. If the Freeland situation caused additional scrutiny on other conflicts of interest (and more egregious) that have been going on, all the better.
Thought about posting this in the American politics thread, but figure here is more on topic but it is this: How do we ensure what has happened in the USA does not happen here, ever? I'm still not sure if Trump, or to be more precise that vehicle for overtaking the US system of government, will be ultimately succesfull, but to me the attempt is warning enough. And if he (they) are ultimately succesfull, it surely puts a lot of stress on our system (strengthens our own extremist movements), which like it or not definitely does exist (trucker rally, ostrich farm, etc.)
So how does our system of government differ from the US when it comes to being overtaken by a movement like this? How vulnerable or protected are we? The main reason I ask is because I think if it needs strengthening, now is the time to do it, and I think it's something most Canadians could agree on, before it gets to be too late.
Ours is actually worse.
We have an elected dictator model where only about 35-40% of the popular vote is required to form a majority government.
Out senate is not considered to be a legitimate body so if it were to bloc legislation in would be decried as undemocratic and likely would be worked around.
So what keeps democracy working? The same thing that makes traffic lights work. Norms. It’s why it’s so important to maintain proper processes even if you are doing things for good reasons.
The centralization of power in the PMO through the Trudeau Snr, Mulroney, Chrétien, Harper and Trudeau jr years makes us much less resilient to a take over of government.
We will always be Belarus though, the economic and social influence the US has on Canada will always leave us as a vassal state. It’s much nicer when the US government doesn’t rub in in our faces but our position is not really materially changed with Trump in power.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Get ready for some partisan advertising from the federal government.
Quote:
The Liberals can now toot their own horn and use their own political slogans in taxpayer-funded ads because of changes the Carney government has made to long-standing ad rules.
The Carney government gave itself that latitude with tweaks to advertising review criteria first established under former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s government in 2016. Since then, any government ad costing more than $250,000 has had to go through a review process with an outside group, which checks ads against the government’s criteria and can demand changes before the ad goes into production.
Those criteria included a requirement that any government advertisements “are not self congratulatory or self praising in nature,” but that requirement has been pulled in the new rules the government quietly introduced last year.
The old rules also prohibited any advertisement that referenced a political slogan, but the new rules have a carveout that allows for references to slogans if those slogans are “later incorporated into the official name of a Government of Canada program, policy or initiative.” There is still a prohibition on the prime minister or any other elected official appearing in government funded ads.
The rules also used to prohibit the government from advertising any program that had not yet been approved by Parliament, but that has been removed from the criteria.
Interim NDP leader Don Davies said watering down the advertising rules is wrong.
“They’ve blurred the distinction between government and Liberal party, and it’s inappropriate and unethical,” he said. “We’re in an economic crisis. We’re in a there’s a global security crisis. We have housing crises. We’ve got serious threats to the border and this government is taking the time to change rules, to loosen the rules, on partisan advertising and that’s worrying to me.”
I would really like to see Alberta take measure to move away from partisan government advertising. We get so much of it that is ridiculous and offensive.
I would really like to see Alberta take measure to move away from partisan government advertising. We get so much of it that is ridiculous and offensive.
You mean like using the UCP slogan on our license plates?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
You mean like using the UCP slogan on our license plates?
I was actually thinking more like the $30M energy war room that took responsibility to advertise on behalf of private companies, instead of letting them do their own advertising
Or the $7M "Scrap the Cap" campaign that if they wanted to make a political point, they should have paid for it out of party funds, or gotten earned media on the news.
Or the $1.1M campaign telling us that teachers are unreasonable people.
I think there are some other noteworthy ones.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I would really like to see Alberta take measure to move away from partisan government advertising. We get so much of it that is ridiculous and offensive.
Some of these changes are pretty important. Under the Trudeau policy the government couldn’t have messages that “are … self congratulatory or self praising in nature,”
I think government saying how great the programs and services that the government of Canada offers is important right now in the current era of anti-government sentiment and general cynicism.
The second one is more open to abuse but perhaps a reasonable trade off
“ The old rules also prohibited any advertisement that referenced a political slogan, but the new rules have a carveout that allows for references to slogans if those slogans are “later incorporated into the official name of a Government of Canada program, policy or initiative.”
The article goes on and references “Its time to build” as a slogan for projects of national interest as something that would have been prohibited previously but is permitted now. We know people in opposition to these projects will be well funded and use advertising and slogans. So why shouldn’t the government be using all its tools to sell these important projects to Canadians. In the current environment we need more Canadian Nationalism.
Now if I was trying to avoid partisan advertising I think I would have th restriction that any government used slogan could not be used in any partisan advertising while government is in session or in the following election. So if “it’s time to build” is used by the government it shouldn’t be able to be used by the liberals.
But overall I think anger at this policy and even things like the concept of the war room are misplaced. Our governments should be advocating in the world of public opinion for the priorities of the government.
The problem with the war room isn’t that it existed it’s that it was bad at its job and didn’t publish accurate information. It was designed to misinform and stir discontent. Banning ads isn’t the solution.
To be clear, I understand how this sounds like special pleading, but consider if you will the way news cycles currently work.
Someone working for the western standard or the rebel wakes up in the morning, knowing that unless they can get thousands of clicks their irrelevant little rag will cease to exist and they will lose their job. They know that people talk about and share outrages while ignoring politics when their is no news. So they write an article saying "how outrageous is this thing that is not news", then stupid people click on the link and say "yes that is outrageous", then the MSM whose job it is to get clicks goes, "Oh no everyone is clicking on that article we aren't covering", so they start covering the not news, but in the 3rd paragraph they stipulate that it isn't news so they can feel better about themselves for reporting facts, and pretend that they aren't aware that none of their readers make it to the 3rd paragraph.
It's incumbent upon us to not be the stupid people who buy into the fake outrage.
I was with you until the last line. That is a bridge too far!
__________________
E=NG
The Following User Says Thank You to Titan2 For This Useful Post:
Legault resigning as QC premier. Will the new one be less anti pipeline?
Why does everything have to be about pipelines?
My first thought was "what is the scandal that is driving him out of office?".
My second thought was "is it for health reasons?".
My third thought was "I wonder if they will give Quebec a chance at a less conservative government?".
Sounds like he was dropping in the polls by shifting from being a "business guy" to a "culture war conservative" and the people aren't liking it.
