Support NeoGAF

[unpopularblargh]

Senate approves transgender rights bill

I don't post much (if at all) in this thread but I'd just like to say I'm glad this passed. Also seeing Gad Saad make a fool of himself in front of the senate was glorious.

 

[Smiley90]

The one law I care a TON about for personal reasons, appears to finally be making progress.

C-6, Immigration Reform.

On May 3rd, the Senate passed the previously House-approved Bill with new amendments:

https://www.cicnews.com/2017/05/bil...zenship-legislation-passes-senate-059127.html


On June 13th, the House approved Senate amendments,, but... amended them again, sending it back to the senate https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/318/

TODAY, June 15th: https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...if-convicted-of-terrorism-under-new-bill.html

amended bill PASSED in the senate!

WOOOOOO PARTEEEEYTIME

next step: Royal Assent (next week), then onto the CIC to announce WHEN they'll implement it.

This makes a huge difference to me because I got PR last summer, but have been in Canada for 8 years. Either I have to wait another 3+ years to be able to apply for citizenship (old rules, 4 years of residency post attaining PR), or I can apply as soon as next summer (3 years out of the last 5, with pre-PR time counting 1/2 up to 1 year total -> = 2 year post-PR attainment for me).

more info also here: http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-im...ill-c-6-coming-into-effect-facts-only.501042/

 

[Sibylus]

Senate approves transgender rights bill

Good! At last.

 

[firehawk12]

I remember an earlier version of that being debated back when I worked in my MP's constituency office in 2010. We used to get the odd crank writing letters to complain about it. I was in charge of communications and started to draft a rebuttal laying out our position at one point, but the boss said to just send a "thank you for your letter" response, as it wasn't worth engaging with them on that point.

The BC Liberals have made it clear they won't put forward a speaker candidate, so we're heading into very rough constitutional waters in BC.

lol
What happens if no one wants to be speaker? Can parliament even sit?

 

[maharg]

No. Has to be a speaker before any business can go forward.

 

[Silexx]

So a Canadian Heritage committee had made a recommendation that the government levy a 5% tax on internet broadband services (i.e. not quite a Netflix tax, but almost). Trudeau and Joly have dismissed the recommendation pretty much right away.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/15/trudeau-joly-squash-committees-pitch-to-tax-broadband-internet-services/

 

[killer rin]

So a Canadian Heritage committee had made a recommendation that the government levy a 5% tax on internet broadband services (i.e. not quite a Netflix tax, but almost). Trudeau and Joly have dismissed the recommendation pretty much right away.

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/15/trudeau-joly-squash-committees-pitch-to-tax-broadband-internet-services/

Thank god. The only way I would ever be okay with a Netflix Tax was if the government went after Telecom pricing like a rabid bulldog first. Until that prerequisite is met, we shouldn't take any additional fees or taxes onto our already third-world-in-pricing internet services

 

[CazTGG]

lol
What happens if no one wants to be speaker? Can parliament even sit?

Can you say "new election"?

 

[firehawk12]

Can you say "new election"?

I wonder who goes to the polls first, BC or the UK. lol

 

[CazTGG]

I wonder who goes to the polls first, BC or the UK. lol

BC, no doubt.

 

[matthewwhatever]

New US ambassador is the wife of a billionaire coal magnate.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kelly-knight-craft-canada-1.4161325

I was working at the U.S. Embassy here in Ottawa up until two weeks ago. I got out just in time! It was bad enough post-election knowing that I was indirectly working for Trump. I don't think I'd have been able to stomach working directly for his personal representative to Canada.

Honestly, I expect Scheer's biggest accomplishment from now until 2019 is to pull the CPC to the right of Harper and see if that finds an audience. There was a surprising amount of support for anti-choice, anti-LGBT Islamophobes candidates during the leadership run (Trost was #4, Leitch was #6, etc.) so I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to engage with or attempt to appease that part of their base.

