Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames
« Reply #195 on: 2018-07-04 23:20:55 »
So there you have it. With minimal outrage, Ontario went from a very left of center Liberal Government to a Conservative Government.
Popular Vote PCs 40.63% up 9.38% NDP 33.69% up 9.94% Green 4.62% down 0.22% (but there leader was elected). Other 1.75% up 0.24% Liberials 19.3% down 19.35% (with only 7 seats lost official party status)
Of note his first actions were; to increasing staffing of nurses and stop the annual 2% reduction in Doctor's pay that has been in effect for the last 6 years.
Lets hope this rabbit hole is better for Ontario residence then the last one.
Re:Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames
« Reply #196 on: 2019-09-01 16:38:49 »
Well kids, here we go, it is September 1st 2019 and in 8 weeks we are voting for a party to carry us forth. Along with the parties comes leaders, and well, I flinch at the offerings but I believe it is most important to look long and hard at the parties themselves and what they actually provably stand for. This is best done I think by binning most of the media based snake oil, dog and pony shows that are surely going to plague us for the next 8 weeks. Actually going back and re-acquainting our selves with what the last 8 years has wrought and glancing back to what the previous 8 years to that dealt us.
That depends. It’s scheduled to be on Oct. 21 of this year—that’s what’s spelled out in the Canada Elections Act. But our fixed-date elections aren’t really all that fixed. In theory, Canadian elections should be held every four years in October, but the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, can call an election at any time. That’s a fundamental reality of our Westminster system that no legislation can change.
Elections can also be triggered if a minority government loses a confidence vote, or even, conceivably, if a government with a parliamentary majority gets sloppy and is caught with too-few members in the House during a critical vote. This almost happened last month. But barring any more such excitement, and assuming Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t decide to risk a snap early vote, Canadians will vote on Oct. 21. Who’s running?
It’s too soon to answer that question in its totality for each of Canada’s 338 ridings—that number will remain the same in 2019—but in general terms, the major parties will be the Liberals, who’ll fight to retain their majority, the Conservatives, who’ll want to unseat the Liberals to form a government, and the New Democratic Party, who’ll want to grow their distant-third-place status into something a bit more competitive with the other two major parties. The Green party will run, of course, and the Bloc Quebecois, in Quebec. Former Conservative MP Maxime Bernier’s new People’s Party of Canada intends to run candidates in 2019. It’s too soon to say how big a factor they’ll be.
In terms of leaders, of the major parties, only the Liberals expect to go in with the same leader they had last time. Andrew Scheer, the Conservative who replaced former prime minister Stephen Harper, is an experienced Parliamentarian, but has never led the party into a national campaign. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh is an experienced politician, but served previously in the Ontario legislature; he was only elected to Parliament last month. This campaign will be his first as leader of the national party. Where do I find my riding?
Elections Canada can help with that—just put your postal code in here. What do the latest polls say?
A strong Liberal polling advantage has been gradually eroding over time, setting up a competitive 2019 race, where the Liberals would still hold a real but not massive advantage. But the SNC-Lavalin affair and the various associated mini-crises have had a measurable and sustained impact on Liberal polling numbers. With the obvious proviso that we’re still six months (or so) out from the vote, the latest polling suggests that it’s the Conservatives who’d most likely win the most seats if the election were held today—but the same polls suggest that they’d be hard-pressed to lock up a majority. It’s impossible to make a more specific guess right now; suffice it to say things are looking a lot more interesting than most would have guessed as recently as six months ago.
See 338Canada.ca for Philippe Fournier’s latest electoral projections. What are some of the key issues likely to be?
In general terms, and assuming no new huge (metaphorical, hopefully) bombshells over the next six months, the Liberals are likely to run as a party devoted to the middle-class, the environment and defending progressive values, especially inclusiveness, in a turbulent world. This will involve accusing the opposition, mainly Conservatives, of intolerance.
The Conservatives, for their part, will hammer the Liberals on high spending, accountability and transparency, and the costs of the Liberals’ carbon-pricing plans, which are being bitterly resisted by right-wing provincial governments across the country, including, now, Alberta, under premier-designate Jason Kenney.
The NDP will probably try to reclaim the left, which was deftly seized by the Liberals in the 2015 election.
The People’s Party will presumably run to the right of the Tories, all while accusing them of being essentially Liberal-lite. In other words, it will all seem awfully familiar. The SNC-Lavalin scandal may also continue to weigh on the voters, though it does finally seem to be running out of steam. What voting system will we use?
Despite Liberal promises ahead of the last election, first-past-the-post—same as the last one, and all the ones before it. What do I need to vote? Has anything changed?
Elections Canada has you covered on that front. The one big change is that voters will be allowed to use the Voter Information Card mailed to them by Elections Canada as their proof of residence when they show up at the polling station. They will still need another piece of ID, though, to prove their identity.
The system is designed to make it easy to vote—the bar for establishing your identity isn’t particularly high. Perhaps the only real interesting wrinkle is that, thanks to a Supreme Court of Canada ruling late last year, long-term ex-pat Canadians living abroad will be entitled to vote in the riding they lived in last. The Liberals also passed legislation to that effect, but even if they hadn’t, the SCC ruling took care of that. Are robocalls legal? And why is Andrew Scheer sending me text messages? Can I make that stop?
Robocalls are certainly legal, so long as they’re properly paid for and reported as an election expense, and do not contain content that seeks to disrupt the democratic process (if you recall, the so-called “robocalls scandal” began when voters received phone calls providing false or misleading information about their local polling stations).
In a similar fashion, there’s nothing stopping parties from sending text messages to the cellphones of voters, as the Conservatives recently did when attacking carbon-tax measures in certain provinces. Voters might be annoyed by the texts, but so long as they’re done in accordance with financial and reporting requirements, they’re legitimate. Will Russia try to interfere in the election? What’s being done to stop it?
A series of Western countries (notably including the United States) have had foreign intelligence services attempt to interfere with their election campaigns. The attacks have been largely but not exclusively linked back to Russia. Using fake social media accounts—so-called “bots”—and fake news, the foreign services have worked to amp up social division and political polarization as much as aid any specific candidate.
The Canadian government announced a plan to safeguard the integrity of our elections in January, but much of the plan will depend on the willingness of the political parties to put country ahead of their own interests, and also of the social media giants like Facebook to co-operate with Canadian officials. Neither of those things can be taken for granted. Canada does have one thing going for it, though: we still use paper ballots, a hack-proof analog technology that should at least prevent any concern over actual manipulation of voting totals.
Liberal MPs and ministers finished their summer with a flourish of spending announcements that, in many cases, focused on regions of the country where the governing party will be most active seeking votes in the coming election. Story continues below
The spending tour — there were more than a hundred events last week alone in which Liberal MPs made 2,970 new spending commitments — brought an official complaint to Canada’s Elections Commission from the Conservatives that the Liberals were inappropriately campaigning on the public purse.
“The Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, and Parliamentary Secretaries have been criss-crossing the country making partisan announcements where they have been weaving campaign narratives into official government speeches and news releases,” Conservative MP Peter Kent wrote in his complaint to the commissioner. “Of equal, if not greater concern, is the fact that they have invited non-elected Liberal Party of Canada candidates to attend these official, taxpayer-funded government announcements.”
Kent claims this behaviour violates election finance laws.
The Conservatives, though, engaged their own flurry of spending announcements just before the 2015 election, though the Liberals have easily eclipsed what the Conservatives did.
