Airing our dirty laundry to the world?

[Erick Estrada]

So it's not the country that's broken, just our politics?

[blender]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, you can resent it if you like, but that sort of rhetoric is non-responsive and dismissive of a complaint that's pretty specific. Waving at it with the back of your hand with statements like that one deserves a (mildly worded) call-out, in my opinion.

This is true. However, the important difference is that in the vast majority (if not all) such cases, the dispute is between a provincial government and the federal government. Even where multiple provinces are involved (egg and milk cases, if memory serves), the Federal Government has been intractable and forceful in defending its constitutional jurisdiction. Court challenges to determine where the bright lines are between federal and provincial jurisdiction are fine, provided that it's a real contest of positions between motivated litigators.

This no longer seems to be the case. The Federal Government does not appear to value its own legislative authority enough to defend it in the face of challenges, and as a result, that authority is being flouted even absent any challenge, or where there are court challenges, they're cynical posturing moves without any realistic prospect of success. If you can show me where in the past this climate has existed throughout our history, I'm all ears. It's been about ten years since my first year constitutional law class, so maybe I've forgotten.

You make a fair point about relatively recent changes in federal jurisprudential behaviour, even if I'm not convinced you are correct (you may be, but I honestly don't know). Nevertheless, the structures that are in place to govern this behavior are unchanged since confederation, so perhaps we should be discussing how governments act rather than how Canada is "broken" which suggests a systemic problem and is what I was arguing against (not with you) in the first place.

I think a major contributing factor that has not yet been brought into this discussion is the role of corporate actors under NAFTA and their ability to influence governmental actions. Perhaps there is a correlation with the rise of corporate power and the unwillingness of all levels of government to act decisively in any way.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is likely the worst opinion I've read here for days. Congrats.

Care to elaborate? I suppose your view is that minority parties are just supposed to keep their mouths shut once the majority has made up their mind about something?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

Again! You're right! Its been happening for so long that its basically part of our culture now, we shouldnt seek to change it because its basically tradition!

You're so wise.

The suggestion that something is broken means that it was once whole. Stating that inter-provincial bickering is an example of it being broken, suggests that there was a time when this didn't happen. Please provide a concrete example of that.

Suggesting Canada could be improved is different. I’d agree with that. But I don't think shrugging our shoulders and saying Scheer hasn't mistepped because we’re a divided nation anyway is doing much to push for improvement.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by blankall

Care to elaborate? I suppose your view is that minority parties are just supposed to keep their mouths shut once the majority has made up their mind about something?

I don't think they need to keep their mouths shut. Far from it, they should be yelling from mountains if they think the current government is doing something wrong. The point is that they should do the yelling from inside Canada.

How is Canada supposed to negotiate internationally if Trudeau presents one message and then Scheer follows to tell them what he is going to change about the deal once he is elected.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think they need to keep their mouths shut. Far from it, they should be yelling from mountains if they think the current government is doing something wrong. The point is that they should do the yelling from inside Canada.

How is Canada supposed to negotiate internationally if Trudeau presents one message and then Scheer follows to tell them what he is going to change about the deal once he is elected.

Emphasis on this. They should be acting like they are in constant campaign mode. They were elected, and their party didn't win. They need to do their jobs instead of being constant contrarians.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think they need to keep their mouths shut. Far from it, they should be yelling from mountains if they think the current government is doing something wrong. The point is that they should do the yelling from inside Canada.

How is Canada supposed to negotiate internationally if Trudeau presents one message and then Scheer follows to tell them what he is going to change about the deal once he is elected.

1. It's a good thing for opposition parties to be aware of the ramifications of the policies they intend to pursue. They should be encouraged to consult with international counterparts.

2. As a federal party withe members of parliament, they have just as much right to meet with international counterparts as the government in power.

To use a bit of a hyperbole as an example. If there was a majority government that took a conservative point of view on an issue like gay marriage, I would absolute want my MP to campaign internationally against that.