I think he's going to have the same difficulties as Patrick Brown is in Ontario -- they both want to pull the party significantly rightward, but they know the electorate at large won't like that. It'll be interesting to see what Scheer does about that. Given his acceptance speech was one step away from ranting about SJWs, I don't think he'll be able to do it, but you never know. Harper seemed like a rabid right-wing nut job before becoming PM, but he was able to temper it enough to win. Of course, Harper didn't have a smug perma-smirk, so that may have helped.

BC, no doubt.

Really interested to see what turnout ends up being like. Some people like to say that too many elections in a short time can lead to "election fatigue", but you have to think that the prospect of a tied parliament would serve as a pretty great motivator for both sides.

 

[Silexx]

The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its ruling where it is upholding its decision on an accused's right to a timely trial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-cody-delays-1.4159897

 

[AuthenticM]

The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its ruling where it is upholding its decision on an accused's right to a timely trial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-cody-delays-1.4159897

good

 

[Infinite Stars]

Christy Clark continues to be the worst in BC. Like, when we go back to the polls I'm fully expecting a joint GotV operation between the NDP and Greens. If they can stop the vote splitting, they can hopefully get PR set up.

 

[firehawk12]

The Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its ruling where it is upholding its decision on an accused's right to a timely trial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supr...lays-1.4159897

I feel like the blame on this is squarely on governments not adequately funding the justice system. Guilty or not, you shouldn't spend years wait for trial.

 

[Silent Chief]

I feel like the blame on this is squarely on governments not adequately funding the justice system. Guilty or not, you shouldn't spend years wait for trial.

I don't believe that's the problem. It shouldn't take years to prepare for a court case, especially if there was a long investigation before the person is arrested.
If every case would go to trial within a month, it would cost a lot less money.

 

[SRG01]

I feel like the blame on this is squarely on governments not adequately funding the justice system. Guilty or not, you shouldn't spend years wait for trial.

It also means that the crown can't use procedural delays to keep someone behind bars or under scrutiny for extended periods of time -- something that does happen in other jurisdictions.

For those of you familiar with the Vader-McCann trial up here in Alberta, I wonder how the Jordan ruling affects it...

I don't believe that's the problem. It shouldn't take years to prepare for a court case, especially if there was a long investigation before the person is arrested.
If every case would go to trial within a month, it would cost a lot less money.

Funding is the problem as there aren't enough facilities -- as well as appointed judges -- to keep the court system going. Alberta, in particular, is in dire need of more courts, more judges, more investigators, more everything but no one seems to want to change the status quo.

edit: As an aside, the pre-trial time-served credit was established to balance out the lengthy wait of a trial.

 

[firehawk12]

I don't believe that's the problem. It shouldn't take years to prepare for a court case, especially if there was a long investigation before the person is arrested.
If every case would go to trial within a month, it would cost a lot less money.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/46-cases-stayed-ontario-jordan-decision-1.4009250
This old story seems to suggest that in Ontario, the problem was not enough people (or alternatively, crown prosecutors being lazy I suppose). All the Jordan case news I can find with a quick search leads to the supreme court ruling instead of the original case, but I wonder why it took over 4 years for a trial to start in his situation.

It also means that the crown can't use procedural delays to keep someone behind bars or under scrutiny for extended periods of time -- something that does happen in other jurisdictions.

For those of you familiar with the Vader-McCann trial up here in Alberta, I wonder how the Jordan ruling affects it...

Heh, I wonder if the defense can use that tactic now. Keep delaying until their client has their charges stayed.

 

[AuthenticM]

Staffing the justice system would have the same effect as adding more roads to try to reduce traffic.

The issue is simply that there are too many fucking criminel offences.

Certes, le système a depuis longtemps besoin de nouvelles ressources. Mais ce ne devrait pas être pour lui demander de criminaliser, d'accuser et de condamner davantage, mais moins. Le recours au droit criminel devrait être un outil de dernier recours, ce qui n'est pas le cas à l'heure actuelle.

Car si notre système de justice ne parvient pas à juger les affaires de meurtre, ce n'est pas parce que nous n'avons pas les moyens de respecter les droits les plus fondamentaux ou parce que nous n'avons pas de juges ou de procureurs qualifiés pour s'acquitter de la tâche, mais bien parce que nous les occupons à autre chose.

Notre système de justice peine à se concentrer sur l'essentiel parce qu'il est encombré d'infractions mineures, allant du vol à l'étalage d'un pot d'aubergines marinées (16,50 $, récupéré par l'épicerie) aux voies de fait armées d'un crayon, de papier ou d'une flûte à bec en plastique, en passant par les nombreux bris de conditions parce que l'accusé a été retrouvé dans une ruelle une bière à la main alors qu'il était sous une interdiction de consommer. Dans les écoles et dans les centres de réadaptation pour jeunes, on criminalise des adolescents qui se battent, qui menacent leurs éducateurs ou endommagent du matériel.

Bon an mal an, cinq infractions comptent pour plus de la moitié des causes réglées par les tribunaux canadiens : le vol (principalement de moins de 5000 $), la conduite avec facultés affaiblies, le défaut de se conformer à une ordonnance du tribunal, les voies de fait simples et le manquement aux conditions d'une ordonnance de probation (Statistique Canada, 2014-2015). En comparaison, le pourcentage des homicides est minime, se situant à 0,01 %.

Les personnes ciblées par ces accusations mineures sont pauvres, sans abri, sans emploi ou à faible revenu, ayant un faible taux de scolarité ou aucun diplôme. Elles comptent un nombre disproportionné de personnes autochtones, inuites et métisses, de minorités visibles, de personnes souffrant de problèmes de santé physique ou mentale.

Notre système de justice constitue le principal système de prise en charge et de régulation de la pauvreté, des problèmes sociaux et des conflits liés à l'utilisation des espaces publics.

L'un des seuls services ouverts 24 heures sur 24 par le biais de son service de police, il sert à la fois de soupape et de catalyseur aux maux de notre société, de porte d'entrée, voire de guichet unique à différents services sociaux et de santé. Un système qui enfonce les personnes prises en charge dans une spirale de criminalisation plutôt que de s'attaquer de front à ses causes sous-jacentes.

Selon Philippe Mary, en période de crise, les bureaucraties se butent systématiquement aux « dysfonctionnements » du système pénal, un « terme permettant de considérer que les institutions pénales sont bien conçues et que les difficultés rencontrées résident avant tout dans leur application et l'insuffisance de moyens dont elles disposent. ... Ce faisant, toute réflexion sur les fondements mêmes de ces institutions et sur le rôle à faire tenir par la pénalité s'en trouve éludée au profit des questions de management efficace, d'optimisation des moyens et de gestion des ressources humaines. »

ninja edit: lol gutter

 

[KernelPanic]

I think he's going to have the same difficulties as Patrick Brown is in Ontario -- they both want to pull the party significantly rightward, but they know the electorate at large won't like that. It'll be interesting to see what Scheer does about that. Given his acceptance speech was one step away from ranting about SJWs, I don't think he'll be able to do it, but you never know. Harper seemed like a rabid right-wing nut job before becoming PM, but he was able to temper it enough to win. Of course, Harper didn't have a smug perma-smirk, so that may have helped.

So they think Harper lost because he didn't swing enough to the right?

They'll be playing dog whistle politics during elections no doubt.

 

[AuthenticM]

Here's another. A report from the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Offenders found guilty of heinous crimes like murder or child sexual assault can have, and recently have had, their convictions totally erased and can roam Canada’s streets with impunity as a direct result of court rulings that their trials took too long to complete. Similarly, persons accused of those same crimes can have their charges dropped because their trials would take too long to complete.

Meanwhile, courts are packed with accused persons suffering from addiction and mental health issues, and there are insufficient resources to allow Indigenous accuseds — already grossly overrepresented in Canada’s jails and prisons — to get the support the law demands they receive.

Change is desperately needed.

After an extensive review and hearings across Canada involving interviews with judges at all levels of court, Crown lawyers, defence lawyers, the police and those affected directly by the criminal justice system, the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has released a comprehensive report with 50 recommendations to alleviate the strain on our court system.

Direct link to the full report. It's 211 pages long. Chapter 8 seems particularly on point.

Excerpts:

In Chapter Two, this report examined the traditional criminal justice system and how it handles
proceedings from the laying of criminal charges against a person through to the final disposition of those
charges. Solutions for improving the efficiency, expediency and fairness of this system must rightly look
at which parts of this system can be fixed or improved. Many witnesses asked the committee to consider
whether the traditional criminal justice model was itself appropriate for handling all the types of cases
that pass through it, and to study alternatives to this model operating across Canada. During one of the
first hearings for this study, the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage, former Chief Justice of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, provided a quote that others returned to afterwards:

"I think that when starting your review, you must look at and consider whether the
criminal justice system is really structured to handle much of what it receives. It
receives the addicted, the homeless, the poverty stricken and the mentally ill, but the
criminal justice system was not meant to really deal with those sorts of issues, and
more and more they are taking up the time."

Restorative justice programs, specialized courts, diversion programs and addictions treatment,
among other initiatives, need to be more widely available to Canadians. They need to be brought into the
mainstream of justice culture. They need to be recognized by justice system participants, whether
lawyers, judges, police officers, social workers or other public servants, to be viable options that advance
the goals of our justice system as much as the traditional courthouse can. Indeed, the measures explored
in this chapter appear to work best when they are integrated as part of a range of options for dealing with
accused persons, including the courthouse route. They require that justice system participants work
together to determine how accused persons, offenders and persons who are at-risk of criminal behaviour
can best be treated and/or rehabilitated.

When witnesses advocated for appropriate measures, there was no suggestion that sentences should
not reflect the severity of an offender’s crimes, nor that such measures should detract from the value
placed on the principles of denunciation and deterrence of crime. The justice community needs to be
mindful that appropriate measures can improve the outcomes of our justice system, and, importantly for
this study, improve the efficiency and fairness of our system, thereby reducing delays. Toronto lawyer
Mary Murphy explained this further: “[A] system that is in place to effectively offer tools and strategies to
rehabilitate individuals both promotes safety in the community and reduces the need for courts to
allocate resources for trial time.”

Various witnesses underscored that for many accused persons going through the court and detention
systems, their unsuitability for traditional models not only hinders their rehabilitation, but also slows
down and overburdens our court systems. “The adjudicative system can simply not meet the needs of the
various issues we are facing in the provincial court,” the Honourable Pamela Williams, Chief Judge of the
Provincial and Family Courts of Nova Scotia, explained, “so we need to think about new, innovative and
streamlined approaches.” The “idea” therefore, is to divert suitable matters away from the courts before
they get there, perhaps even before charges have been laid. As the Honourable Justice Terrence Matchett
added: “Some of these cases can be diverted, not just to specialized courts, but it's time that the system
started triaging the people who come before it.”

 

[Fuzzy]

Heh, I wonder if the defense can use that tactic now. Keep delaying until their client has their charges stayed.

Exceptional circumstances, unforeseen events, and defence delays don't count when judging if a trial took too long to complete.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Good to see multi-partisan support on Guaranteed Income, until the other people start to support it I guess.

 

[CazTGG]

Good to see multi-partisan support on Guaranteed Income, until the other people start to support it I guess.

Is Niki Ashton serious with that answer? Does she not know what party she's running for leadership of?

 

[Pedrito]

Good to see multi-partisan support on Guaranteed Income, until the other people start to support it I guess.

Kathleen Wynne is a conservative now? Niki, you're supposed to call her a "neoliberal".

 

[Mr.Mike]

Is Niki Ashton serious with that answer? Does she not know what party she's running for leadership of?

My interpretation is that she thinks the money would be better spent expanding the social safety net, and that there are deeper problems with our economic system than could be solved just by a basic income.

But the way she phrased it at first makes it seem like she's rejecting the idea just because people to her right support it. The way I see it she's just displayed some lame partisanship or she's made a big rhetorical gaffe.

 

[Apathy]

Is Niki Ashton serious with that answer? Does she not know what party she's running for leadership of?

