• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland

Status
Not open for further replies.
The other federal parties have been really smart about staying out of the way while the separatists destroy themselves.

or be in bed with them as Mulroney was with PKP or Mulcair with Boulerice + Turmel
I would assume that in order to pacify the Quebec, all the parties would be okay with giving the Bloc some time? They probably win more if they are shut out because it allows them to play up the whole "Federalists are trying to silence us" thing.

strategically, it would be beneficial for Federalism to allow Mario Beaulieau to torpedo himself in the debates. The man has nothing inteligent to say and he can only accomplish more harm than good to the Bloc if allowed to participate in the debate.

I hope they allow Mario Beaulieu to participate in the debates,

Elizebeth May? no please no, stay home
 

lacinius

Member
How hardline are networks about "party status" for debates?


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/greens-can-t-participate-in-leaders-debates-networks-rule-1.757797

Traditionally, the consortium of Canada's largest English and French television networks — CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA — has decided which party leaders would participate in the debates.

In the December 2005 debates that preceded the 2006 election, Jim Harris — then leader of the Green party — was excluded because his party had no seats in the House of Commons.

Representation in the House of Commons is an "indisputable" criterion for inclusion in the national debate, said the CBC ombudsman in a 2006 report responding to Green party complaints.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Well this at least is a common problem right across Canada. Except in Alberta, but that's because the government never changes there.

The government changes, just the party doesn't. There are real qualitative differences between each of the leaderships of the PC party.

But the vote for the premiere, and thus the government, is the party's vote for the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Though I think they won't make it through the next election, personally.
 

gabbo

Member
The government changes, just the party doesn't. There are real qualitative differences between each of the leaderships of the PC party.

But the vote for the premiere, and thus the government, is the party's vote for the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Though I think they won't make it through the next election, personally.

You think they'll go down to the Wild Rose?
 

maharg

idspispopd
Well no one else is going to do it. Hopefully a minority, though. The idea of the WRP in majority sends chills down my spine. Alberta's no stranger to austerity, for some reason we tighten our belts extra hard when our economy is doing fanfuckingtastic, but what we've seen is nothing to what the WRP would probably do along those lines.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...opters-deal-inked-delivery-expected-1.2680519

Cyclone maritime helicopters deal inked, delivery expected
Long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters expected to be delivered next year

The federal government has signed a deal it says will result in the delivery of the long-delayed CH-148 Cyclone helicopters beginning next year.

The announcement of undisclosed contract amendments with Sikorsky Aircraft — a division of United Technologies — came Wednesday.

United Technologies says the amendment clears the way for the delivery of the 28 aircraft under the $5.7-billion program.

It's the second time the government has negotiated a contract amendment with Sikorsky, which has missed previous deadlines.

The Cyclone program, which originally anticipated the first helicopter being delivered in 2008, was meant to catch up to the 1993 procurement of EH-101 helicopters, ordered by the Mulroney government, but cancelled in 1993 by former prime minister Jean Chretien.

Hopefully it all works out this time. I know I've heard, more than a few times on the news, about how worn down and unreliable the Sea Kings are.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/syrian-refugees-canada-urged-to-take-in-10-000-by-2016-1.2680953

Syrian refugees: Canada urged to take in 10,000 by 2016

Immigration groups are urging the Canadian government to take responsibility for sponsoring a minimum of 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years, ahead of World Refugee Day on Friday.

The Office for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asked countries around the world in February to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 and 2016.

The Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance, a national umbrella group that represents provincial associations who support the settlement and integration of newcomers to Canada, is urging Immigration Minister Chris Alexander to respond to that appeal by agreeing to sponsor at least 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2016.

"We should step forward to offer the UNHCR a minimum of 10,000 resettlement spaces or 10 per cent of the current appeal over the next two years," the group said in a letter to Alexander dated June 4.

"We would like to propose that the 10,000 additional resettlement spaces be considered through the government assisted refugee program," said the letter to Alexander dated June 4.

The alliance is proposing the government resettle 2,830 Syrian refugees in Ontario in 2015 and 2016, 2,720 in the Prairies, 2,484 in Quebec, 1,134 in B.C., and 830 in the Atlantic provinces.

...

When the Canadian government agreed in July 2013 to resettle 1,300 refugees by the end of 2014, it said it would take responsibility for resettling 200 "extremely vulnerable" Syrian refugees while another 1,100 would be privately sponsored.

That commitment was a response to another appeal by the UN refugee agency for countries to take in 30,000 Syrian refugees by the end of 2014.

Alexander has come under fire in recent days and weeks for not being able to say how many of the 1,300 Syrian refugees are already in Canada.

"We already have 1,150 refugees here. We've already approved the 200 government-assisted refugees for this year and we're going beyond that," Alexander said again today.