[Wiggum_PI]

I think this opinion piece also from the Globe and Mail, sums it up pretty well.

To India, to make sure the shallow politicking is a bipartsan thing

Justin Trudeau’s botched trip to India in February was always ill-conceived because it revolved around lazy diplomatic tropes and shallow politicking to domestic audiences – now Andrew Scheer is going to compound the mistake.

The Conservative Leader’s news release blared that Mr. Scheer will go on a nine-day mission this fall to “repair and strengthen Canada-India relations,” and made it pretty clear the main point is to show up Mr. Trudeau for his gaffe-filled February visit.

Mr. Scheer is taking the whole sophomoric problem with Mr. Trudeau’s trip and running with it.

The first issue is that Mr. Scheer isn’t going anywhere to repair relations with anyone – at least not yet. He’s the Leader of the Opposition, and he doesn’t speak for the government of Canada.

[Manhattanboy]

It seems like it’s amateur hour in every party at every level of government in this country.

I guess the politicians themselves can be forgiven for the buffoonery but who’s advising them?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I think this opinion piece also from the Globe and Mail, sums it up pretty well.

To India, to make sure the shallow politicking is a bipartsan thing

Justin Trudeau’s botched trip to India in February was always ill-conceived because it revolved around lazy diplomatic tropes and shallow politicking to domestic audiences – now Andrew Scheer is going to compound the mistake.

The Conservative Leader’s news release blared that Mr. Scheer will go on a nine-day mission this fall to “repair and strengthen Canada-India relations,” and made it pretty clear the main point is to show up Mr. Trudeau for his gaffe-filled February visit.

Mr. Scheer is taking the whole sophomoric problem with Mr. Trudeau’s trip and running with it.

The first issue is that Mr. Scheer isn’t going anywhere to repair relations with anyone – at least not yet. He’s the Leader of the Opposition, and he doesn’t speak for the government of Canada.

Yeah, no, this is 100% visiting a foreign nation to undermine the current party in power. The only thing more embarrassing than an embarrassing visit is a rival political party leader showing up to put the visit back in that countries headlines months later.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by blankall

1. It's a good thing for opposition parties to be aware of the ramifications of the policies they intend to pursue. They should be encouraged to consult with international counterparts.

2. As a federal party withe members of parliament, they have just as much right to meet with international counterparts as the government in power.

To use a bit of a hyperbole as an example. If there was a majority government that took a conservative point of view on an issue like gay marriage, I would absolute want my MP to campaign internationally against that.

I agree with you if we have an authoritarian government but we don't. We have courts, laws and elections that can all be used to change the direction of the government or prevent abuse by the party in power. We can also protest in the streets and the opposition should be leading those moves if they are doing something terrible.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Making vague assertions about how Canada has "always been a messy place politically" does not constitute a response to the specific complaint that legislative authority and the constitutional division of powers is currently on shaky ground.

It's fairly obvious to anyone who is paying attention that certain Provinces have attempted to hamper or prevent construction of federally regulated undertakings, and that the current Federal government has not effectively quashed those little rebellions. As a result there's a great deal of uncertainty as to whether Provinces in effect have seized powers that they should not have, based on the constitution, and whether interprovincial projects can actually be built without provinces trying to extract concessions they're not legally entitled to extract. That - as we've seen - leads to fights and trade disputes between provinces as they try to one-up each other and seek retribution (in similarly illegal ways), which is exactly why we have the constitutional division of powers we do in the first place - to prevent this situation from arising.

In those circumstances, the mechanisms that make Canada work as a country are clearly strained. So, again, it's absolutely not just a complaint about how the country's currently being run.

Democracy is messy. While your post makes several excellent points about the challenges a country faces when a small number of people, funded by special interests, can work the system in an attempt to override National Interest. At best it is the worst form of nimby-ism.

What was the PM supposed to do? Instruct Canadian courts not to hear any challenges?

The "Canada is broken" and "i use the term country loosely these day" posts are both partisan politics disguised as social commentary. They hate the current PM and they will continue to make sure everyone knows it.