READ MORE: Trudeau pledges $1.2 billion for new tramway, expanded transit network in Quebec City
For example, two Liberal MPs in Alberta — Randy Boissonnault and Kent Hehr — made 69 and 59 new spending commitments, respectively, just in the last month worth just under $100 million.
Boissonnault was given the task of handing out grants to women-led businesses and to arts and culture groups in northern Alberta. Eleven of those grant recipients were in his riding of Edmonton Centre. Hehr also provided grants to arts and culture groups in Calgary and southern Alberta as well as for some programs to promote Indigenous language use, for a housing project, to a clean-tech business, and for a major Calgary infrastructure project. Of the spending commitments Hehr made in August, 17 of the funding recipients are in his riding of Calgary Centre.
For August, Boissonnault and Hehr made the most spending commitments of any MP who is not a cabinet minister.
Overall, for the month of August, the Liberals made 4,545 new spending commitments worth a combined $12.8 billion. That compares to the Conservative record of 604 new spending commitments worth a combined $1.4 billion in the month prior to the August 2, 2015 election call.
WATCH: 2 Toronto transit projects net $1 billion in federal funds
In the last month, the Liberals have announced new spending on everything from chronic fatigue syndrome research to conservation projects to grants to steel and aluminum manufacturers to buy new equipment.
This data is drawn from an Ottawa Spends database maintained exclusively by Global News that has tracked spending announcements now through three different Parliaments.
Here’s the regional breakdown for Liberal spending activity last month:
There were 14 spending commitments worth a combined $3.7 billion where the spending will be distributed across two or more provinces. The biggest of those was an announcement on August 16 that the Canadian Army will buy 360 light-armoured vehicles which, while they are made in a factory in London, Ont., use parts and materials manufactured at facilities across the country.
READ MORE: Liberals continue spending frenzy on eve of election call — $2.8B last week
One of the biggest grant programs active in August was the federal Gas Tax Fund program. This program, established by the Liberals in 2005, takes the money Ottawa collects at the pumps and redistributes it to 3,600 municipalities across the country on a per capita basis. The 2019 budget contained a special one-time “top-up” of this fund.
In the last month, Infrastructure Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne announced how much each municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. would receive. He also confirmed gas tax fund transfers for the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. The first installments of this year’s gas tax fund transfers for communities in Ontario and Manitoba have not yet been announced.
The funding commitments announced in August through the gas tax fund transfers total $1.87 billion.
A note about the Ottawa Spends Database project:
Some wonder how these can be described as new spending commitments when they were passed in the budget. Others take the flipside of that question and think these are spending commitments that have not been part of the budget process. In fact, these are budgeted new spending commitments.
Federal budgets typically contain a government’s proposal for many different spending programs. Then, once Parliament approves the budget, it’s up to the minister responsible for administering those spending programs to put the program in place and begin making new spending commitments from that spending program.
So, for example, in the 2018 budget, Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains was authorized to begin a spending program called the Women’s Entrepreneurship Fund (WEF). Bains was given $20 million a year by Parliament to make grants of $100,000 to businesses owned or led by women.
READ MORE: NOTEBOOK — How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements
But Parliament was not provided with the list of each individual business that would receive these grants. The grant recipients would be decided later through an application process. Then, throughout the year, grants would be approved giving Bains or one of his representatives — recently it’s often been Small Business Minister Mary Ng — a chance to visit a region of the country and hand out these grants to individual businesses.
So, when Ng on August 27 visited Surrey, B.C., to hand out $100,000 WEF grants to 11 women-owned businesses, these were all new spending commitments from a budgeted spending program.
The Ottawa Spends Database then logs these as 11 new spending commitments and, where possible, makes a decision about what riding these businesses are located in.
The Ottawa Spends Database also only tracks new spending commitments when a press release is issued announcing the new spending commitment and only does so when a spending recipient is identified. That means that spending on government transfer programs such as the Canada Child Benefit or employment insurance benefits are not tracked.
So far, for the length of the 42nd Parliament, Liberal MPs and ministers have issued press releases announcing 20,000 new spending commitments for a combined total of $78.7 billion.
The foundation spent $2,760.12 to bring Arif Virani to a conference in England — the first time it has sponsored an MP's travel in its sixteen year history The Trudeau Foundation paid for a Liberal MP’s trip to London, England, to speak at one of its conferences last year, which critics say creates a conflict of interest for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government.
The foundation spent $2,760.12 to send Liberal MP Arif Virani, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to the conference from Feb. 29 to March 1, 2016. This was the first time in its 16-year history that the foundation, an educational charity established in memory of Justin Trudeau’s late father, Pierre Trudeau, had sponsored the travel of a sitting Member of Parliament.
“You’d have to be completely blind not to see what an obvious conflict of interest this is; how it puts the entire foundation and those who donate to it under suspicion because it looks like what it is, which is a way to gain influence with the Trudeau cabinet without having to report it to Elections Canada,” said NDP ethics critic Nathan Cullen.
The foundation’s perceived closeness with the Trudeau government has been a source of controversy in recent months. In December, the National Post reported that following Justin Trudeau’s election as Liberal leader, foreign donations to the foundation increased 10-fold and overall donations increased four-fold. Trudeau Foundation
Virani, a human rights advocate who came to Canada as a refugee, said he was invited to the conference based on his background, not his party affiliation.
“I was honoured to be asked by the Trudeau Foundation to speak at their 2016 Conference on Diversity, Pluralism and the Future of Citizenship,” said Virani, the MP for the Toronto riding of Parkdale-High Park. Virani said he obtained approval from the ethics commissioner’s office before agreeing to attend.
In November, the prime minister said there was a “tremendous separation” between himself and the Trudeau Foundation. The prime minister’s brother Alexandre sits on the board of the foundation, which received $125 million in 2002 from the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien.
Asked why a Liberal MP’s travel was sponsored if a tremendous separation exists, Trudeau’s press secretary, Andrée-Lyne Hallé, said: “Following his election as leader of the Liberal party, the prime minister withdrew his involvement in the affairs of the foundation.” Justin Trudeau was elected Liberal leader in April 2013. He stepped down from the foundation over a year and a half later, in December 2014.
Members of Parliament are required to report travel costing over $200 that is paid for by an outside group to the ethics commissioner. The National Post reviewed records of MPs’ sponsored travel from 2004-2016. Records from before 2004 cannot be removed from the House of Commons but Jeremy LeBlanc, the principal clerk of journals at the House of Commons, checked the records from 2001-2003 and said there was no travel sponsored by the Trudeau Foundation during that period.
Money began to rain on Trudeau Foundation once Justin took over Liberals, analysis shows Conservatives call on Trudeau Foundation to ban foreign donations Conservatives blast Trudeau’s ‘obvious ethical missteps’ despite promised fundraising legislation
In an emailed statement, the foundation’s executive director, Élise Comtois, said the charity always covers the cost of travel and accommodation for speakers at its events. While this is the first time the foundation has covered travel for a sitting MP, Comtois noted the foundation often invites politicians from various parties to speak, including Conservative MP Michael Chong in 2015, NDP MP Linda Duncan in 2012 and Green Party leader Elizabeth May in 2011.
“We seek to provide a diversity of opinions and perspectives at all of our events given the foundation’s core mission,” Comtois said. “When travel is involved we offer to cover travel and accommodation costs within reason.”
John Brassard, Conservative deputy ethics critic, said Virani could have used government resources to pay for his trip.