A government official who was not authorized to speak on the record told CBC News today that the 1,150 Syrian refugees include:

At least 200 government-assisted refugees.
An undetermined number of privately sponsored refugees.
An undetermined number of asylum seekers.
Refugee groups have been claiming for some time that the 1,150 cited were Syrians who were already in Canada, either visiting or studying, when the war broke out and have since applied for asylum.

Alexander said there is room for Canadians to sponsor more Syrian refugees.

He appealed to Canadians to see what they can do to ensure their "tax dollars and resources … go as far as they possibly can to help Syria."

We have taken in larger amounts of refugees in the past, don't see why couldn't do now now. Should in fact, because if we don't then I don't know who will.

Here's a map I found from another, older article.

syrian-refugees.jpg

PS. The CBC comment section is absolutely terrible, especially for this last article.
 

explodet

Member
Except when it's bad news.
Plus there are still some holdouts who still use "Government of Canada".
The Right Honorable Mr. Stephen Joseph "Wiggles" Harper is very disappointed in them.
 

gabbo

Member
Except when it's bad news.
Plus there are still some holdouts who still use "Government of Canada".
The Right Honorable Mr. Stephen Joseph "Wiggles" Harper is very disappointed in them.

Well, when it's bad news it was the darn previous government,(from 8 years ago), whose policies the Harper government are still working to fix, if we'd just let them be and get to it.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
I wonder how low turnout was
Probably pretty low, admittedly. lol

But losing Trinity Spadina just feels like a big blow. It's almost as rough as losing Toronto Danforth, which would be a total disaster if that happened in 2015 for at least the reason of optics.
 
The LPC win Trinity Spadina and the Scarborough by-elections. Mulcair and the NDP are dead... the dream is over. :(

the dream of continuing to divide the Center / Center-Left vote?

Fuck the NDP royally. Anyway, Jack Layton was responsible for the vote of no confidence against Paul Martin that created Stephen Harper the first Reform Party Prime Miniister.

Canadians should quit squabbling with ''details'' and vote in unison Liberal to oust Stephen Harper and to restore order in Canada rightfully back to the Natural Governing Party


As a bilingual, I hate the NDP's double-speak in English Canada then go all souvernist appeasement in French to appease the nationalist vote.

We bilinguals Federalists HATE double speak in our two official languages.

Justin Trudeau is the only Federal leader who says the exact same thing both in French and English, while Mulcair tries to go after the Bloc vote and Stephen Harper tries to coddle Qc City Mayor and localized right wingers in specific regions
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
I'm willing to give up the idea of having a left wing socialist party at this point, since I see it as counterproductive to the movement as a whole. It's just a bitter pill to have to choose a centrist party as my only other option.

Come to think of it, I think I had the same arc with Obama. I went from thinking that he could change the world to realizing that he's just another man who is slightly better than John McCain or Mitt Romney. I don't love him, but at least he's better than the alternative.
 
I wonder how low turnout was

According to Elections Canada, just over 15% in MacLeod, just under 20% in Fort McMurray, and just under 30% in the two Toronto ridings. Not great, obviously, but I think that was Harper's intention, so if the Liberals did well he could dismiss it as being a fluke of timing.

Still pretty bad results for the Dippers, though. I just read they only get their deposit back in one of the four ridings (Toronto-Spadina). I can't imagine they had very high hopes for anywhere outside of downtown Toronto (and, obviously, by-elections don't usually mean a whole lot), but it still doesn't seem like the NDP is going in the right direction. They've only won one by-election since Mulcair took over, and they've done pretty abysmally in provincial elections, too.
 

maharg

idspispopd
the dream of continuing to divide the Center / Center-Left vote?

Fuck the NDP royally. Anyway, Jack Layton was responsible for the vote of no confidence against Paul Martin that created Stephen Harper the first Reform Party Prime Miniister.

Canadians should quit squabbling with ''details'' and vote in unison Liberal to oust Stephen Harper and to restore order in Canada rightfully back to the Natural Governing Party

You make such a great case. People should just stop agreeing and bow down to the dynastic party of rightful governance. Why even have elections, let's just acclaim the liberals.
 

Mr.Mike

Member
So in honour of Canada Day, who was the greatest Canadian politician of all time?

Tommy Douglas was mentioned in the the Canada Day thread. I'd imagine John A. Macdonald gets to be on that list by virtue of being the first Prime Minister. Pierre Trudeau repatriated the constitution, among other things, so that's pretty great.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
He'll always have the GST and NA/FTA to divide opinion on him
Of course we sort of see those as both necessary evils at this point.

Then again, if people still hate Trudeau for NEP, I guess there are still people who hate NAFTA and more taxes.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
I wonder if Mulroney managed to get Charlottetown Accord through if he'd be more fondly remembered.

