-
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.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Also CBC says it has confirmed Jason Kenney moving to provincial politics to try to unite the right in Alberta http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jason-kenney-alberta-pc-wildrose-leadership-1.3664666
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Alberta is just the worst.
cant be any worse than having the clueless NDP governement running that show atm.
I don't know, clueless conservatives are worse cause they deny science in 2016.
Smart conservatives are bad too, because they know the shit the do is bad and don't care
Now he's your problem!
*sigh*
Oh boy, this looks like fun.
I hope he gets eviscerated here.
Apparently he won't be taking questions at his launch announcement haha. Hoo boy. https://twitter.com/JamesWoodPress/status/750437945211916288
Well, that's one way to kill the Alberta PCs' chance for a resurgence.
Unrelatedly, Will and Kate have been invited to visit, so get ready for the next big media frenzy.
It occurred to me a while back, since Tootoo has left the cabinet for the time being to seek treatment and Dominic LeBlanc is filling in on his dad's old post (which I guess is a sign they are expecting/waiting for Tootoo to come back), Canada now has either a female-majority cabinet or a gender-balanced cabinet, depending on your perspective (since, classically, the PM is himself part of the Cabinet; Trudeau appointed 15 ministers of both genders to serve along with himself).
More Kenney news: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-if-jason-kenney-doesnt-apologize-for-comment
I mean... what?
I mean... what?
Normally I wouldn't be all "look at Alberta!" (really, I promise), but with the recent spate of Alberta negativity I just wanna note that Alberta's had this for a while in its cabinet (I think since the first reshuffle): http://www.alberta.ca/premier-cabinet.cfm
Bit easier when the first minister is a woman (and one of her first acts was to drastically shrink cabinet), though.
Also not sure how much precedent there is for that in provincial cabinets in Canada. I still am very happy about it independently of whether it's a first or not.
Edit: apparently Quebec did it first in 2006.
I can't see him not winning the leadership. Short of Nenshi or Iveson running against him, because I don't think there are really any other strong local candidates for moving into Provincial, and the PC bench is particularly crappy right now. But I don't think either of them align well with the PCs (but then, I wouldn't have thought Mandel would either, so...).
The main problem is that he trashed the PCs constantly when he was an MP, and at least one MLA has already voiced her displeasure with Kenney and vowed to quit if he is to be made leader.
Plus, the PCs are in serious financial trouble right now and have a considerable debt load compared to the NDP and WRP. They never bothered to build up their fundraising apparatus while in power and had to close numerous offices soon after the last election.
All in all, it's quite strange for Kenney to come in at this point. He's going to be at a significant disadvantage, both from the perspective of the PCs and unification of the two right-leaning parties.
That Kenney statement was roughly the equivalent of Trump's attack on the Hispanic judge. Although in this case, the guy being attacked is at least foreign born.
Good. Alberta can keep him. Stay far away from federal politics Jason.
matthewwhatever
Member
My initial thought was that the people who are still PC members now are there because they don't want to join with the WRP, so him running as the explicit unite-the-right candidate wouldn't necessarily resonate with the voting membership...but then I remembered that I felt the same way as a federal PC member pre-Reform takeover, and I ended up being completely out of step with most other PCs on that. The situations aren't totally analogous, of course, since the PC Party of Canada had been out of power for a decade by the time of their merger and members were desperate to get back in, whereas the Alberta PCs have only been out for a little over a year so they may not be as desperate, but still: being in opposition can make diehard party members do some crazy things.
It's interesting that not only is Kenney being pretty explicit in his goal, Jean is essentially endorsing him too, by saying that if they pick Kenney then WRP is open to merging. Personally, I can't imagine what it's like to see Kenney as a unifying figure, but clearly he has appeal for a certain subset of people, and I don't imagine any other PC candidates will have the name recognition or the fundraising ability. The only thing hurting Kenney right now is that he hasn't quit his seat.
I don't think it's an explicit requirement to quit his seat, but yeah it's definitely bad optics...
I mean, they did literally just vote on unification at their party convention and it was shot down pretty hard. I don't really know if there was an analogous declaration against unification by the PCs before they did (I guess maybe MacKay's "I'll never unify" statement might count? [edit: reading up on that to refresh my memory it was actually a back room deal with another candidate, so no that doesn't seem like it counts]), but yeah they had already been out of power for so long that doubt of future must have seemed a lot more reasonable. It's also not like the PC party had just come off ruling for 44 years, either. Takes a while to shake off that hubris, even with a resounding loss.
I think people underestimate the possibility of a PC comeback sans unification. They came in second in vote count and the WRP are taking every opportunity to indulge in behaviour that makes them seem non-viable as a government. It is entirely possible that within the next few years people will tire of them and 'come home'. At this point I'm more worried about that than the WRP winning the next election, polls be damned.