You give the posters of those thoughts too much credit.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I don't think they need to keep their mouths shut. Far from it, they should be yelling from mountains if they think the current government is doing something wrong. The point is that they should do the yelling from inside Canada.

How is Canada supposed to negotiate internationally if Trudeau presents one message and then Scheer follows to tell them what he is going to change about the deal once he is elected.

This!

Does publicly airing dirty laundry or disagreements on direction inside any organization - a country, a company, a sports team - help or hinder that organization?

Debates about policy, etc. should take place internally, while the organization presents a united front to the outside world.

Grandstanding tactics might help you reach your base and may even get you elected but the cost is damage to the country itself on the world stage.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

This is likely the worst opinion I've read here for days. Congrats.

Actually, your very first reply where you completely pretended it wasn't Jean Chretien and the Liberals who opened the door for this practice was the worst opinion expressed here for days.

But, given a stopped clock is still right twice day, I actually agree with your intended point here: No, the opposition does not have a responsibility to go negotiate independently with other nations.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Umm we better chill out guys or Clifffletcher is going to come in here and ream us out....

Originally Posted by zamler

Stop acting like a #### head and Cliff won't have to come in and slap your around.

Honestly, I have no idea what the eff Makarov is even talking about.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, your very first reply where you completely pretended it wasn't Jean Chretien and the Liberals who opened the door for this practice was the worst opinion expressed here for days.

But, given a stopped clock is still right twice day, I actually agree with your intended point here: No, the opposition does not have a responsibility to go negotiate independently with other nations.

#Whataboutism

Nothing I wrote is wrong period. Fox news has had a lot of butt hurt Canadian Conservatives trashing our country to try and score political points.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, your very first reply where you completely pretended it wasn't Jean Chretien and the Liberals who opened the door for this practice was the worst opinion expressed here for days.

But, given a stopped clock is still right twice day, I actually agree with your intended point here: No, the opposition does not have a responsibility to go negotiate independently with other nations.

Ok. Here’s what white out wrote:

Originally Posted by White Out 403

Conservates love harming out reputation for political gain. I've seen a lot of them in fox news over the past few years. It's reprehensible.

At no point does white out by any means suggest that this type of behaviour is unprecedented. He makes his opinion on when the conservatives do it very clear, but he never says that no other party does it or that the conservatives were the first. If you don’t like whatever you’re pretending that whiteout(or anyone else) is “pretending” in their posts, just stop pretending that they’re prentending it and the situation should resolve itself.

[Weitz]

Is this thread here because complaining about the opposition in the actual fed politics thread would get ignored?

[CliffFletcher]

Anyone who thinks this is a divisive period in Canadian history has a pretty short memory. Let's look at the 90s:

1990: The Meech Lake Accord, an attempt to bring Quebec into the constitution, fails when Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper refuses to sign on.

1990: Firefights and violent confrontations between Quebec and federal armed forces and hundreds of armed Mohawks at Oka leave two dead.

1992: Charlottetown Accord, another effort to bring Quebec into the fold and de-centralize government power to the provinces, fails.

1993: The Conservative party is annihilated as a political force by the rise of the separatist Bloc and the regional Reform party. A party dedicated to breaking up the country becomes the Official Opposition. Virtually ever seat in Ontario is held by the Liberals, every seat in Quebec by the Bloc, and every seat in Alberta and B.C. by the Reform Party.

1995: Quebec referendum on separation narrowly fails, falling short by 0.5 per cent of the vote.

1997: Reform Party become the official opposition despite having only one seat east of Manitoba.


Makes 2018 look pretty good. Looking at our recent history, and at the state of the UK, U.S., even Australia, Canada today looks like an island of sanity and moderation.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Is this thread here because complaining about the opposition in the actual fed politics thread would get ignored?

I like the Conservative party. I started this thread because it bothers me when politicians of any stripe do it. Andrew Scheer was just the politician who happens to be in the opposition doing it right now.