[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

Can someone explain to me why Peter Mackay is a cabinet minister?

He was leader of the PC Party when he agreed to merge with the Alliance (despite promising in writing during his own leadershop campaign not to do so).  Harper owes him a huge debt.

Maybe but after so many screw ups one would think that debt is well past paid.

Bench is also pretty weak for Atlantic Canada.  Not a lot of strong contenders for a high profile ministry from that region.

[crazy canuck]

Can someone explain to me why Peter Mackay is a cabinet minister?

He was leader of the PC Party when he agreed to merge with the Alliance (despite promising in writing during his own leadershop campaign not to do so).  Harper owes him a huge debt.

Maybe but after so many screw ups one would think that debt is well past paid.

Bench is also pretty weak for Atlantic Canada.  Not a lot of strong contenders for a high profile ministry from that region.

The Atlantic provinces are over represented with Ministers of the Crown as it is.  They could lose one.

[Barrister]

Can someone explain to me why Peter Mackay is a cabinet minister?

He was leader of the PC Party when he agreed to merge with the Alliance (despite promising in writing during his own leadershop campaign not to do so).  Harper owes him a huge debt.

Maybe but after so many screw ups one would think that debt is well past paid.

Bench is also pretty weak for Atlantic Canada.  Not a lot of strong contenders for a high profile ministry from that region.

The Atlantic provinces are over represented with Ministers of the Crown as it is.  They could lose one.

How do you figure?

There's Bernard Valcourt (who is also valuable as a francophone) and Peter MacKay, but beyond that?

Rob Moore - Minister for ACOA
Gail Shea - Fisheries and Oceans

And that's it - in a 40 person cabinet.

[crazy canuck]

If what you are saying is that under a conservative government I will always be stuck with Mackay is a significant Minister then that is definitely something I will keep in mind when I vote in the next election.

[crazy canuck]

A signficant decision from the SCC today regarding First Nations land claims.  At the trial level the Court found the First Nation Claimant had established title to a large area of Crown Land which included a areas where they had traditionally hunted and fished.  This was a departure from previous rulings in which aboriginal title could only be claimed over areas of intensive habitation (ie not as wide as including hunting and fishing and the Court of Appeal overturned the decision on that basis.  Today the SCC allowed the appeal from the Court of Appeal decision and essentially reinstated the Trial level decision. 

There is a lot of talk in the media of how signficant the decision is.  It is signficant.  It is the first decision of the SCC which actually recognizes a First Nation has been able to establish title.  But it is also signficant in that the test established by the Court (following on the test proposed by the Trial Court Judge) will be difficult for many First Nations to establish because it requires not just evidence of use but evidence of exclusive use by the group claiming title.  To meet the test of exclusive use there has to be evidence that outside groups were successfully denied access to to that land.  This distinction is important because in BC almost all land claims overlap with other claims.  There is very little of the province which is claimed exclusively.

Another very signficant aspect of this decision is that, at least for the area being claimed, all uncertainty has been removed.  The First Nation was able to prove title to about half of what they were claiming.  The other half is no undisputably Crown Land and the Crown go do with it as it wishes.  The 50% to which title has been established is now undisputably in the control of the First Nation subject to a number of restrictions that all holders of title have under laws of general application.  From this point of view I tend agree with the position taken by the First Nations.  What we really need is certainty over title claims and the sooner we have claims resolved (either through treaty negotiations or litigation) the better.  This decision has clarified the legal test for establishing title and so the process should move more quickly now.

[crazy canuck]

In committee hearings regarding the new prostitution legislation the Minister is reported to have stated what his lawyers told him and that he has relied on that advice to draft the legislation in its current form.

Mr. MacKay said Monday, however, the government was confident the bill was constitutional, but that it did not seek an outside legal opinion on the matter, as it has in other high-profile cases.

Instead, he said government relied on its own lawyers, which said the bill goes beyond the Bedford requirements and will pass muster.

Bad grammar aside, I think it unlikely his lawyers gave him the advice as clearly as that.  It is hard to imagine any government lawyer telling the Minister there were no uncertainties about a potential constitutional challenge.  If this is an accurate quote of what the Minister said and if I were an enterprising editor of a newspaper, I would propably be considering obtaining the legal opinion on which the Minister said he relied on the grounds that priviledge has been waived.

I wonder, Josephus, who might be in that position?

If there are valid grounds to resist discosure under freedom of information legislation those restrictions will not apply when litigation commences and I think it likely that the parties in the inevitable constitutional challenge will obtain disclosure of the legal opinion on the basis that priviledge has been waived and it will likely find its way to the public in those proceedings.

File this under Mackay puts another foot in mouth.

[Barrister]

No chance you get a copy of an internal legal opinion under freedom of information.

[crazy canuck]

No chance you get a copy of an internal legal opinion under freedom of information.

Then through the litigation process it will be.

[crazy canuck]

We need more Canadians on this forum.

Here is an argument in a Globe opinion piece for scraping the procurement of the new fighters completely.

New Canadian fighters would almost certainly never be involved in serious strike or aerial combat operations and are not required to protect Canada's populace or sovereignty. They would only be of symbolic assistance (such as Canada currently is doing in Eastern Europe via NATO) and could provide support of ground forces in low-combat hostilities, which could be had more effectively and at lower cost by other types of aircraft.

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat "9/11" attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

Natural disasters at home or abroad would not require fighters, but could require helicopters, transport aircraft and other forms of military assistance.

Canada could be involved in providing humanitarian relief, peace-keeping or to help maintain order and protection of people and property - a type of operation would not likely involve aerial combat, but could require aerial support to ground operations. This type of operation could be provided more effectively and at lower cost than by using fighters.

The more-demanding roles for fighter aircraft – aerial combat and striking – would occur during an intense war involving major powers, which have F-35 or comparable ("Gen 5") aircraft and also have the economic ability to fully engage in heightened warfare. The only credible foreseeable future situation where that could pertain would be a highly improbable war between the United States and China. Russia is – and will be for decades – a weak economic and military power trying to play a significant role in world affairs, moving gradually closer to the western industrialized nations and not exhibiting a perceptible effort to build up offensive military capabilities. For the foreseeable future, despite current tensions re Ukraine, Russia will not aggressively challenge the United States or its allies, in which case Canada does not need fighters for defence of Western Europe.

In the most unlikely event of war between U.S. and China, it is difficult if not impossible to concoct a credible scenario which would merit Canada providing Gen 5 aircraft.

Fighters simply cannot contribute anything substantial toward the achievement of the six Canadian defence objectives. The best course for the Harper government would be to defer any further decisions on military equipment procurement pending a thorough rethink about Canada's defence posture.

A rethink should start with a study, analysis and assessment of the foreseeable state and trends of the world and the action of the major nations. It would then be possible, with the perspective such a study should provide, to specify the roles that the Canadian Forces may be called upon to discharge, and therefore indicate the size, organization and equipment that the Forces – land, sea and air – should have for the 21st century. The result would be a report more substantial and specific than the weak and specious out-of-date Canada First Defence Strategy.

[Grey Fox]

Truth!

Altho, fuck the Choppers & transports.

We need a deep sea port in the artic & nuclear powered Ice Breakers.

[garbon]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat "9/11" attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

[The Brain]

Are Canadians a bit dense?

[Valmy]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat “9/11” attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

Yeah

Though maybe he is just saying they do not need gen 5 fighters for that.

[garbon]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat “9/11” attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

Yeah

Though maybe he is just saying they do not need gen 5 fighters for that.

Yeah I assumed the later was the case.

[crazy canuck]

The only credible aerial threat to Canadian territory, sovereignty and populace is a copy-cat "9/11" attack – a danger that essentially cannot be defeated by fighter aircraft.

If you read the rest of the piece he does not consider Russia to be a credible threat for decades to come.  If that ever occurs then Canada would respond.  But his point is why respond to a threat like Russia with newgen fighters when the current infrastructure is more than up to the job.