Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Dude that article made me want a spy pen. I can't be the only one.

[rubecube]

So what do all of the Conservative supporters who bashed Trudeau for his "whipping out" and argued that it didn't reflect well on his leadership abilities think of our PM completely dismissing international law with an equally glib remark?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/step...sion-1.3008535

"The United States wrote to the [UN]
secretary-general as required under Article 51 of the UN Charter and laid out their legal case for their planned intervention in Syria. Has the prime minister written to the United Nations laying out Canada's justification for their planned intervention in Syria?" Mulcair asked.

Harper downplayed the risk to ignoring international law.

"If [Mulcair] is suggesting that there is any significant legal risk to lawyers from ISIL taking on the Government of Canada and winning, the Government of Canada's view is the chances of that is negligible," the prime minister said.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So what do all of the Conservative supporters who bashed Trudeau for his "whipping out" and argued that it didn't reflect well on his leadership abilities think of our PM completely dismissing international law with an equally glib remark?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/step...sion-1.3008535

1) How on earth is that equally glib?

2) If Harper hasn't followed international law, he should do so.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

1) How on earth is that equally glib?

2) If Harper hasn't followed international law, he should do so.

I'd say it's a pretty cavalier and childish response to a legitimate question from Mulcair. At least in Trudeau's case what he said was in poor taste, but ultimately pretty harmless. Harper is basically saying he has no problem skirting international law if he can get away with it.

[rubecube]

The polls continue to show pretty much a dead heat, with the Conservatives expected to hold a minority government after the election. I did read one interesting analysis with regards to the mission in Iraq and Syria last week. It's not surprising to me that a majority of Canadians support the mission. Harper is a master at using emotional language to justify his foreign policy, and it's easier for the average voter to track the concept of big, scary ISIS, then it is to understand the nuances and consequences of ignoring international law. However, I digress.

What did surprise me was that the polls seemed to indicate that despite this support, most Canadians didn't consider it as a big factor in determining who they would vote for, which does explain the virtual statistical tie to some extent. It could also be explained by the generally negative response to Bill C-31. The next few months are going to be really interesting. If casualties start to occur in the middle east, with no clear longterm and exit strategies, and the economy continues to stagnate, it's possible that the Conservative's stock could plummet once the Senate scandal hearings conclude.

The one thing the Conservatives do have going for them is that the enthusiasm for Trudeau has chilled considerably, and that could affect the turnout among young voter and those that didn't vote in the previous election. It is general bad news for the incumbent when voter turnout increases, especially in those demographics.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Oh yeah, this started....

A Crown attorney prosecuting Sen. Mike Duffy's fraud and bribery trial has contradicted Prime Minister Stephen Harper's position on who is eligible to sit in the Senate for a particular province.

Mark Holmes laid out the broad strokes of the Crown's case against Duffy in an Ottawa courtroom.

One of sets of charges involves living expenses, and alleges Duffy defrauded the government by claiming his primary residence was in Prince Edward Island while he actually lived in Ontario.

"He was constitutionally eligible to have been appointed from the province of Ontario, but that is not what happened."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/04...?utm_hp_ref=tw

Obviously should be a very interesting trial to see how this all shakes down. Election could in theory be over if enough of the #### hits the CPC fan

[evman150]

CPC are bulletproof.

That is what happens when you have 25%+ of the country who will vote for you no matter what (Rerun et al.).

This "scandal" won't affect the election at all. Considering it's about #4,768 on the list of offences committed by this government in the last decade and nothing has changed so far.

[Flash Walken]

John Manley, president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said defence of supply management is “deeply built into the DNA of our political system — a dog that it is better not to poke or it will jump up and bite you.”

But the time has come to abandon the system. he said. “If a by-product of defending supply management is that we are excluded from the most important multilateral trade agreement in 25 years, it is simply disastrous economic policy.

The Conservative position was clearly spelled out in the 2013 Throne Speech: “Our government will continue to develop new markets around the world for Canadian products, while supporting supply management.”

Liberal trade critic, Chrystia Freeland, said her party is strongly in favour of free trade and the TPP in particular, but is on the record as supporting supply management. “It is the responsibility of the government of Canada to be an actively engaged negotiating partner to get Canada into the first round (of TPP), while defending Canadian interests, including supply management,” she said.

The NDP is more lukewarm on trade deals in general, and this one in particular, pointing out the impact on food safety and security.

But even a future NDP government would be at the TPP table.

Don Davies, the party’s trade critic, said he supports the Conservative position. “I’m pushing them to keep their word … We think supply management is a good, stable system. Not every commodity in the world is appropriately free traded,” he said. The U.S. position is “classic posturing,” added the lawyer and former negotiator for the Teamsters union.

But, having spent time talking to U.S. negotiators in Washington last week, I’m not so sure. Yes, of course, they want to get access to our supply managed sector, but there are far broader imperatives at work.

The Obama administration’s main motivation is to strike a diplomatic deal in Asia after China’s coup in launching the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a new development finance institution. Obama’s defence secretary, Ashton Carter, was out this week arguing that deeper economic ties with Asian allies would translate into improved military cooperation and greater security.

“Time is running out. We already see countries in the region trying to carve up these markets and forging many trade agreements,” he said, an apparent reference to a rival Chinese-led trade agreement.

The U.S. needs the TPP to succeed more than ever and, if it can get its act together, is not prepared to brook opposition from Ottawa.

The word in Washington is Canada acts with an arrogance that far exceeds its relative importance. Negotiators say they have learned it’s pointless dealing with Trade Minister Ed Fast or even Canadian Ambassador Gary Doer, since the only person who ever decides anything is the prime minister.

Stephen Harper’s preference was clearly to punt this ticklish issue until after the election. The American are equally clearly determined to bring matters to a head before then.

The Harper government has touted its support of farmers and rural Canada, while boasting about “the most ambitious pro-export, pro-jobs plan in Canadian history.”

Yet, it looks very much as if Harper will have to bargain away supply management in an election year, or walk away from a deal that would make Canada the only country in the world to have privileged access to key markets in North America, Europe and Asia.

The National Post

[killer_carlson]

Harper is waiting to do anything new with the USA until Keystone is resolved.

[Harry Lime]

Anytime I delve into reading about politics, the thing that I am inevitably left with is, 'Wouldn't it be fantastic if every Western country wasn't run by lawyers?'. I wonder what the world would look like if we mandated that lawyers could work for the government, but not act as an elected official. Valhalla? Moon cars?

Neither here nor there. Carry on.

(I'm glad that lawyers do have a ranking system, and Canada is much higher than ISIS. I think that we could also push around Romania. Those guys are all promoter hype.)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Harper is waiting to do anything new with the USA until Keystone is resolved.

LoL, he'd better grab a chair.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Harper is waiting to do anything new with the USA until Keystone is resolved.

That'd be an incredibly short-sighted and petty thing to do if it causes Canada to miss out on something that has the potential to be far more economically favourable...so I wouldn't put it past him.

[rubecube]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...omen-1.3025156

Manitoba's Sagkeeng First Nation has the highest number of cases of unsolved missing or murdered indigenous women in Canada, according to a CBC analysis of outstanding cases​

The community of 3,000 people​, about 120 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg,​ has six cases of slain women. Manitoba has 46 ​unsolved ​cases overall.

The cases from Sagkeeng are:

Tina Fontaine: Her body was pulled from the Red River in August 2014.
Fonessa Bruyere: She was found dead on the outskirts of Winnipeg in August 2007.
Glenda Morrisseau: Her beaten body was found in St. Boniface in 1991.
Moira Erb: She was found dead in a remote area between railway tracks in northwest Winnipeg in 2003.
Kelly Morrisseau: Glenda Morrisseau's niece was found naked, dying of stab wounds in Gatineau, Que., in 2006.
Crystal Saunders: Her body was dumped in a ditch in St. Ambroise in 2007.

This is a month old, but it merits a post since it wasn't brought up and is related to the article above.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/ca...port-1.2989320

A United Nations committee has joined the chorus of critics who say Canada should establish a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women said Canada has violated the rights of indigenous women by failing to thoroughly investigate why they are targeted for violence.

The body is adding its voice to domestic calls for an inquiry, which the Harper government has repeatedly said isn't necessary.

The "this is not a sociological problem" quote from Harper last year still ranks as one of the most ridiculous and irresponsible things I've heard from a Prime Minister.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by evman150

CPC are bulletproof.

That is what happens when you have 25%+ of the country who will vote for you no matter what (Rerun et al.).

This "scandal" won't affect the election at all. Considering it's about #4,768 on the list of offences committed by this government in the last decade and nothing has changed so far.

Funny, until Ignatief mucked it all up last time around, every single thing you typed would have applied to the Liberal party. Word for word.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Funny, until Ignatief mucked it all up last time around, every single thing you typed would have applied to the Liberal party. Word for word.

So you're saying the federal PCs are the same beast as the Federal Liberals?

Weird. You mock one of them with such vitriol, I'd think that would be hypocritical.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The polls continue to show pretty much a dead heat, with the Conservatives expected to hold a minority government after the election. I did read one interesting analysis with regards to the mission in Iraq and Syria last week. It's not surprising to me that a majority of Canadians support the mission. Harper is a master at using emotional language to justify his foreign policy, and it's easier for the average voter to track the concept of big, scary ISIS, then it is to understand the nuances and consequences of ignoring international law. However, I digress.

What did surprise me was that the polls seemed to indicate that despite this support, most Canadians didn't consider it as a big factor in determining who they would vote for, which does explain the virtual statistical tie to some extent. It could also be explained by the generally negative response to Bill C-31. The next few months are going to be really interesting. If casualties start to occur in the middle east, with no clear longterm and exit strategies, and the economy continues to stagnate, it's possible that the Conservative's stock could plummet once the Senate scandal hearings conclude.

The one thing the Conservatives do have going for them is that the enthusiasm for Trudeau has chilled considerably, and that could affect the turnout among young voter and those that didn't vote in the previous election. It is general bad news for the incumbent when voter turnout increases, especially in those demographics.

You've really figured all of us Canadians out man. Anyone that supports CPC doesn't understand foreign policy, nuance, consequences, and is generally the "average" idiot. Anyone that supports the Liberals really has knowledge of the inner workings of international diplomacy.

I wish I could have such a pulse on the inner thought processes of 30 million people like you do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Regorium

You've really figured all of us Canadians out man. Anyone that supports CPC doesn't understand foreign policy, nuance, consequences, and is generally the "average" idiot. Anyone that supports the Liberals really has knowledge of the inner workings of international diplomacy.

I wish I could have such a pulse on the inner thought processes of 30 million people like you do.

Uhhhh...where did I say was a fan of the Liberals' foreign policy? If you support the Conservatives skirting international law to pursue ISIS in Syria, then yeah, I would suggest maybe your opinion is lacking some perspective.

[nik-]

How are they skirting international law? By bombing ISIS in a failed state? There are enough things that this government makes itself look stupid over, that probably isn't one of them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So you're saying the federal PCs are the same beast as the Federal Liberals?

Weird. You mock one of them with such vitriol, I'd think that would be hypocritical.

It might, if I had not, throughout the years, consistently noted that all sides play 'politics as usual'. Unlike many here, I have always freely admitted to my partisanship, but that doesn't mean I haven't recognized the flaws inherent in the political process itself and how all sides behave within it.

Of course, even if that were not the case, it still wouldn't be hypocritical, since I haven't attacked supporters of the Liberal party for supporting the Liberal party. So if you are looking for a hypocrite, look in Evman's direction.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

How are they skirting international law? By bombing ISIS in a failed state? There are enough things that this government makes itself look stupid over, that probably isn't one of them.

Whether Syria is a failed state or not, I don't think conducting military operations on foreign/sovereign soil, while gleefully circumventing the U.N. and the country's recognized leadership, sets a very good precedent.