And if I think that, I can only imagine that a lot of party stalwarts (who are the people who will be voting in the leadership convention) must think it too.
WRP has always been open to merging, though. Because if they merge, WRP wins the game they're playing (just like Reform did). The only reason they toned it down was because of the aforementioned vote.
Honestly what this seems like to me is that this is an attempt by the federal conservatives to re-run the merger vote in the PC party via the leadership convention. I'm not really entirely convinced Kenney thinks he'll even win, but it may be worth the risk to re-shore their base.
---
Also, to make explicit a change in thinking that might not be clear because a post I was going to post never actually got posted: I think Kenney's odds are actually not all that great now because of the delegated convention. I didn't realize before they decided to switch from a OMOV system for this convention.
I also think how controversial he is as a politician will hurt him in Alberta.Also another thing that may hurt him is that the PC membership and even the general public may not have the appetite for another politician that is from the federal conservatives running for the Alberta PC's to save them right after what happened to Prentice.
They changed it to a delegated vote specifically because of the disastrous outcomes in the past.
I'm slowly starting to buy into the whole "supreme court judges are acting as legislators" thing.
Today, in a 5-4 ruling, they came up with totally arbitrary numbers to determine what constitute unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings.
What's ironic is that it will slow down things even more as courts will now be inundated with motions to stay of proceedings.
Surprisingly, Russell Brown went with the majority.
Today, in a 5-4 ruling, they came up with totally arbitrary numbers to determine what constitute unreasonable delays in criminal proceedings.
What's ironic is that it will slow down things even more as courts will now be inundated with motions to stay of proceedings.
Surprisingly, Russell Brown went with the majority.
Heh. Well, the republicans in the US changed their system to avoid disastrous outcomes and look what's happening now.
The thing is that their ideas of disastrous outcomes appears to have been electing (flawed) electable moderates who were unpalatable to the right wing of the party, as far as I can tell (since Klein, Prentice is the only one not to fit that bill).
The Charter states that people have a right to be tried within a reasonable time. I think that behooves the court to defined what a reasonable time is. They came up with a number based on the realities of how long a case may reasonably take. The section has often bordered on meaningless without some sort of upper limit.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
The supreme court of Canada is even less activist than most supreme courts, since the government can send reference questions and use Notwithstanding; and in light of the fact that rulings striking down major legislation are almost always suspended long enough to give the government time to relegislate -- also worth noting that you should expect more substantive rulings like this from Canada than the US because we've had 34 years to litigate this stuff and America has had 229.
The dominant theoretical lens for interpreting SCOC is "dialogue theory"-- that governance is an ongoing dialogue between court and government. "Activist judges" is nonsense borrowed from conservatives in America mad that schools got segregated.
It should be on a case-by-case, district-by-district, province-by-province basis, with the judge having the discretion to decide after taking into account all the factors involved and the general guidelines. Those limits of 18 and 30 months are created out of thin air.
Obviously, reducing delays is a good thing, but I don't think it will help. Courts are already inundated with useless Charter motions with a success rate of probably less than 10%.
And I don't think there's any activism involved. But the SCC really like to come up with all sorts of tests and framework, and they're being real creative with them, often taking into account hypothetical scenarios instead of judging what's in front of them.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
They aren't limits, they're thresholds after which the court asks judges to begin presuming that the charter has been violated. Guidance isn't a limit.
Limits at which point the burden of proof is automatically reversed. Not limits as in statute of limitation.
Anyway, I think copy-pasting this part of the dissent is better than me trying to express my point in English:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16057/index.do
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Pedrito, justice delayed is justice denied....
There has to be a time limit (or guidance), and the judicial branch, as a part of the government, has a right to come up with and enforce that.
There has to be a time limit (or guidance), and the judicial branch, as a part of the government, has a right to come up with and enforce that.
The problem is that the judicial branch is factually not part of the government. It is an unelected body that should be reticent to implement widespread change such as what occurred here. As someone who works at a major Canadian firm, I can assure you that this kind of judicial activism makes people nervous. Everyone will have different comfort levels with how much judicial intervention they like (I prefer a healthy dose in areas not relating to business), but setting hard deadlines is practically unprecedented and, as was described in the minority, not actually called for in this instance.
Regardless of what you think about judicial activism, the more overarching problem is that the judiciary is essentially making a spending decision, forcing the government to legislate on the issue. I doubt even the most ardent judicial supporter would claim that this is the appropriate purview of the courts. That being said, I know first hand just how desperately understaffed and underfunded just about every courthouse in Canada is, so even though the decision is frankly wrong from just about every side, the result may be for the best in the long run for normal people; people who are more likely to care about getting a fast adjudication of their issues rather than vacillating on the separation between state and judiciary.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
Hang on a second, that's false. The judicial branch is factually a part of government. Also, you mention unelected bodies, well the senate is one too. The judicial branch provides important checks and balances in Westminster-style democracies and it's good to have. The fact that the government has never defined something guaranteed in the Charter is not the Supreme Court's problem and they're legally empowered to make decisions on Charter issues.
TheRealTalker
Banned
Oh man the whole Canada Post stuff
it is basically Harper's Ghost still haunting us
Edit: On another note I really hate looking at twitter now under the #cdnpoli section since now it is just overrun with Cons/Sun/Rebel Media memes usually just having some random bashing stuff about Trudeau all day with made up quotes and cringe worthy meme wanking
I just find it super sad that adults are making memes and how out of tune these people are
it is basically Harper's Ghost still haunting us
Edit: On another note I really hate looking at twitter now under the #cdnpoli section since now it is just overrun with Cons/Sun/Rebel Media memes usually just having some random bashing stuff about Trudeau all day with made up quotes and cringe worthy meme wanking
I just find it super sad that adults are making memes and how out of tune these people are
killer rin
Member
But you just don't understand... It's #CurrentYear!
Harper and Ambrose are now supporting Kenney's leadership run for the Alberta PC's.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/stephen-harper-stampede-bbq-1.3672268
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/stephen-harper-stampede-bbq-1.3672268
This is either the best thing or the worst thing that could happen.
Speaking of which, did Prentice ever get Harper's seal of approval?
eddievanclaylen
Member
Only at night. Bunch of drunks in thw county.
I don't think so. I think Harper supported the wildrose.Getting the support of both Ambrose and Harper won't help him much probably.He has to be able to persuade Alberta PC delegates on his own that he can lead the party to victory in the next election and that he's not just trying to become the leader of the party for power in the future and to get rid of the PC's.He also needs to persuade them that he has nothing to hide in terms of social issues.
Silent Chief
Member
Part of the problem is that the defense also contributes to the delays.
There is a case here of a drunk driver who has been able to delay his court date for several years because his lawyer is on sick leave. The family of the man he killed is, understandably, quite upset about the whole thing. Imagine having to go do court every month just to see the case remanded.
Silent Chief
Member
Unproductive, yes, underfunded, no.
Too many people paid an hourly rate to stare at the floor.
It's the product of a system with no incentive for hard work, where the principal actors see themselves as movie stars. Who manages a courthouse? Is it a surprise if efficiency is poor if no one collects actual performance data and do anything about it? Any business ran like a courthouse would go bankrupt in the year.
Officially the federal conservatives were neutral on the PC/Wildrose split, so Harper wouldn't have made any public statements of support.
I'm sure he was at least somewhat behind Prentice's getting the mass exodus of Wildrose MLAs to happen, though. I suspect he's always been in favour of uniting the right in Alberta (under the Wildrose or federal conservative leadership, anyways).
In cases where the defence was contributing, that would be the sort of thing that would be used to overcome the onus against the Crown if it got past the point where the onus switched.
I'm not too familiar with the whole situation, but I've seen some people post about housing markets in this thread before, so some might find this interesting:
Vancouver gets powers to tax empty homes
Vancouver gets powers to tax empty homes
gutter_trash
Banned
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...ce-une-petition-pour-privatiser-postes-canada
Maxime Bernier (Canada's resident libertarian) has launched a petition to privatize Canada Post.
LOL
IMO, I love Canada Post. I support our mail delivery workers 100%.
Canada Post is 10000000 times superior than FedEx or UPS
Maxime Bernier (Canada's resident libertarian) has launched a petition to privatize Canada Post.
LOL
IMO, I love Canada Post. I support our mail delivery workers 100%.
Canada Post is 10000000 times superior than FedEx or UPS
killer rin
Member
Haha, yeah no. Canada Post is at the top of my list when it come to reliable mail couriers. UPS come in as a moderate second with everything else out in a distant third
I really wish the government would stop trying to sell off assets like that. All it results in is short term gain for long term pain.
For example Ontario wanting to privatize hydro. We've already got the highest rates in the country. If it's privatized that would only make it even more expensive.
Canada post works great. Like we need more expensive mail!
For example Ontario wanting to privatize hydro. We've already got the highest rates in the country. If it's privatized that would only make it even more expensive.
Canada post works great. Like we need more expensive mail!
Thanks for the laugh. If you said any of this inside an actual courthouse, you'd be laughed out as well. I'd recommend getting some real life experience, rather than just rely on what you see in the movies.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked