[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[garbon]

A lot of text written to basically say I will continue to avoid the question raised by GF, viper and you.

[Barrister]

I listened to a fascinating podcast series on Lindsey Graham of all people.  It covered how in 2015-2016 he said some very searing things about Donald Trump, to then later on be Trump's BFF, and tried to cover how he justified the switch.

His answer was basically "the voters have spoken".  Graham may not have liked the "grab 'em by the pussy" comment, but apparently the voters didn't care so why should he.

So on one hand that is true.  Wab Kinew is set to be the next Premier of Manitoba.  I'm certainly not disputing that.

But on the other hand I disagree with the Lindsey Graham position.  Election results are not some holy water that washes away all past sins.  Ted Kennedy was re-elected numerous times, but he never lived down Chappaquiddick.  Some of the facts of the Watergate breakin were already known by the 1972 election day, yet it was still Watergate that brought down Nixon in the end.  It's still fine to bring up how Biden plagiarized a major speech in 1988 from Labour leader Neil Kinnock, even though decades later he went on to be elected President.

And I can go on and on.  Trudeau was re-elected, but how he treated Judy Raybold-Wilson was disgraceful.  Whole books can be written about Boris Johnson's various gaffes, yet he was elected PM.  GW Bush will never live down the Iraq war, but he too was re-elected after having started it.  Here in Alberta Danielle Smith was elected but it's still fair game to bring up all the anti-vax stuff she said on her radio show.

[crazy canuck]

So hey, looks like an NDP majority in Manitoba and a First Nations premier. That's quite something.

Premier-designate Wab Kinew had allegations of domestic violence against him in 2003.  Those charges were ultimately stayed by the Crown.  Victim has gone on record about what happened.  Kinew denied the allegations.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/wab-kinew-domestic-assault-allegations-1.4290885#:~:text=Trevor%20Brine%2FCBC)-,%E2%80%8BThe%20woman%20at%20the%20centre%20of%2014%2Dyear%2Dold,her%20legs%20%E2%80%94%20allegations%20Kinew%20denies.

He was also charged with drunk driving and assaulting a taxi driver.  He pled guilty to the taxi driver incident and I can't fin d what happened to the drunk driving charge.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3756382/it-was-a-dark-period-in-my-life-wab-kinew-addresses-former-assault-drunk-driving-charges/

He hasn't gone into a Trumpish "fake news" defence.  He admits to making mistakes and having issues with alcohol.  But when he has talked about the cab driver incident in his book what he says differs significantly from the facts as read in to the court (which he would have had to agree with).

Yes, that is the attack in Conservatives used during the election and it didn't work out very well for them.

Jacob, it will be interesting to see what he does as premier. I have seen him speak in front of a banquet hall of lawyers, and he had us all both laughing and tearing up throughout his speech.  Which is an example of both his power as an orator and his immense charisma. He is a person who will be able to get things done. The question is, what will he do?

Garbon, you and others may have misse how this stated.

After that lost BB denied he was engaging in an attack.

That is what I took issue with.

[PRC]

I'm sure on I'm on the all ignore lists but I'll mention it anyways...

I agree that of course what Beeb said is an "attack".  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and willfully obtuse.

One of the best counters to that "stating facts" move was during the Biden / Trump debate before the 2020 election.  Trump brought up the factual drug problems of Hunter Biden and Joe responded with full honesty (paraphrasing) "My son has had addiction issues, he has faced them head on, gone to rehab, has done his best to overcome his demons and I love him and I'm proud of him!".  That was a great moment... not that Trump cared or felt ashamed of his attack, though he should have.

I know nothing about Wab Kinew beyond what I've read in this thread.  But, as long as it's truthful, he should do the same and always face them head on.  "I've had issues in the past, I've apologized for them, I've worked on fixing them and I'm a better man for it." 

He would be wearing his moral failings on his sleeve to the shame of conservatives who, in my experience, do their best to bury their own moral failings in the closet along with the rest of their skeletons (Andrew Scheer comes to mind).