Kathleen Wynne is a conservative now? Niki, you're supposed to call her a "neoliberal".

I lost a lot of respect for her since elbowgate and some of the dumbass things shes said on twitter.

Watching that debate, none of the NDP leaders look like a good choice.

 

[killer rin]

I lost a lot of respect for her since elbowgate and some of the dumbass things shes said on twitter.

Watching that debate, none of the NDP leaders look like a good choice.

It really is a shame. The way we are going the NDP and the Conservatives are on track to elect a terrible candidate who will fail during the next election and ultimately get kicked out for a new election afterwards

 

[maharg]

It really is a shame. The way we are going the NDP and the Conservatives are on track to elect a terrible candidate who will fail during the next election and ultimately get kicked out for a new election afterwards

Almost like no candidate who actually believes they have a shot of being PM any time soon is willing to suffer a loss at the hands of a fresh-off-first term incredibly popular trudeau... hmmmmmm.

 

[SRG01]

Almost like no candidate who actually believes they have a shot of being PM any time soon is willing to suffer a loss at the hands of a fresh-off-first term incredibly popular trudeau... hmmmmmm.

True, but I'd rather the NDP be an effective opposition than this current mess

 

[CazTGG]

Almost like no candidate who actually believes they have a shot of being PM any time soon is willing to suffer a loss at the hands of a fresh-off-first term incredibly popular trudeau... hmmmmmm.

Election 2019 predictions:

 

[MMarston]

Election 2019 predictions:

That's not Jeb.

 

[NetMapel]

Election 2019 predictions:

Gutter's dream.

 

[CazTGG]

That's not Jeb.

Jeb believes in America.

 

[firehawk12]

Election 2019 predictions:
http://i.imgur.com/c7Fc0fv.png

Insert Theresa May laugh here.

As much as I want the NDP to do well - I've bought my membership to vote in August - I guess the only hope I really have is for the Tories to recover enough in Ontario to force a Liberal minority. That, or gutter's worse nightmare to happen and for the BQ to gain a resurgence and sweep Quebec.

The FPTP system combined with Canada's simplistic regionalism is almost enough to make me want to disengage from politics again.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Christy Clark continues to be the worst in BC. Like, when we go back to the polls I'm fully expecting a joint GotV operation between the NDP and Greens. If they can stop the vote splitting, they can hopefully get PR set up.

Some people proposed the Liberals and NDP do this during their respective post-2011 leadership races (Joyce Murray for the LPC, Nathan Cullen for the NDP). The problem is that it falls apart once you think about it for more than a second -- elections are zero-sum gains, where only one person can win a seat, so working to get out voters who support another party is self-defeating. You could get around it by running joint candidates, or by the parties not running a full slate of candidates (i.e. like what the Liberals did for Elizabeth May in 2008, and just not running a candidate againgst her). The problem with the former is that joint candidates effectively merge the two parties, while the latter means publicly giving up on a riding, and telling party activists in certain ridings not to work for the party/to work to get another party elected (which can be incredibly demoralizing). Like I said, it's one of those ideas that's a lot more difficult than it sounds like on paper.

So they think Harper lost because he didn't swing enough to the right?

They'll be playing dog whistle politics during elections no doubt.

It's an article of faith among most conservatives that conservatism never fails; people just fail conservatism, and thus lose elections. We haven't heard that as much with Harper, but a big reason the Ontario Tories have spent ten years in the wilderness is because ONPCers decided that Harris stopped being sufficiently conservative (which is why he lost), and then Tory lost because he wasn't conservative enough (so they went for Hudak), and then Hudak lost because he wasn't conservative enough (so they went for Brown). Brown has been trying really, really hard to sound like a moderate, but I guarantee you if he loses Ontario PCers will say it was because he didn't present a true conservative voice to the electorate.

My interpretation is that she thinks the money would be better spent expanding the social safety net, and that there are deeper problems with our economic system than could be solved just by a basic income.

But the way she phrased it at first makes it seem like she's rejecting the idea just because people to her right support it. The way I see it she's just displayed some lame partisanship or she's made a big rhetorical gaffe.

Niki Ashton? Saying something dumb and/or intemperate? I'm shocked!

I think your interpretation is probably correct. But it says a lot about Ashton that her go-to reason for rejecting a policy is that someone on the other side is proposing it.

I lost a lot of respect for her since elbowgate and some of the dumbass things shes said on twitter.

Watching that debate, none of the NDP leaders look like a good choice.

Is there someone not running who'd be doing substantially better? Nathan Cullen sounds good right now, but if he ran he'd be hurt internally by the perception that he's the mainstream/establishment candidate, plus I think the right time to choose him would've been when they ended up picking Mulcair (he'd have gotten to "Sunny Ways" before Trudeau was even chosed, I think). Megan Leslie and Avi Lewis don't speak French. Rachel Notley is focused on being re-elected, plus I think her pipeline stance would make it hard for her to win. Alexandre Boulerice's past association with the separatists would hurt him nationally. Everyone seems to despise Sid Ryan. Brian Topp was a dud last time around.

Like with the CPC, people say that they aren't getting the top-tier candidates -- likely for the reason Maharg said, the perception that running means being a sacrificial lamb -- but it's not as if the people who've declined would've been flawless dream candidates.

 

[gabbo]

It's an article of faith among most conservatives that conservatism never fails; people just fail conservatism, and thus lose elections. We haven't heard that as much with Harper, but a big reason the Ontario Tories have spent ten years in the wilderness is because ONPCers decided that Harris stopped being sufficiently conservative (which is why he lost), and then Tory lost because he wasn't conservative enough (so they went for Hudak), and then Hudak lost because he wasn't conservative enough (so they went for Brown). Brown has been trying really, really hard to sound like a moderate, but I guarantee you if he loses Ontario PCers will say it was because he didn't present a true conservative voice to the electorate.

Well, the fact that Harris' successors Eves, Tory, and Hudak have the charisma of soggy bread; Hudak being the worst of them, didn't help. Brown comes off a little more likable, though he still seems like a social conservative hiding behind a mask of moderation in order to get rid of Wynne and play off her unpopularity.

As for the NDP, a lot of their possible leader candidates (I'm still all for Charlie Angus, even if he is a middle aged white guy) were swept out of office in the last election.

 

[CazTGG]

Insert Theresa May laugh here.

As much as I want the NDP to do well - I've bought my membership to vote in August - I guess the only hope I really have is for the Tories to recover enough in Ontario to force a Liberal minority. That, or gutter's worse nightmare to happen and for the BQ to gain a resurgence and sweep Quebec.

Either of those outcomes are far worse than what we currently have, not to mention unlikely given the BQ are dead in the water and Scheer seems poised to isolate moderates from supporting their current platform.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Well, the fact that Harris' successors Eves, Tory, and Hudak have the charisma of soggy bread; Hudak being the worst of them, didn't help. Brown comes off a little more likable, though he still seems like a social conservative hiding behind a mask of moderation in order to get rid of Wynne and play off her unpopularity.

As for the NDP, a lot of their possible leader candidates (I'm still all for Charlie Angus, even if he is a middle aged white guy) were swept out of office in the last election.

Just to be clear, *I* don't think that Eves/Tory/Hudak lost because they weren't conservative enough. I think Eves lost because he was a key player in implementing Harris' terrible agenda, Tory lost because of his awful ideas on separate schools, and Hudak lost because he was promising to fire 100,000 people. Having such bland personalities didn't help. But most conservatives I know believe, as I said, that conservatism never fails, just people who fail conservatism. You'd think progressive/centrist candidates getting 60-70% of the vote every election would show them that Canada's not as conservative as they think, but you're asking a lot from people who've become conservative in the first place.

RE: the NDP...who lost in 2015 that would've been a rockstar leadership candidate? Outside of Leslie, all the people who come to mind are Paul Dewar, Andrew Cash, Peter Stoffer...not exactly the kind of MPs that were likely to run for leader if they'd gotten back in. There may have been some Quebec MPs who were going to make waves at some point down the road, but I don't think they would've been influential this year.

 

[maharg]

Not like you have to still be in office to run for leadership anyways.

 

[Vibranium]

Nathan Cullen is my rockstar NDP candidate. I believe he will run for leadership again in another 5-7 years, he's just biding his time. He played it very smart by staying out of this race, Singh will likely win and Trudeau will possibly win a second term.

His biggest problem is his French. He's got to work on that.

 

[fallout]

Not like you have to still be in office to run for leadership anyways.

maharg for CPC Leadership 2020 confirmed

 

[maharg]

lol

My french isn't good enough anyways.

 

[killer rin]

Nathan Cullen is my rockstar NDP candidate. I believe he will run for leadership again in another 5-7 years, he's just biding his time. He played it very smart by staying out of this race, Singh will likely win and Trudeau will possibly win a second term.

His biggest problem is his French. He's got to work on that.

Ehh, the NDP historically has had a tendency to keep a guy as leader for several years. Who knows if they will continue to do that, but thats how they have historically operated.

Honestly, my ideal situation with the NDP is that that they play the long game. Basically, get Nathan Cullen in there as leader now and use the 2019 as a stepping stone to gain publicity and get people to look into the party as a valid choice. Because lets face it, the Conservatives are in all likelihood going to make a fool out of themselves as they try to invoke Harperisms and SoConisms again so the NDP should spend their time in Secondary Official Opposition just trying to look better than the Conservatives, and occasionally trying to look better than the Liberals wherever they can make a valid point. That way once the Liberals overgrow their stay (as all governments do) the NDP can come in and hopefully try to reenact the Orange Wage.

 

[Vibranium]

Ehh, the NDP historically has had a tendency to keep a guy as leader for several years. Who knows if they will continue to do that, but thats how they have historically operated.

Honestly, my ideal situation with the NDP is that that they play the long game. Basically, get Nathan Cullen in there as leader now and use the 2019 as a stepping stone to gain publicity and get people to look into the party as a valid choice. Because lets face it, the Conservatives are in all likelihood going to make a fool out of themselves as they try to invoke Harperisms and SoConisms again so the NDP should spend their time in Secondary Official Opposition just trying to look better than the Conservatives, and occasionally trying to look better than the Liberals wherever they can make a valid point. That way once the Liberals overgrow their stay (as all governments do) the NDP can come in and hopefully try to reenact the Orange Wage.

You're totally right on this. Unfortunately, Cullen isn't running so we'll have 7+ years of Singh then.

 

[gabbo]

Just to be clear, *I* don't think that Eves/Tory/Hudak lost because they weren't conservative enough. I think Eves lost because he was a key player in implementing Harris' terrible agenda, Tory lost because of his awful ideas on separate schools, and Hudak lost because he was promising to fire 100,000 people. Having such bland personalities didn't help. But most conservatives I know believe, as I said, that conservatism never fails, just people who fail conservatism. You'd think progressive/centrist candidates getting 60-70% of the vote every election would show them that Canada's not as conservative as they think, but you're asking a lot from people who've become conservative in the first place.

RE: the NDP...who lost in 2015 that would've been a rockstar leadership candidate? Outside of Leslie, all the people who come to mind are Paul Dewar, Andrew Cash, Peter Stoffer...not exactly the kind of MPs that were likely to run for leader if they'd gotten back in. There may have been some Quebec MPs who were going to make waves at some point down the road, but I don't think they would've been influential this year.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. In fact, having some of those same moron dyed-in-the-wool ONCons in my extended family, those three failed because they didn't go after immigrants and the gays enough, let alone the teachers unions and nurses. I guess Brown has so far had the good fortune of not having to say too much to be the 'not-Wynne' candidate to this point. If he's able to keep his feet from stepping in it too much like Mr. Whitepaper did, he may pull off where others failed and then go ham, since he's clearly waiting to get into power before cutting everything in sight.

As for the NDP, I agree, other than Leslie there aren't too many people that lost that could have taken a shot, but to counter Maharg's point, they probably don't want to repeat Mulcair's succession and parachute a leader in if they don't have to (Singh is at least an MPP in a provincial arm of the party)

 

[djkimothy]

It really is a shame. The way we are going the NDP and the Conservatives are on track to elect a terrible candidate who will fail during the next election and ultimately get kicked out for a new election afterwards

I remember fresh off the 2015 election that a lot of wonks (i have no source right now since it was oner a year ago but remember some discussion on it) believed that the current leadership race in both parties was essentially a race to see who will lose to Trudeau come 2019. From what came of the conservative race and from what is going on with the NDP race they just don't have someone to break through Trudeau's luscious hair of freedom.

We have the NDP that has a trade and economic policy stuck in the 50s (not to mention the messiness of the Kinder morgan situation playing out in BC and alberta) and a conservative party that can't decide to embrace the alt-right or not.

A lot can change but we're almost looking at another liberal government. And the positive economic numbers just help their message.

 

[killer rin]

I remember fresh off the 2015 election that a lot of wonks (i have no source right now since it was oner a year ago but remember some discussion on it) believed that the current leadership race in both parties was essentially a race to see who will lose to Trudeau come 2019. From what came of the conservative race and from what is going on with the NDP race they just don't have someone to break through Trudeau's luscious hair of freedom.

We have the NDP that has a trade and economic policy stuck in the 50s (not to mention the messiness of the Kinder morgan situation playing out in BC and alberta) and a conservative party that can't decide to embrace the alt-right or not.

A lot can change but we're almost looking at another liberal government. And the positive economic numbers just help their message.

Well yeah, that's why the parties should be going into this with the long game in mind. Both the Conservatives and the NDP. Get a decent-good guy in their now and knowing that they will lose the next election, build up the persons brand and get everything setup to pit that person against them again in the 2023.

Keep them through the next election, and build up good will over the course of two elections so that come the second they not only have a good brand going against Trudeau, but they also have a bucket of failures they can pull out to hit the Liberals with.

 

[mo60]

Denis Lebel is going to be leaving politics soon. His riding is really interesting because he only won in his riding by like 5% in 2015. He only got like 33% of the vote in his riding in the 2015 federal election. Denis Lebel riding may end up being the first riding to flip in a byelection since the 2015 federal election. The riding may flip to the bloc or liberals in a federal byelection.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ts-up-intriguing-quebec-byelection-hbert.html

 

[Sean C]

You could get around it by running joint candidates, or by the parties not running a full slate of candidates (i.e. like what the Liberals did for Elizabeth May in 2008, and just not running a candidate againgst her). The problem with the former is that joint candidates effectively merge the two parties, while the latter means publicly giving up on a riding, and telling party activists in certain ridings not to work for the party/to work to get another party elected (which can be incredibly demoralizing).

The other issue with that, for the NDP/Greens, is that the Green Party's electoral footprint is still so small that in any sort of arrangement where the ridings are parceled out, they'd see major popular vote drops and no likelihood of more seats to compensate. Green Party support is strongest in ridings the NDP already holds, so unless the NDP was going to throw them some freebies, what would they gain from it?

From recent Globe & Mail reporting, it seems like the BC Liberals are planning to elect one of their own speaker initially, and then have that person resign after the government falls. Horgan and Weaver are protesting this as improper partisanship on the part of the speaker, if they do it.

There's not a lot of historical precedent for this, since it's rare for the government to change hands during a parliament. Back in the 19th century you used to see it happen more, but in all but one instance the newly-appointed first minister immediately dissolved the legislature, so the issue of whether the speaker would continue to sit seems to have been moot. Then there are two cases where the government changed and continued to operate within the legislature, but the speaker was actually already from the party taking office (once in Quebec in 1879, and in Ontario in 1985).

The one instance where the speaker definitely remained in place after a change of government against the speaker's party and with the new government evincing a clear intent to legislate is in the federal parliament in 1926, when Liberal Rodolphe Lemieux remained speaker even after Arthur Meighen (briefly) replaced William Lyon Mackenzie King.