Well ultimately any what-if that involves Meech Lake or Charlottetown passing would have involved changes, so it's hard to say how they would have shaken out long term without knowing which exact configuration. If you mean Charlottetown as-was, it would have added to his impact to the country, and I think it probably would have probably postponed or prevented the '95 sovereignty referendum (and I think probably have given the Conservatives a bit more of a base in Quebec and probably blunted the Reform movement a bit). It'd have also given the Conservatives a claim to being a part of the constitutional process, and we likely wouldn't have seen Alterna-Harper ignoring the Charter anniversary if the Conservatives could have themselves claimed a piece of the constitutional pie. The Senate changes probably would have shaped a few legislative debates but nothing big.

Ironically the biggest impact of either ML or Charlottetown passing would be that the constitution would be perceived as being easier to amend. By this I mean that the failure of ML and Charlottetown led to a perception that the constitution is a closed matter and that there's no momentum for further reform, and that has probably shaped the last 20 years in ways we wouldn't know. I mean, there'd be no difference in reality, but perception shapes the way we engage with these issues.

As a matter of public policy, I view both accords as net negatives that would have weakened Canada.
 

Azih

Member
I'd love to have somebody like Pearson or Douglas seriously challenging for position of PM right now that's for sure.
 

Azih

Member
He's like Pierre Trudeau far more than Douglas or Pearson. Plus the Liberal Party post Martin as Finance Minister is more right wing than it was under Pearson.
 
IMO, Lester Pearson is our most positive PM overall.
Connected the East and West, Expo 67 connected Canadians with otehr Canadians.
Signed in the Canada Health Act in a minority government.
Adopted our current Canadian flag, NDP design of the flag won and it was the nicest of the designs.
Was a nice guy.

Pierre Trudeau made difficult decisions that had to be made, he was polarizing and probably his iron fist approach might have put off Quebec nationalists and his energy policy might have put off Westerners. But he made many important calls, Metric System, Canada officially Bilingual, sign the Constitution,
I wonder if Mulroney managed to get Charlottetown Accord through if he'd be more fondly remembered.
Mulroney was a traitor to egalitarians. Trying to give special status candy to Quebec nationalists is not equality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLkJbcW33rE
 

Mr.Mike

Member
http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/71/prostitution-should-be-legal-bill-c36-wrong/

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/Fed Prostitution News Release (2014.06.15) Forum Research.pdf

According to a Forum Poll from June 15th, 54 percent of people think prostitution should be legal, 34 percent don't, and 12 percent don't know.

Interestingly Evangelical Christians seem to be the only group largely against it, most others being somewhere between 40 to 60 percent for. Also Alberta is the region most in favour of legalization?!?
ZdxxVwB.png

elwuUTw.png


Will we see the federal liberals embrace prostitution legalization as well? Assuming those stats aren't a fluke it might actually work out in getting them so urban seats in Alberta.
 
prostitution legalization does not curb organized crime or human trafficking, it just encourages it.

Countries that adopted the Nordic approach have seen a decrease in prostitution, France is gonna adopt the Nordic approach as well.

no matter how you try to legalize it, organized crime is still behind prostitution, making it easier for them is not what we should do
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Public opinion is moot on the issue; the Supreme Court has found (unanimously, and in an unusual sharp rebuke of a decision) that laws that have the effect, regardless of intent, of making it harder for sex workers to protect themselves do not pass charter muster. There may be some Nordic model implementation that's constitutional

The new bill being tabled seems trivially to fail that standard on the same basis that the old bill did, and I'm actually not even sure what is institutionally supposed to happen when the court strikes down a law for being unconstitutional and parliament passes a similarly unconstitutional law to replace it. I mean, we have the nothwithstanding clause which could obviously resolve the issue if anyone wanted to (the federal threats to do so when SCOC took up child pornography laws seemed sincere enough to me at the time, although it ended up being unnecessary), but provided the government theoretically wants to pass legislation that replaces Canadian prostitution laws before the suspension of the order in Bedford expires in December...

Presumably at some point a police officer will arrest a sex worker under the new law's selling provisions, and any lawyer in town would sign up to say "This law trivially does not comply with the Bedford decision", and then it goes through the appeals process all over again?
 

maharg

idspispopd
prostitution legalization does not curb organized crime or human trafficking, it just encourages it.

Citation needed.