[Barrister]

I'm sure on I'm on the all ignore lists but I'll mention it anyways...

I agree that of course what Beeb said is an "attack".  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and willfully obtuse.

One of the best counters to that "stating facts" move was during the Biden / Trump debate before the 2020 election.  Trump brought up the factual drug problems of Hunter Biden and Joe responded with full honesty (paraphrasing) "My son has had addiction issues, he has faced them head on, gone to rehab, has done his best to overcome his demons and I love him and I'm proud of him!".  That was a great moment... not that Trump cared or felt ashamed of his attack, though he should have.

I know nothing about Wab Kinew beyond what I've read in this thread.  But, as long as it's truthful, he should do the same and always face them head on.  "I've had issues in the past, I've apologized for them, I've worked on fixing them and I'm a better man for it." 

He would be wearing his moral failings on his sleeve to the shame of conservatives who, in my experience, do their best to bury their own moral failings in the closet along with the rest of their skeletons (Andrew Scheer comes to mind).

The difference of course is that Hunter Biden wasn't running for President.

Wab Kinew has admitted to making mistakes and having issues with alcohol.  As I said he hasn't tried to just call it "fake news".  But when he has discussed it he's claimed a very different version of events from what his ex partner has said (andshe doesn't appear to have an axe to grind in this).

[viper37]

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the attack ads that conservatives ran against Chrétien.  Factual yes and complete political suicide.

I am old enough to remember it very well.

They attacked his facial paralysis.  Not his moral character.  Not his criminal record.  His facial paralysis.

What you are saying here is akin to saying Stephen Harper should never have raised the issue of the Sponsorship scandal because it was a negative attack against Paul Martin and the other Liberals who were in government at the time.

Attacking Michael Ignatieff because he was a University teacher is factual, but it's an attack ad.  Attacking Trudeau because he was a theater teacher is factual, but it was an attack ad.

Bringing up Trump's moral character during the campaign and after by calling him a "pussy grabber" because of what he said wasn't pathetic, imho, despite the ineffective use of this line of attack during the campaign.  He was elected President despite everyone knowing what he said and what he did.

It looks to me like you are reacting the same way Trump's supporters are reacting when he is attacked on his moral flaws or his dealings with Russia.

[Jacob]

I agree that of course what Beeb said is an "attack".  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and willfully obtuse.

Yes, that was my read of Beeb's conduct on this topic as well, and what I thought CC took issue with.

[Barrister]

I agree that of course what Beeb said is an "attack".  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous and willfully obtuse.

Yes, that was my read of Beeb's conduct on this topic as well, and what I thought CC took issue with.

Yes, and then I went "fine, call it an attack if you will - how about you deal with the substance of it".


Obviously some political attacks are better than others. I think attacks that go after family members (Hunter Biden), or physical characteristics (Chretien's Bell's palsy) are ineffective.  Attacks based on a falsehood (Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya) can sometimes be effective, but ought to be considered as "beyond the pale".

Attacks based on residency are interesting - aka calling someone a carpetbagger.  Ideally that shouldn't matter (someone good at the job is good at the job), but I think it's clearly important to voters.  People want to vote for someone that is "like them".  That's why you get these Ivy League-educated millionaires going down to the state fare and getting photo ops of them eating whatever food is popular (or whatever).

[Barrister]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-richard-wagner-impact-assessment-act-1.6993720

Supreme Court rules environmental impact legislation largely unconstitutional

Majority of top court agreed that act's 'designated projects' scheme exceeds bounds of federal jurisdiction

Joel Dryden · CBC News · Posted: Oct 13, 2023 7:45 AM MDT | Last Updated: 1 minute ago

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner speaks during a news conference.
In a majority opinion, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner wrote that that Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act was largely unconstitutional. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)

1297
 comments
Canada's top court has delivered a highly anticipated judgment, writing in a majority opinion that Ottawa's Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is largely unconstitutional.

The IAA, previously known as Bill C-69, allows federal regulators to consider the potential environmental and social impacts of various resource and infrastructure projects. It was enacted in 2019.

The IAA has long been controversial among conservative politicians in Alberta, including former premier Jason Kenney, who frequently referred to it as the "no more pipelines act."

Writing for the majority in a 5-2 decision, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Richard Wagner said the process set forth in Sections 81 to 91 of the IAA were constitutional and could be separated out.

Those sections involve projects carried out or financed by federal authorities on federal lands, or outside Canada, and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. Those provisions were not challenged as unconstitutional.

However, Wagner wrote that the balance of the scheme, involving "designated projects," was unconstitutional.

Under the IAA, designated projects are those projects that are set out in the regulations or are subject to a ministerial order.

"In my view, Parliament has plainly overstepped its constitutional competence in enacting this designated projects scheme," Wagner wrote.

More in the article itself.

Wow.  Alberta has filed a lot of Constitutional challenges recently, and I feel like our track record hasn't been very good.  But this is a pretty thorough 5-2 win.

Lets see how all the politicians respond today.

[Grey Fox]

A rare moment when Alberta was actually right.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, it was weird that the Feds thought they could regulate projects which occurred solely within the boundaries of one province and did not involve any federal land. 

For those outside Canada, there is very little federal crown land and particularly in the West.  Crown land is typically controlled by the province.

[crazy canuck]

It will be interesting to see if the NDP are bluffing or they really will withdraw their support if a national pharmacare system is not put in place.  I don't see how the Liberals can make that expenditure now in the way the NDP wants.

Could have a Spring election if the NDP are not bluffing.

[Jacob]

Hmmm... would there be an advantage to the NDP to have an election right now? Does Singh think the NDP is going to be a greater beneficiary of any Trudeau-fatigue than the Conservatives?

Alternately, does he think he can get sufficient concessions from the Liberals that he can credibly call off the threat?

[Barrister]

Hmmm... would there be an advantage to the NDP to have an election right now? Does Singh think the NDP is going to be a greater beneficiary of any Trudeau-fatigue than the Conservatives?

Alternately, does he think he can get sufficient concessions from the Liberals that he can credibly call off the threat?

So remember right now the NDP just had their national convention, and party members spoke up hard in favour of demanding pharmacare.

Pharmacare was the key demand of the NDP is agreeing to support the Liberals - and of course nothing has happened on that front.  Fiscally speaking the timing would be pretty terrible - pharmacare is estimated (by the CBC!) to cost $11 billion in the first year in a year when the deficit is going to hit $43 billion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pharmacare-pbo-report-1.6993741

The NDP though has the problem any junior coalition partner has - if you like the current government why would you vote for the NDP over the Liberals?  If you dislike the current government why would you vote for the NDP over the Conservatives?  And yes I know they aren't in a formal coalition, but the "confidence-and-supply" deal has the same appearance.

Right now the NDP is projected to get basically the same result as in 2021 - 17-18%.  So no, electorally there's little advantage to them to forcing an election.  Federally though the NDP tends to be more ideological, and less pragmatic - they'd rather be right and lose than compromise their principles and win.  (this stands in contrast to several of their provincial wings).

Plus you never know how an election will turn out.  Conservatives are riding high, but Poilievre hasn't been tested on the national scene.  If the NDP forces an election on an issue of their choosing (pharmacare) that could differentiate them from the Liberals and generate positive momentum.  I mean it wasn't that long ago that the NDP was the official opposition (mind you that was on the strength of Jack Layton and an orange wave in Quebec, neither of which are likely to re-emerge).


Incidentally - I realized I have finally learned how to spell Poilievre, and don't have to look it up each time.

[Josephus]

Incidentally - I realized I have finally learned how to spell Poilievre, and don't have to look it up each time.

Congratulations. LOL...I always have to look it up.