“The prime minister stood up in the House of Commons and said he’s got nothing to do with the Trudeau Foundation, that it’s an arms-length body, it’s not affiliated with government at all. Listen, Mr. Virani is a parliamentary secretary. If he needed to go to this conference so badly, he didn’t need the Trudeau Foundation to pay for it.”
A letter sent to Virani by the foundation indicates it spent $852.63 on airfare, $385.44 on meals, $1,143.60 on hospitality and $378.45 on transportation (taxis). The letter includes a list of directors of the Trudeau Foundation. At the bottom of that list is the prime minister’s brother, Alexandre Trudeau.
With all of Justin Trudeau’s blunders – from blowing up Canada’s relationship with India (and messing up in China, too) to welcoming floods of unvetted migrants to Canada to running up the debt to taking lavish vacations at taxpayer expense to pushing for all kinds of political correctness, it’s kind of natural to wonder why this has happened. Seriously, how could Canada have ended up with such an incompetent as its prime minister? His stupidities are legion and likely only to continue. A new Ipsos poll reveals that if a Canadian election were held tomorrow, Trudeau would be thrown out.
In retrospect, it’s worth looking at how Trudeau got elected, because the election had consequences, all of which are on display now. When he was elected in 2015, he had a famous name but no significant political experience. And at age 43, when he was voted in, he didn’t even have much life experience, particularly as a cosseted rich man’s son growing up in an elite left-wing bubble.
Baffling to conservatives is how such a fine prime minister as Stephen Harper could be voted out, his exit largely attributed to his lack of charisma.
It’s true that voters get tired of incumbents. But in Canada’s case, and this is worth noting, Trudeau was elected because of massive foreign funding, from the likes of the rabidly left-wing and secretive Tides Foundation, linked to George Soros and radical environmental movements.
In 2017, the National Post reported that Trudeau got elected after a massive influx of illegal foreign funds, mostly from the U.S.-based left-wing Tides Foundation, writing:
Foreign money funnelled towards Canadian political advocacy groups affected the outcome of the 2015 federal election, according to a document filed last week with Elections Canada and obtained in part by the Calgary Herald.
The 36-page report entitled: Elections Canada Complaint Regarding Foreign Influence in the 2015 Canadian Election, alleges third parties worked with each other, which may have bypassed election spending limits – all of which appears to be in contravention of the Canada Elections Act.
The Canada Elections Act states that “a third party shall not circumvent, or attempt to circumvent, a limit set out … in any manner, including by splitting itself into two or more third parties for the purpose of circumventing the limit or acting in collusion with another third party so that their combined election advertising expenses exceed the limit.”
“Electoral outcomes were influenced,” alleges the report.
Well, they certainly were. And the scope of this has brought some bitter consequences to Canada. Trudeau, like the leftists in the U.S., has resisted all efforts at electoral reform, despite campaigning on that platform. Obviously, it’s a corrupt system that has been good for him. There isn’t much we Americans can do about it in Canada, but it highlights two points here: 1) that the Russians and their supposed meddling does not shine a candle to the other kinds of meddling that can be taking place and 2) that electoral reforms, to ensure the integrity of elections, make for one of the most important missions left to be finished by the Trump administration. Lefties, once in power, will never undertake this mission; the system as it is is too good for them.
Canada’s disaster in its prime minister’s office shows just how bad it can be.
3. Paul Young - Bio • CPA, CGA • Academia (PF1, FA4 and MS2) • SME – Risk Management • SME – Close, Consolidate and Reporting • SME – Public Policy • SME – Internal Controls • SME – Financial Planning and Analysis • SME – Business Strategy • SME – Emerging Technology • SME – Financial Solutions • SME – Business Process Change • SME – Supply Chain Management Contact information: Paul_Young_CGA@Hotmail.com
4. Agenda • GDP • Middle Class • Deficit/Debt • Foreign Policy • Electoral Reforms • Open and Transparent Government • Climate Change • Poverty • Gag Orders/Government • First Nations • Infrastructure • Energy Sector • Manufacturing
5. Slow GDP Growth • http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeaus-economic-promises-off-to-a-sluggish-start/or Scotiabank If the Harper government’s vision of economic success was balanced budgets and pipelines full of crude oil, Trudeau is striving to foster an economy where future growth is driven by big public infrastructure investments and clever new smartphone apps. The beating heart of the Liberal plan stems from the party’s unorthodox election campaign promise to run deficits as big as $10 billion for the next two fiscal years to help pay for a doubling of federal infrastructure spending to $120 billion over the next decade Trudeau never had the answer for growth 6. Rebuttal – GDP
7. Middle Class • https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/another-broken-promise-tax-cuts-for-the-middle-class/article33983657/ While these broken promises have garnered some attention, yet another broken promise has managed to fly under the radar. The Liberals campaigned on the promise to cut taxes for Canada’s middle class. Yet since forming government, they have announced several tax hikes and more may be on the way. The latest potential tax hike could be higher user fees for a range of federal services (including fish licenses, campsites and passports). That’s according to a CBC report that suggests the federal government is eyeing an increase to these fees. If implemented, this would be the latest in the government’s onslaught of tax increases on Canadians. Tax increase/fees • Hikes to CPP • Hikes to EI • Elimination of transit credits • Elimination of fitness credits, textbooks and other credits • Many people did not get a tax cut • Child Benefit program not indexed • Forced Carbon Tax
10. Canada best middle class in the world Canada #1 - Report: American Middle Class No Longer The World's Richest - America's Newsroom Source Fox – 2014 – - Harper was PM in 2014 - Liberals never had the answer for the middle class Source - https://globalnews.ca/news/3769136/taxes- middle-class-liberals/ -September 26, 2017
16. Electoral Reform • https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-electoral-reform/article33855925/ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has broken a signature campaign promise by abandoning electoral reform, sparking condemnation from his political opponents. During the past campaign, Mr. Trudeau made the pledge to “make every vote count” and said his party was committed to ensuring that the 2015 election would be the last under the first-past-the- post voting system. Fair-voting advocates have long argued that the current system doesn’t accurately reflect the will of the public, because it allows a party to win a majority of seats without majority support from Canadians. The Liberal promise was part of a series of proposals that Mr. Trudeau vowed would bring real change to Ottawa.
Explaining why the prime minister would not participate in the full schedule of leaders’ debates this election campaign, as he had in 2015, Liberal director of communications Daniel Lauzon said his leader would only show up for debates organized by the federal Leaders’ Debates Commission — the one designed and implemented by the Liberals.
“The commission,” he elaborated, “was established after the last election where the governing party tried to game the system.” That much is true. For tactical reasons, Stephen Harper refused to take part in what was then the “official” English-language debate, the one overseen by a cabal of broadcasters known as “the Consortium,” in favour of a hodge-podge of different debates with different sponsors, different platforms — and much smaller audiences.
But it’s scarcely better for his successor to game the system in the opposition direction, using the official debates as an excuse to ditch the others. Even the pretext proved disposable: hardly had the party issued its commission-debates-only rationalization for stiffing the Maclean’s and Munk debates (full disclosure: I am a member of the Munk Debates advisory board), when it was announced Justin Trudeau would participate in a French-language debate organized by Quebec’s TVA network. What we are left with is a position that is every bit as cynical and self-serving as the one that preceded it, only with the added pretence of high principle. If the 2015 debates were a dubious advance over the consortium model, the current approach looks to be a significant step backwards. Harper ended up participating in five debates; Trudeau seems determined to limit his exposure to three.
As before, there will be but one official debate in each language, with all of the consequences that might be predicted: the obsessive media focus, with so much riding on each debate, on who “won” or “lost,” at the expense of what the leaders said; the exclusion of significant sections of the viewing public from each, thanks to the unilingual format — the French debate, in particular, devolving into a debate held entirely for the benefit of one province.
So, too, the commission debates have somehow fallen into the grips of an organization, the Canadian Debate Production Partnership, that looks suspiciously like the old consortium — the same clutch of private and public broadcasters, only with the addition of a left-leaning publisher or two. The point of entrusting responsibility for the debates to an independent public body, the rules set well in advance of the election rather than by last-minute negotiations among the participants, was to take the self-interest out of it. As such, the commission was an opportunity to bring some fairness and impartiality to such eternally thorny questions as who should be allowed to participate. Had there been a concerted attempt to find some consensus on these, whether among the parties or the broader public, the result might have become the template, not only for the official debates, but for the unofficial ones as well.
Instead, the rules of the debates were defined even before the commission had been struck — unilaterally, by the party in power. Not only would there be only two debates — there should be at least five — but the Liberals took it upon themselves to decide which other parties would be allowed to share the stage with them: not by name, to be sure, but by virtue of supposedly objective criteria whose effect is the same.
Thus, according to Order in Council 2018-1322, establishing the commission, a party, to be eligible, must be represented in the House of Commons (“by a member of Parliament who was elected as a member of that party”). It must also have candidates running in at last 90 per cent of the ridings. Last, it must have obtained at least four per cent of the vote in the last election, or have “a legitimate chance” at electing members in the next.
Oh, and: it only has to meet two of the three. So whereas the rules would otherwise include only the main national parties, they also neatly make room for the Bloc Quebecois — while excluding the People’s Party of Canada, though it might well meet all three criteria. Obviously there have to be some rules about who gets in, but the rules have to be fair, and to be seen to be fair. These, rather, seem to have been tailored to the designs of the established parties.
That same spirit of arbitrariness seems to have infected the private-sector debates. Maclean’s and Munk would exclude both the Bloc and the PPC. TVA’s list includes the Bloc, but not the PPC (though its leader sits as a member from Quebec) or, incredibly, the Greens (though they are ahead of the NDP in some polls in the province).
It’s just that selectiveness about who is invited that allows the leaders, in turn, to be selective about which invitations they accept. Skeptics point out that you can’t force the leaders to take part, and of course they’re right. They will only participate if they see it in their interest to do so. But that’s the point. The more legitimate the debates were seen to be, the harder it would be for a leader to duck them; participation would be compelled, not by law, but by self-interest.
That’s the tragedy of the debates commission. It was an opportunity to overhaul the debates, transforming them from the disgrace to democracy they have too often been in the past into a vital new instrument of it. Instead the Liberals once again promised one thing and delivered another. The point of the commission was supposedly to prevent leaders from gaming the system, not to enable them.
Mandate and roles: What is the Leaders’ Debates Commission?
The core of our mandate at the Leaders’ Debates Commission is twofold. First, organize two leaders’ debates for the 2019 federal general election—one in each official language. Second, prepare a report to Parliament, following the 2019 debates, outlining findings, lessons learned, and recommendations.
We aspire to make the debates a more predictable, reliable, and stable element of federal election campaigns. We want open, transparent leaders’ debates that reach a broad cross-section of Canadians.
To date, we have consulted with close to 40 subject-matter experts on issues such as accessibility, inclusivity, civic engagement, debate format and journalistic standards.
We have met with major political parties and media organizations to ensure a healthy, symbiotic, and stable relationship as we move forward in our planning process.
We have issued a request for proposal (RFP) for a “debates producer” an organization (or group of organizations) who will organize, produce, promote and distribute the French and English debates. We expect the RFP to close May 30th, and hope to announce the debates producer mid-June.
Moving forward, we will work – according to our mandate – to determine the eligibility of party leaders to participate in the federal debates. Mission
Organize two leaders’ debates for the 2019 federal general election – one in each official language. Mandate
Select and establish a seven-member Advisory Board; Enter into a contract for the production of the debates; Ensure the debates are broadcast and distributed widely and free of charge; Ensure the debates reach as many Canadians as possible, including those living in remote areas, those living in official language minority communities and those living with disabilities; Engage with political parties and ensure that the criteria for participation of political parties in the debates be applied fairly and in full transparency; Engage with Canadians to raise awareness about debates; Ensure the debates are conducted under high journalistic standards; and Following the 2019 general election (and no later than March 31, 2020), provide a report to Parliament outlining findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to inform the potential creation in statute of a “built to last” Debates Commission
Our day-to-day activities and decision making are guided by the pursuit of public interest, principles of independence, impartiality, transparency, creditability, democratic citizenship, civic education, inclusion and cost effectiveness. We encourage participation and engagement from all Canadians.
Election 2019: Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames
« Reply #205 on: 2019-09-10 12:48:41 »
So the Liberals enable crude oil tankers daily to sail up the St. Lawerence to Quebec refineries from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, with a huge potential environment damage. Yet pipelines to the west coast and pipelines across Canada to the East are squashed by the Trudeau government. We have seen the consequences to public safety/health using railways for oil transport.
I think Michelle Rempel says it all:
We have a government that gets passionate about 'single-use' plastics, but is comatose on the cardinal industry of a First-World democracy
Were you to suppose that the purpose of current national energy policy was to chase Alberta out of Confederation (with a big knotty stick), you would have hit up a dismayingly plausible, perhaps the only plausible, explanation for the remorseless stream of blunders, stumbles, harassments, blockades, protests and court rulings that have constituted said “policy” over recent years.
Certainly more plausible than anything that has escaped the lips of Justin Trudeau recently, anything to be found in the endless tweets of climate crusader Catherine McKenna over the past four years, or in the vapid pronunciamentos, post-Trans Mountain appeals case, of Minister Sohi in the past four days.
We have a government that gets passionate about “single-use” plastics, but is comatose on the cardinal industry of a First-World democracy. The government has scotched every pipeline, proposed or considered, East or West, with the dispatch and efficiency of the better assassins (i.e., unlike the “hitchhiker” would-be assassin someone took to India). It has super-glued the one pipeline it has vaguely signalled it favours to a trial by combat against triumphalist environmentalism, a labyrinth of judicial reviews, hearings, morbid consultation-itis, jimmied-up protests, useless carbon taxes, the Fata Morgana of social licence, and endless water-torture excruciations of the famed “review process.”
And where are we now? The Trans Mountain pipeline — which is merely a twin or extension of one in the ground for 70 full years without British Columbia being blasted into the Pacific, Canada exploding, or the whole world hyper-heating into global-warming oblivion — that innocuous pipeline, which has been on regulatory death row for over seven years, has been stalled, yet again. There are nuclear programs in rogue states that get less attention and oversight, certainly less vetting, than this one Canadian pipeline. The biggest horror of this latest kick in the teeth to the oil industry, this gazillionth suspension and delay, is that the government of our Canada didn’t even so much as show up to watch the proceedings. It didn’t intervene. It didn’t submit arguments. It wasn’t even there as a casual bystander.
For the already-disgraced SNC-Lavalin, the Trudeau government (or the government of Quebec and Ontario, as on this issue it must be called) was willing to turn the Earth around: violate ethics codes; call in the PMO’s top guns, the clerk of the Privy Council, other ministers and their aides to pressure and harass the attorney general; send out invitations to former Supreme Court judges to offer “advice;” tailor bespoke legislation; risk a full storm of scandal over disregard for the rule of law; and turn its back on its two strongest feminist ministers, tossing them out of caucus. All to spare one Quebec company, already tarnished.
The Trudeau government of Ontario and Quebec went to the mat for SNC; it went under the mat, and if there had been another mat, it would have gone under that one, too. Now contrast. For court cases concerning its own decision to approve Trans Mountain, the government wasn’t even there. It stayed completely out of it. It gave the judicial field over entirely to its opponents. Its absence and indifference startled even the judge!
Farce we understand. It’s just extreme foolishness. But this saga of the single pipeline left on the agenda descends or ascends to rare surrealism, to inexplicability itself. What is this all this about?
If the government wants to shut down the oil and gas industry — which its every action and every inaction indicates that it does — then shut it down. Stop this pantomime that must be driving every Albertan wild with frustration and way past anger. Do it. If saving the planet from climate doom is your one primary goal and ambition — act it. Declare the damn charade over. You don’t want Alberta energy to have access to the world market because that would strengthen the Alberta energy industry. And by your logic, a strong energy industry in Canada would damn the planet, tick off Quebec, and offend the World Wildlife Fund, its past president Gerry Butts, Tides, the Greens, Neil Young, and naturally Greta Thunberg. Better to strand an industry, alienate a whole province, leave tens of thousands of jobs vacant, than risk a stern look from the new Joan of Arc.
Were you an unemployed pipefitter in Red Deer, an unemployed mechanic in Weyburn, a supplier in Calgary, or an idle crane operator now back home in Newfoundland, watching all this, you would be asking the question: What are they at? Do we, who work by the thousands in this industry, have any standing at all? Or are we just “extras” in Mr. Trudeau’s — “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada” — new Confederation movie?
Were energy in Ontario, pipelines would be talismans. There would be a halo of neon pipelines around the CN Tower. The famed Toronto sign would be fashioned out of rainbow-coloured pipelines. John Tory would go to city hall wearing an “I Heart Pipelines” T-shirt. The basketball team would be the Toronto Pipelines. It would be a civil offence to stand within 15 metres of a pipeline — unless you were offering a prayer to steel cylinders, hollow tubes and the gods of lower viscosity. But energy, viewed from Ottawa, is a hinterland industry. Energy is mainly Alberta, the West, Newfoundland — far inland or far offshore. So gauche. So rustic. So … oily.
There is one fact that cannot be walked away from in this latest stall on Trans Mountain: the government didn’t even show up in the courtroom. That’s the measure of how much it cares. And were I in Alberta, on this issue, I would declare Canada has a two-tier government. One for the connected in central Canada. And one far less engaged, far less aware, or concerned, for anything outside that dubious Eden.
I presume this will be an issue in the two debates in central Canada. Right after Andrew Scheer’s “secret agenda” on abortion, and the ban on plastic straws, would be my guess.
Summary: This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to establish spending limits for third parties and political parties during a defined period before the election period of a general election held on a day fixed under that Act. It also establishes measures to increase transparency regarding the participation of third parties in the electoral process. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a)adds reporting requirements for third parties engaging in partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys to the reporting requirements for third parties engaging in election advertising;
(b)creates an obligation for third parties to open a separate bank account for expenses related to the matters referred to in paragraph (a); and
(c)creates an obligation for political parties and third parties to identify themselves in partisan advertising during the defined period before the election period.
The enactment also amends the Act to implement measures to reduce barriers to participation and increase accessibility. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a)establishes a Register of Future Electors in which Canadian citizens 14 to 17 years of age may consent to be included;
(b)broadens the application of accommodation measures to all persons with a disability, irrespective of its nature;
(c)creates a financial incentive for registered parties and candidates to take steps to accommodate persons with a disability during an election period;
(d)amends some of the rules regarding the treatment of candidates’ expenses, including the rules related to childcare expenses, expenses related to the care of a person with a disability and litigation expenses;
(e)amends the rules regarding the treatment of nomination contestants’ and leadership contestants’ litigation expenses and personal expenses;
(f)allows Canadian Forces electors access to several methods of voting, while also adopting measures to ensure the integrity of the vote;
(g)removes limitations on public education and information activities conducted by the Chief Electoral Officer;
(h)removes two limitations on voting by non-resident electors: the requirement that they have been residing outside Canada for less than five consecutive years and the requirement that they intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future; and
(i)extends voting hours on advance polling days.
The enactment also amends the Act to modernize voting services, facilitate enforcement and improve various aspects of the administration of elections and of political financing. Among other things that it does in this regard, the enactment
(a)removes the assignment of specific responsibilities set out in the Act to specific election officers by creating a generic category of election officer to whom all those responsibilities may be assigned;
(b)limits election periods to a maximum of 50 days;
(c)removes administrative barriers in order to facilitate the hiring of election officers;
(d)authorizes the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with information about permanent residents and foreign nationals for the purpose of updating the Register of Electors;
(e)removes the prohibition on the Chief Electoral Officer authorizing the notice of confirmation of registration (commonly known as a “voter information card”) as identification;
(f)replaces, in the context of voter identification, the option of attestation for residence with an option of vouching for identity and residence;
(g)removes the requirement for electors’ signatures during advance polls, changes procedures for the closing of advance polls and allows for counting ballots from advance polls one hour before the regular polls close;
(h)replaces the right or obligation to take an oath with a right or obligation to make a solemn declaration, and streamlines the various declarations that electors may have the right or obligation to make under specific circumstances;
(i)relocates the Commissioner of Canada Elections to within the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and provides that the Commissioner is to be appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, for a non-renewable term of 10 years;
(j)provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to impose administrative monetary penalties for contraventions of provisions of Parts 16, 17 and 18 of the Act and certain other provisions of the Act;
(k)provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the authority to lay charges;
(l)provides the Commissioner of Canada Elections with the power to apply for a court order requiring testimony or a written return;
(m)clarifies offences relating to
(i)the publishing of false statements,
(ii)participation by non-Canadians in elections, including inducing electors to vote or refrain from voting, and
(n)implements a number of measures to harmonize and streamline political financing monitoring and reporting.
The enactment also amends the Act to provide for certain requirements with regard to the protection of personal information for registered parties, eligible parties and political parties that are applying to become registered parties, including the obligation for the party to adopt a policy for the protection of personal information and to publish it on its Internet site.
The enactment also amends the Parliament of Canada Act to prevent the calling of a by-election when a vacancy in the House of Commons occurs within nine months before the day fixed for a general election under the Canada Elections Act.
It also amends the Public Service Employment Act to clarify that the maximum period of employment of casual workers in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer  165 working days in one calendar year  applies to those who are appointed by the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
Finally, the enactment contains transitional provisions, makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Special Voting Rules.
FINAL FORECAST FOR: OCTOBER 2019 (41.23%) ———————————————————————————-
Election forecasting is now a thriving discipline in the United States, where a large number of different models are being used to forecast the outcome of congressional elections or the fate of presidential candidates. Although forecasting models have been developed for France, Germany and the United Kingdom over the past years, Canada, like most other democracies, has received very little attention. Consequently, we developed a theoretically-driven model that can be used to predict the popular vote share of the incumbent party in Canadian federal elections with sufficient lead time (i.e., a 3-month lag). ———————————————————————————-
The model is composed of five variables: (1) the difference between the unemployment rates in Canada and the United States three months before the vote; (2) the natural logarithm of the number of consecutive months the incumbent party has been in office; (3) a dichotomous variable related to the substitution of the Prime Minister near an election; (4) the number of years of political experience gained by the Prime Minister in relation to his/her main opponent; and (5) a factor related to the province of origin of party leaders. The equation of the model is the following: ———————————————————————————-
DW = 2.72; N = 21 (1953-2015) ———————————————————————————-
where V = the incumbent vote share; U = the difference between the unemployment rates in Canada and the United States three months before the vote (benchmark); M = the natural logarithm of the number of consecutive months the incumbent party has been in office; L = a dichotomous variable related to the substitution of the Prime Minister near an election scored 1 if the Prime Minister resigns before the election and 0 otherwise; Q = the provincial origin of the Prime Minister in relation to the other party leaders coded -1, -0.5, 0, +0.5 or +1 depending on the situation; E = the number of years of provincial and federal political experience gained by the Prime Minister in relation to his/her main opponent (i.e., the Liberal leader or the Conservative leader depending on the party affiliation of the Prime Minister); and ε = an error term. ———————————————————————————-
This blog presents nowcasts derived from our model from June 2017 (the first month following Andrew Scheer’s election as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada) to the next election which should take place in October 2019. Nowcasting consists in updating forecasts on a quarterly, monthly, or even daily basis by using the most recent values for each independent variable. Our own forecasts are also compared to the average of voting intentions. ———————————————————————————-
Assuming Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer will face off in the upcoming federal election, the final values of our five independent variables are already known and should remain the same until election day. In October 2019, the Liberal Party of Canada will have spent 48 months in power which means that the value of our time variable will be equal to 3.87 [ln(48)]. Since we are making nowcasts, the time variable will evidently vary from month to month (for example, in June 2017, the value of the time variable was equal to 3.00 because the Liberal Party had by then only spent 20 months in office). Unless Justin Trudeau resigns before the election, the dichotomous variable related to the substitution of the Prime Minister will be scored 0. When it comes to the political experience variable, Justin Trudeau is less experienced by about 4.30 years in comparison to his main opponent. Finally, because the Prime Minister is from Quebec, no other major party leader is from that province, and two minor party leaders are from Quebec (the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the newly founded People’s Party of Canada), the provincial origin variable takes a value of 0.50 (for more details on how this variable was coded, see Mongrain 2019). The economic benchmark (i.e., the difference between the unemployment rates in Canada and the United States) in July (i.e., the third month before the election month) was equal to two percentage points (5.7% – 3.7%). The value of the economic variable was updated every month according to the unemployement rates published by Statistics Canada and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ———————————————————————————-
Model forecasts and voting intentions were also used to estimate the incumbent party’s percentage of seats using a swing ratio. A swing ratio is obtained by regressing the share of seats collected by a party on its share of the popular vote. ———————————————————————————- Liberal Party’s vote share Liberal Party’s seat share Month, Year Polls Model Polls Model June 2017 38.31 44.63 44.84 57.49 July 2017 39.47 44.77 47.16 57.78 August 2017 40.27 43.87 48.76 55.97 September 2017 39.97 43.68 48.16 55.59 October 2017 36.85 44.20 41.91 56.63 November 2017 38.38 44.73 44.97 57.70 December 2017 40.50 43.86 49.23 55.95 January 2018 39.11 43.34 46.45 54.92 February 2018 37.90 44.24 44.02 56.72 March 2018 35.22 44.45 38.65 57.13 April 2018 37.59 43.95 43.39 56.13 May 2018 34.69 44.16 37.59 56.56 June 2018 34.94 44.03 38.10 56.29 July 2018 36.74 43.19 41.69 54.61 August 2018 37.05 42.71 42.32 53.65 September 2018 38.67 42.59 45.55 53.40 October 2018 37.04 42.82 42.30 53.87 November 2018 38.58 42.00 45.38 52.22 December 2018 35.44 41.53 39.09 51.29 January 2019 37.76 41.77 43.74 51.77 February 2019 34.31 42.37 36.83 52.96 March 2019 32.14 42.97 32.48 54.16 April 2019 31.16 42.51 30.52 53.25 May 2019 30.69 41.70 29.58 51.64 June 2019 30.85 41.61 29.90 51.44 July 2019 32.91 41.16 34.02 50.54 August 2019 – 42.12 – 52.47 September 2019 – 42.03 – 52.29 OCTOBER 2019 – 41.23 – 50.70
Sources: Mongrain 2019 (for model data); Wikipedia 2019 (for vote intentions).
Election 2019: Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames
« Reply #208 on: 2019-09-12 17:02:30 »
What a wonderful Canadian narrative from a man that has seen it all first hand. All ideas and actions antithetical to our current government
"Rex Murphy at Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show 2019
Rex Murphy was the headline speaker at the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show in Weyburn, Sask., on June 6. His message? The energy industry saved Newfoundland in its darkest hour. Its jobs provide dignity, and our society is entirely dependent on it. We should be thankful for the energy industry, not trying to block it at every path. " Cheers Fritz
Weyburn – In 1992, the cod fishery off the coast of Newfoundland collapsed, and the federal government brought in a moratorium. For the first time in nearly 500 years if its existence, the people of Newfoundland were not allowed to fish for cod to put it on their table.
“When Mr. Crosby announced the offshore fishing was now finished, put on moratorium, there were 31,000 in-shore fishermen, that in a single moment, they were no longer allowed to fish. They were no longer allowed to jump in a dory, go out half a mile, jig a cod fish, put it on the table, and have supper,” said Rex Murphy, in the opening of his headline speech to the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show. That moratorium, and its impact, had gave impact on his home province, and its people. It was the oil industry in the West that was their salvation. related
The oilpatch, and Alberta, saved Newfoundland: Rex Murphy
“It was the first time in 500 years. Just to give you an idea of how big 31,000 is with reference to the population of Newfoundland, if you had been in Toronto the next day, and I hope you weren’t, and if you picked up the Globe and Mail, and I hope even more fervently that you wouldn’t. You would see a headline, that if the same thing had happened in Ontario, 660,000 Ontarians out of work, in a single day. That’s how big the blow was,” Murphy said.
And this is where the resource industries of Western Canada came in. People who had deserted homes that they had lived in for four generations. The outports were devasted.
He recounted how, during the dustbowl of the 1930s, Newfoundlanders sent barrels of salt cod to the prairies to help people who were starving, and that 65 years later, those people had not forgotten that kindness.
“Some of the great stories of Canada are sob stories. They’re stories where the people, and just the people, somehow or other sense each others need, or desperation, and a great act of kindness comes as an impulse.”
Murphy took shots at Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna, who had recently pointed to icebergs off Newfoundland as evidence of global warming.
“Do you know what year was when the Titanic sank? 1912, I believe. It was sunk, by an iceberg. So now we know the tragedy of the Titanic was caused by some people, somewhere, who were abusing plastic straws.”
Getting down to business, he said, “Even if you already know it, it doesn’t hurt to hear it again.”
“There are things you know so well, that in a sense, you cease to think of them. They are so familiar to you, they become part of your daily consciousness, but not in any focus. It’s just they way things are, and you forget some of the most blatant considerations of your own existence.
“In this case, everyone here knows, when Newfoundland went down, it was one of the biggest crises we had had in at least 100 years. The one relief, in the darkest hour, in the great cultural industry of the fishery, the defining cultural, economic, social, settlement, the defining element of the entire nature of Newfoundland, springs from the fishery. So it was psychological, it was spiritual, it was economic.
“The only relieve of substance, that came our way, was that so men, women, old and young, some of them selling their houses, headed out west, because that was during the period when the oil industry and related industries, were at their best. And such is the nature, again, of Canadians dealing with Canadians, there were no embargos, no signs saying stay away. I estimate, over time, over 30,000 Newfoundlanders went out and stayed, in many cases, 8, 9, 10, 12 years,” Murphy recounted.
He noted that families that were about to break up due to the crash stayed together. Others that had broken up, came back together because the pressures of not having a job were gone.
“Those pressures that come on you when you are out of work, when you can’t give your daughter the price of a ticket to a small concert, when the father sits at home, and feels useless, and the mother is in a state of anxiety over the future of her children.
“Employment is not just a damn paycheque. It is the spine of most people’s existence. Outside of family life itself, and mortality, I don’t think there’s anything more savage to the human personality than someone who wishes to work and has been working, and works no more. And then they have to face the humiliations of either borowing, begging, or going on some government program. Most people guard their dignity by their own self-reliance,” he said. “And that dignity is a function that spreads throughout the entire family.”
So many came west, found work, and found their esteem. They sent money home, money to their parents.
“You will never read about it, and you’ll never see it on the television set, because it is a benign outcome of the fiendish oil industry,” Murphy pointed out.
“It was one of the great moments of confederation that all people from all over Canada were summoned to the western provinces. And people from provinces who had never intermingled before, were working on the same project, or allied projects.”
His very closest friend got 10 years of work, having previously never left his fishing town on the south coast. That morning, his friend was visiting his daughter, who had married a Saskatchewan farmer. His son was working on a rig in Mexico.
Murphy said we know these things, but we don’t think about it. “A renovation of confederation at the citizen level takes place when a major project invites the brains and the muscle of Canadians together, at a common task, and brings them in contact, with each other, from people from all parts of the country. And they learn, by contact, and common effort, that this is what we share, and that this is what we have in common. And despite what you’ve heard, it is unity first, and it is shared experience, and it is common endeavour, that constitutes the actual cement of a national feeling.”
“I cannot figure out. I do not know what processes are going on, in what strange minds, that has turned almost the entire energy of the country, especially at government level, and especially at various NGOs (non governmental organizations) and self-appointed monitors of the earth’s doom, that has made the oil industry the number one villain of the entire world.
“You wouldn’t know, but they’re up there manufacturing sarin gas. You had that moronic Neil Young, and surely there are a few strings loose on that guitar; you had him with the audacity, the insult of comparing the working of thousands of men and women, support their families, providing an essential – thee essential – commodity – energy. It is thee essential commodity of 21st century life. Doing it honestly, doing it according to the rules, and doing it in a political environment, compared to any other environment in the world – Nigeria, China, is the acme of responsible management.”
“Of all the projects in the world that Neil Young wants to downgrade and call Hiroshima – Hiroshima! That’s a slander.”
Murphy said for 20 years and more, the oilsands have been called the dirtiest oil on the planet. “If Fort McMurray goes on, the planet is doomed!” he mockingly proclaimed. “Dear God! Is it the only oil project in the world? I believe there are 1.6 billion Chinese who are putting out coal plants, three to the hour. India is not a small country. It’s investing in energy. It’s using coal. Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Latin America! There are more jurisdictions than you care to count.
“And I’ll asked this room silently, when have you heard of an equivalent protest against Venezuelan oil? Chinese coal? Nigerian oil? Why is it that the most impeccable political regime, on earth, mesmerized by the fantastic obsessions of environmentalism, does this so cleanly, and it, and it alone, has been made a campaign target, a symbol. And they have the gall to tell you that if you do this, the world is doomed! We’re in for an eco-apocalypse.
“This is garbage! It is insane garbage. I don’t see Greenpeace romping around Russia. I don’t seem them leaving long drapes over the Chinese wall. I don’t see them scuttling up the legs of rigs in Nigeria, because the pirates would be chomping at their ass from behind,” he said.
We are now living at the very peak of Canada’s development, Murphy explained. And all the technological marvels only function with a ready supply of energy.
He questioned the “jihad against pipelines.” Trans Mountain had 17 court cases, “longer than the Spanish Inquisition.”
It doesn’t take eight years to find out if there will be predictable harm of sufficient extent that the project should be denied, he noted. “Environmental review has become a tool of absolute and deliberate obstruction of every major economic activity, as it relates to most of the energies of the west. This is no longer someone speaking against something. This is a declaration of the fact.”
He asked why the politicians haven’t come here, to the west, to understand what reality is. A prime minister should recognize, he noted, “The dignity of work. The idea of investment. The idea of reliance. The satisfaction that comes from starting business, or conducting business, or hiring for business. This is the nation. I understand that. That’s the key. And I will protect the environment. But by God, I will give the economy, which is the beginning of every other thing, at least a chance to breath!”
Murphy added, “I think, if the pyramids had a national energy review, they’d still be measuring the stones.”
He questioned if the Canadian Pacific Railway would have been built in today’s political environment.
“The environmentalists have only one word, and it’s the easiest word in any language – it is no! Name one project, one, that has been proposed by a government or responsible business, just one in any province, to which environmental groups – green groups – have said yes. Just one. You can’t. They don’t.
“They are zealously, ideologically, and in my view, obsessively determined to rip the fabric of the natural economy away.”
He said politicians and oil executives are afraid to challenge them, simply on the grounds of worth.
If any other country had our abundance of resources and energy, they would thank their God.
If oil rigs were in Ontario, the oil rig would be a national monument, Murphy said.
“No city on this continent could last three days without something close to civil war – that’s not an exaggeration – if the power went,” he said.
Murphy implied that we are essentially spoiled, compared to our forebearers and the rest of the world.
“We are exempted so much from the horrors of so much, of the world, and of history, because we have built a country. And one of the things a successful country does is it ensures first the security of its citizens, and then their potential for living a reasonably full life.
“And here we are now, with certain elements in our society, attempting by their obsessive, ideological opposition to the very system that maintains them. They want to shut down the central elements, the economic foundation of the civilization that they are so happy to both exploit, and simultaneously, scorn.
“You need more courage, from your governments. You need more courage from your leaders. What you are doing – farm, oil, fish. These are the fundamentals of life. Don’t be ashamed of the industry. Don’t buy the indictments of its enemies. Don’t be the only country in the world that, for the purchase of some cheap merit badge, from the idiots of the United Nations, shuts down a viable, clean, responsible, but most importantly an essential, an essential, industry.
“People in cities have their virtues. They also have their blind spots. They do not know where things come from.”
“The attack on the industry is unjustified. The lack of defence, from general leadership, is both pathetic and has to change. Abandon any shadow of mortification or so-called shame that has been blasted into your head, that the oil industry, and associated industries, are somehow Machiavellian and evil. And especially, that the prophets, the failed prophets of ecodoom – who have predicted more non-fulfilled prophesies in the last 30 years – don’t listen to them. We should not be governing the state of the Canadian economy and the political wellbeing of all these western provinces, by the jabberings of very disreputable ideological eco-fanatics.”
And finally, he noted, “If you want hospitality, head west.”
Election 2019: Canada Shoots itself in the Head : A Nation Going Down in Flames
« Reply #209 on: 2019-09-12 17:25:46 »
Meanwhile the news from the left is equally damming of the Liberals.
What Justin Trudeau promised when he asked for your vote last time.
Source: Rabble.ca Author: Karl Nerenberg Date: 2019.09.11
On October 20, 2015, the morning after the last federal election, rabble.ca published a list of 16 of newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's many promises.
Now that we're in a new election campaign, it might be instructive to look back and see how many of those promises Trudeau kept.
Have a look at the full list below and judge for yourself.
You will see immediately, of course, that Trudeau and his Liberals flagrantly failed on promise No. 1: Electoral reform. That is all-too-well-known. But they also failed to deliver on a number of other major promises.
Take promise No. 7, for example: To legislate an end to the use of omnibus bills.
The Harper government made an artform of stuffing widely disparate pieces of consequential legislation into massive bills, especially budget implementation bills, thus evading any serious debate or discussion, and preventing amendments. Trudeau pledged to abolish the practice, but instead used it himself.
Here is one glaring example. The Liberal government got itself into big trouble when it introduced the new law that allows deferred prosecution agreements -- the root of the SNC-Lavalin scandal -- not as a justice bill, but almost as an afterthought, at the end of a long budget bill.
The Trudeau Liberals' motive for proceeding in this stealthy and undemocratic way was exactly the same as the Harper Conservatives' when they snuck through such measures as the abolition of the Navigable Waters Act or radical changes to federal environmental review in omnibus bills. Both governments wanted to hide controversial measures -- designed mostly to help their well-connected corporate friends -- from public view, and avoid any sort of serious debate or discussion.
In the case of deferred prosecution agreements, it did not work out as planned for the Liberals. And yet, based on their public statements, it boggles the mind that the Liberals do not seem to have learned their lesson. Since the SNC-Lavalin scandal broke, not a single senior Liberal has said they will never again use the omnibus ruse to hide major legislation from the Canadian people.
Mail delivery and access to information
Then there is promise No. 3: To restore home delivery of mail.
This reporter heard the Liberal leader make that promise to rapturous applause from a room full of Liberal partisans at the same campaign-style event where he solemnly pledged 2015's election would be the last under first-past-the-post.
Justin Trudeau promised to fully restore home mail delivery, not merely freeze the process of ending it the Harper government had started. But what did Trudeau do once in power? He did put a stop to the cuts to home delivery, but he did not reinstate it for a single Canadian.
Or how about promise No. 4: To extend the access to information law to the prime minister's and cabinet ministers' offices. That did not happen. In fact, the current PM continued the practice, going back to his father's time, of highly centralized, out-of-public view, Prime-Minister's-Office-dominated government.
The revelations of the SNC-Lavalin affair drew back the curtain on some of this centralized control. Those revelations resulted in the resignation of Trudeau's chief backroom manipulator and enforcer, Gerald Butts.
Butts has now returned to his former position of influence, with a key role in the Liberal campaign.
There are many more promises on the list and, in fairness, the Trudeau government has kept a good number of them, including bringing in 25,000 Syrian refugees in a single year.
As well, whether or not voters choose to support the Liberals this time will depend on a lot more than promises kept or broken. For one thing, there is the matter of the alternatives to the Trudeau Liberals. Since we still have first-past-the-post, many voters might, again, feel impelled to vote in a notionally strategic way. They might want to use their vote to block the party they fear and loathe -- even if that means not voting for the party with which they most agree.
The 2015 list of promises
The campaign will last more than five weeks. There'll be plenty of time to consider one's options.
For now, it might be useful to at least consider what Justin Trudeau promised when he asked for your vote last time.
Here is the full list from October 2015:
1. To create a special, all-party parliamentary committee to study alternatives to the current first-past-the-post electoral system, and, within 18 months, introduce legislation to replace first-past-the-post, based on the committee's recommendations.
That is a key promise, and one that the power brokers and insiders of the Liberal party will not want the new prime minister to keep.
It will take determination and fortitude on Justin Trudeau's part to resist the many who will advise him to shelve that particular pledge.
The cynics are already saying we can forget about electoral reform.
On election night, when one member of a Radio-Canada television panel evoked Trudeau's electoral pledge, there were snickers all around.
When has it ever happened, the panellists said almost with one voice, that a party wins a majority under a voting system and turns around and changes the system?
Those who voted for the Liberals with hearts full of hope -- especially those who said theirs was a strategic vote necessitated by our unfair and unrepresentative electoral system -- might want to get ready to start actively encouraging their party of choice to honour this particular promise.
If enacted, electoral reform would change the face of Canadian democracy for generations to come. It would be a true and lasting legacy project for Justin Trudeau's new government.
2. To get the Canada Revenue Agency to "pro-actively" inform Canadians who have failed to apply for benefits of their right to do so; and, more important, to end the Harper government's politically motivated harassment of charities.
3. To restore home delivery of mail.
4. To extend the federal access to information law to the prime minister's and cabinet ministers' offices.
5. To institute parliamentary oversight, involving all parties in the House, of Canada's security agencies.
6. To appoint a commissioner to assure that all government advertising is non-partisan.
7. To end the odious and anti-parliamentary practice of stuffing disparate pieces of legislation into massive omnibus bills. This was a trademark of the Stephen Harper regime.
8. To have all parliamentary committee chairs elected by the full House, by secret ballot. Currently committee chairs are purely partisan appointments of the prime minister.
9. To end Stephen Harper's war on science and restore the compulsory long form census.
10. To name an equal number of women and men to the cabinet.
Those are just some of the many Liberal promises that relate to democratic reform. Justin Trudeau announced those reform commitments, and a number of others -- with much fanfare -- this past June (in 2015).
Trudeau and Liberal party have also promised:
11. To restore healthcare for refugees and reinstitute family reunification in immigration. They would allow, for instance, elderly parents to join their families in Canada as permanent residents, entitled to health care and other services. The Harper government has consigned such folks to precarious status on annually renewable visitor's visas.
12. To make a major investment in on-reserve First Nations education, without imposing Harper's humiliating and draconian conditions on First Nations communities, all in the context of a renewed nation-to-nation relationship with Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis people
13. To find a consensus with the provinces to achieve real progress on greenhouse gas reductions. It is notable that Trudeau has not yet set any emission reduction targets for Canada. But he has long described himself as an environmentalist, and says he is committed to seeing Canada take a leadership role in the fight against climate change. Canadians who worry about global warming might want to watch carefully how the new government performs on this file. The UN Conference of the Parties on climate change will start in barely more than a month, in Paris.
14. To restore funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. The Liberal record on this -- going back to the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin days -- is not encouraging. But Montreal MP and former leader Stéphane Dion has taken a strong, well-articulated and committed position on this dossier. And one hopes the new government will recognize that federal support for public broadcasting involves more than the CBC alone. It must also include the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the full range of federal funding mechanisms for the production and distribution of programs and films that tell Canada's story.
15. To end Canada's participation in bombing raids on Iraq and Syria.
16. To bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by the end of this year.
There you have it. Four years on, the 2019 campaign is now officially on and much of the chatter will be about all kinds of ephemera and nonsense.
We will have a tweet here, an unfortunate photo there. There will be embarrassing off-hand comments and social media posts, ill-considered campaign ads that backfire, hyped so-called knock-out blows in debates, and all the rest of the theatricality of what we call politics.
Once in a while it might be useful to spare a moment to consider what political leaders promise vis-à-vis what they actually do.
Karl Nerenberg has been a journalist and filmmaker for more than 25 years. He is rabble's politics reporter.