Public opinion is moot on the issue; the Supreme Court has found (unanimously, and in an unusual sharp rebuke of a decision) that laws that have the effect, regardless of intent, of making it harder for sex workers to protect themselves do not pass charter muster. There may be some Nordic model implementation that's constitutional

The new bill being tabled seems trivially to fail that standard on the same basis that the old bill did, and I'm actually not even sure what is institutionally supposed to happen when the court strikes down a law for being unconstitutional and parliament passes a similarly unconstitutional law to replace it. I mean, we have the nothwithstanding clause which could obviously resolve the issue if anyone wanted to (the federal threats to do so when SCOC took up child pornography laws seemed sincere enough to me at the time, although it ended up being unnecessary), but provided the government theoretically wants to pass legislation that replaces Canadian prostitution laws before the suspension of the order in Bedford expires in December...

Presumably at some point a police officer will arrest a sex worker under the new law's selling provisions, and any lawyer in town would sign up to say "This law trivially does not comply with the Bedford decision", and then it goes through the appeals process all over again?

Pretty sure that's what'll happen. The court obviously has no power to pre-emptively prevent a law from passing, so Parliament can try as much as it wants at passing the same law. At some point that's got to start looking bad, though. And using the notwithstanding clause means we get to go through passing it every 5 years, which would be pretty painful.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
Pretty sure that's what'll happen. The court obviously has no power to pre-emptively prevent a law from passing

Well I guess what I was wondering about is in cases there the court strikes down a law but places a stay on the order for a period of time (so as to give the government time to respond to the underlying public policy question, as in this case), does the court issue a separate order when the stay expires to injunct the enforcement of the original law? You can see where my line of thinking is going. If so, wouldn't they be able to modify the scope of the order at the same time to injunct the new law?

But then it occurs to me that even if the new law is pretty trivially in violation, it's still a different law, so likely they'd want the lower courts to hear it first--and moreover they probably don't actually issue a separate order when the stay expires, the original order just takes effect.
 

Azih

Member
Maharg:

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...lized-prostitution-human-trafficking-inflows#
Criminalization of prostitution in Sweden resulted in the shrinking of the prostitution market and the decline of human trafficking inflows. Cross-country comparisons of Sweden with Denmark (where prostitution is decriminalized) and Germany (expanded legalization of prostitution) are consistent with the quantitative analysis, showing that trafficking inflows decreased with criminalization and increased with legalization. - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/stud...uman-trafficking-inflows#sthash.OzJnm9eS.dpuf

It's such a sad and tricky thing but there is solid data showing that legalized prostitution leads to greater trafficking.

Plus there's just something really skeezy about legalized prostitution. I remember reading an article where some German company took it's best salesmen out to a resort where sex workers were available as a part of their bonus rewards.
 
does anyone know what the new electoral map will look like?
So many new ridings added, so many ridings that give Conservatives a boost out West and suburban Ontario.

Any confiremd electoral maps for 2015?
 

Mr.Mike

Member
does anyone know what the new electoral map will look like?
So many new ridings added, so many ridings that give Conservatives a boost out West and suburban Ontario.

Any confiremd electoral maps for 2015?

Well, you can see the maps themselves here: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/maps2&document=index&lang=e

But I also remembered some blog posts on r/CanadaPolitics that looked into the maps in detail

Quebec and the Atlantics

Ontario

Western Canada
 

maharg

idspispopd
Well I guess what I was wondering about is in cases there the court strikes down a law but places a stay on the order for a period of time (so as to give the government time to respond to the underlying public policy question, as in this case), does the court issue a separate order when the stay expires to injunct the enforcement of the original law? You can see where my line of thinking is going. If so, wouldn't they be able to modify the scope of the order at the same time to injunct the new law?

But then it occurs to me that even if the new law is pretty trivially in violation, it's still a different law, so likely they'd want the lower courts to hear it first--and moreover they probably don't actually issue a separate order when the stay expires, the original order just takes effect.

I'm pretty sure the stay just expires and the ruling takes effect, no action on the court's part. And if there were I think it would be limited to enacting the end of the stay with the exact same scope as described in the stay itself, it wouldn't be a re-hearing of anything, except maybe (??) motions to extend the stay.

The government could submit a question to the court as to whether the new law would pass muster against the same framework as the old did not. A positive ruling on that would probably prevent it from being challenged by lower courts. But I suspect they know it won't.

If I were a complete cynic, I'd suggest they want it to be in the papers again next year so they can include a futile attempt to fight the unelected courts on a fundamentalist issue as a platform plank that'd be in the public's mind.
 
partisan hackery aside

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/otta...free-trade-zone-within-canada-moore-1.1908913

Ottawa ramping up efforts to create true free-trade zone within Canada

I agree. it is ridiculous that Quebec outputs a surplus of Hydro-Electricity but cannot sell it out to Ontario or Atlantic provinces due to ''protectionism'' and has to resort to selling to Vermont, New York and New Hampshire.

IMO, in terms of energy, Canada should allow Free Trade inter provinces. It makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom