[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

Or alternatively, insanity - denying that the system works. 

[viper37]

Heh this is a dance that both parties do, and have done, repeatedly over the years! Each party gradually grows visibly corrupt in power, and the other promises to clean house, and does ... for a while. Then grows visibly corrupt in turn. Rince and repeat, with the other party.

In Canadian federal politics, this seems as inevitable as the tides, with nary a King Canute in sight. 

Perspective helps.   It's not like Canada is notorious internationally for its massive governmental corruption.  I suspect there are wards in Chicago with more corruption than the entire nation of Canada.

Corruption in Canada is incredibly small-scale, indeed. The issue isn't the actual passage of brown paper packets filled with rolls of bills - but the visible (albeit small-scale) flouting of the electorate. It's an indication that the government is settled into the bad old ways of its predecessors, often in exactly the ways it compained of in opposition.

A perfect example of both the visibility and the tiny scale of this process is the Senate expense-scandal. The Canadian senate basically exists to provide patronage positions for political hacks being put out to pasture. The Cons critiqued this mercilessly when they were in opposition, and the Libs packed the Senate. They promised to reform it. A decade in power, and not only did the Cons fail to reform it - but the Senators they packed into it created a scandal by cheating on their expense accounts. The Cons tried to hush it up, creating an even bigger scandal. The amounts involved were relatively picayune - Hardly the sort of quantum that ought to rock a federal government - but it was not the amounts that counted, it was the perception that the one-reforming Cons were just the same as the bloated old Libs.

tbh, it wasn't only Conservative Senators, and it wasn't the first time.

The Conservatives tought everyone would jump on board with them to reform the Senate without touching the Constitution but they were dead wrong.  At least, they didn't pack the Senate with their own people just before leaving, unlike some other party.

Had they gone ahead and pushed for Constitutional changes, renewed a serious dialogue with our First Nations, they would still be in power and we would be free of union corruption plaguing our politics.

[Jacob]

I think you have a point economically.  I also agree that there will be an important shift of tone.  But I think there will also be some important changes that go beyond mere symbolism.  There will also be some dramatic changes.  If the Liberals live up to their promises:

a) pot will be legalized, regulated and taxed.  I know you mentioned this but I don't think you gave enough credit to what a substantial change this is.  Instead of a government intent on imposing more tough on crime bills we have a government that will actually reduce crime at its source.

b) The Federal government will now partner with the provinces who wish to treat drug addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue.  Again you mentioned this but the change will be dramatic judging by the entirely salutary effects the injection clinic has had on the downtown east side of Vancouver.  And again this is a significant shift from seeing drugs as a criminal issue to seeing them primarily as a health issue.

c) trying to find a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Don't yet know what they are going to propose but the fact they are actually going to think about it, fund research and cooperate with the provinces is a huge step forward.

d) Connected with c) is the significant change to how science will once again be done in this country.  Science departments at universities across the country must have been popping the champagne corks last night as the funding model will likely be returned to a model where primary research is once again valued and funding will not just be restricted to market ready applications. Also, we will once again be able to hear directly from government scientists without them first having their statements vetted by the PMO.

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

f) last, but certainly not least, there will be an attempt to repair a much damaged relationship with the aboriginal community. That will have significant results in terms of providing greater certainty for everyone as to how resources and other business opportunities can be developed.

I am sure there is more but those are the significant changes I can think of atm.

Yeah, the restoring funding and removing political control of federal science is pretty important. I think the CBC has more of a fighting chance as well now, which is pretty significant. Bringing back the long form census is a positive.

Re: the aboriginal community, apparently there are 10 indigenous MPs in this parliament, the highest number on record.

In other news - on style - here's a video of Trudeau going to a metro station in his riding to thank his constituents: http://globalnews.ca/news/2288380/trudeau-shakes-hands-with-montrealers-at-subway-station-hours-after-winning-election/

[Grey Fox]

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

All this crazy BS could have been avoided if the media would have more accuretely reported how a Swearing in cereomony is actually conducted.

While it is not authorized to swear allegiance to the Queen wearing a Niqab. They still get identified, in a seperate room, by removing their Niqab with a government worker doing the identification.

[crazy canuck]

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

All this crazy BS could have been avoided if the media would have more accuretely reported how a Swearing in cereomony is actually conducted.

While it is not authorized to swear allegiance to the Queen wearing a Niqab. They still get identified, in a seperate room, by removing their Niqab with a government worker doing the identification.

The media here made that very clear.  Which is probably one of the reasons the electorate turned on the Conservatives.  This had nothing to do with ensuring the identity of the person taking the oath.  But we have been over that, so I will let it rest. 

[Barrister]

I think you have a point economically.  I also agree that there will be an important shift of tone.  But I think there will also be some important changes that go beyond mere symbolism.  There will also be some dramatic changes.  If the Liberals live up to their promises:

a) pot will be legalized, regulated and taxed.  I know you mentioned this but I don't think you gave enough credit to what a substantial change this is.  Instead of a government intent on imposing more tough on crime bills we have a government that will actually reduce crime at its source.

b) The Federal government will now partner with the provinces who wish to treat drug addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue.  Again you mentioned this but the change will be dramatic judging by the entirely salutary effects the injection clinic has had on the downtown east side of Vancouver.  And again this is a significant shift from seeing drugs as a criminal issue to seeing them primarily as a health issue.

c) trying to find a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Don't yet know what they are going to propose but the fact they are actually going to think about it, fund research and cooperate with the provinces is a huge step forward.

d) Connected with c) is the significant change to how science will once again be done in this country.  Science departments at universities across the country must have been popping the champagne corks last night as the funding model will likely be returned to a model where primary research is once again valued and funding will not just be restricted to market ready applications. Also, we will once again be able to hear directly from government scientists without them first having their statements vetted by the PMO.

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

f) last, but certainly not least, there will be an attempt to repair a much damaged relationship with the aboriginal community. That will have significant results in terms of providing greater certainty for everyone as to how resources and other business opportunities can be developed.

I am sure there is more but those are the significant changes I can think of atm.

A) There devil is in the details on legalizing marijuana.  How is production to be monitored or regulated?  What steps are taken to prevent children from getting it?  What steps will be taken to prevent people from toking and driving?  Hopefully they'll come up with something careful and considered, but I'm also a bit worried they just delete Schedule VII from the CDSA and call it a day.

C) We're presumably going to see a return to Chretien-era climate change strategy - which is to talk a good game, but not actually do anything.  He basically wants to leave climate change up to the provinces, which I imagine is a strategy mostly designed to pass the buck more than anything else.

E) We'll see.  The SCC has been far more active in getting involved in striking down legislation.  We'll see if it was just Conservative legislation they didn't like, or if this is a trend that will continue.

F) That's an issue that will never die.  When you come down to it the "damaged relationship with native communities" all revolve around native leadership demands for more federal dollars.  Unless Trudeau opens his the money floodgates, nothing will change here.

[Jacob]

The media here made that very clear.  Which is probably one of the reasons the electorate turned on the Conservatives.  This had nothing to do with ensuring the identity of the person taking the oath.  But we have been over that, so I will let it rest. 

Yeah, it was pretty clear the issue was about the niqab as a symbol, whether you thought it was a symbol of rejecting laïcité, a symbol of the thin wedge of Muslim fundamentalism undermining our society from within, or a symbol of multiculturalism and an open society.

[Jacob]

F) That's an issue that will never die.  When you come down to it the "damaged relationship with native communities" all revolve around native leadership demands for more federal dollars.  Unless Trudeau opens his the money floodgates, nothing will change here.

I think we've seen fundamental changes in the relationship with native communities here in BC these last few decades, and that has not primarily been about showering money on native leadership as I understand it.

An inquiry into the missing native women and some policing and policy changes to lower the death toll would not, for example, be primarily about showering money on native leadership I don't expect.

[Valmy]

I have to admit I have a hard time imagining the Niqab catching on and undermining society having seen it out in society. It is about as cool as a fanny pack or pleated pants. No young woman growing up in the west is going to be all excited to wear that dorky thing.

The hijab or a simple headscarf you can do some cool things with. It is impossible to look cool in a Niqab. And Islam does not require wearing it.

[crazy canuck]

A) There devil is in the details on legalizing marijuana.  How is production to be monitored or regulated?  What steps are taken to prevent children from getting it?  What steps will be taken to prevent people from toking and driving?  Hopefully they'll come up with something careful and considered, but I'm also a bit worried they just delete Schedule VII from the CDSA and call it a day.

Sure, but you are kidding yourself if you think that kids are not getting access now.  Also, we already have impaired driving laws dealing with toking and driving.  We have argued this point a number of times.  This is just like alcohol except that all the evidence is alcohol is worse.

C) We're presumably going to see a return to Chretien-era climate change strategy - which is to talk a good game, but not actually do anything.  He basically wants to leave climate change up to the provinces, which I imagine is a strategy mostly designed to pass the buck more than anything else.

I doubt it.  In the Chretien era the science was not yet conclusive.  Now only a moron would deny the effects we are having on the environment and not acknowledge the need to take action.  If you are correct then that would open a big opportunity for the NDP.  For their own political survival the Liberals will have to do something meaningful.

E) We'll see.  The SCC has been far more active in getting involved in striking down legislation.  We'll see if it was just Conservative legislation they didn't like, or if this is a trend that will continue.

No coincidence that the government had been ignoring its own legal advice about most of it 

F) That's an issue that will never die.  When you come down to it the "damaged relationship with native communities" all revolve around native leadership demands for more federal dollars.  Unless Trudeau opens his the money floodgates, nothing will change here.

That is essentially the problem with the Conservative view.  They only viewed it as a question of money.  There is so much more to it than that.

[Valmy]

I am just impressed you guys are aware of the 'First Nations'.

The situation in the Reservations in the US is pretty obscure. I really have no idea what is going on there.

[Grey Fox]

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

All this crazy BS could have been avoided if the media would have more accuretely reported how a Swearing in cereomony is actually conducted.

While it is not authorized to swear allegiance to the Queen wearing a Niqab. They still get identified, in a seperate room, by removing their Niqab with a government worker doing the identification.

The media here made that very clear.  Which is probably one of the reasons the electorate turned on the Conservatives.  This had nothing to do with ensuring the identity of the person taking the oath.  But we have been over that, so I will let it rest. 

I did not see or hear 1 mention of this in any media I consulted. That's a big failure on the part of the NDP.

[Grey Fox]

I am just impressed you guys are aware of the 'First Nations'.

The situation in the Reservations in the US is pretty obscure. I really have no idea what is going on there.

Crime, mostly.

[Josephus]

AKA Democracy. Show me a place this doesn't happen. A party runs for one or two terms. People vote for change. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Soon, in the USA, the Democrats will lose and the Republicans will run the country.

Soon Labour will win in the UK.

one day even Netanyahu's party will lose in Israel.

[Josephus]

A) There devil is in the details on legalizing marijuana.  How is production to be monitored or regulated?  What steps are taken to prevent children from getting it?  What steps will be taken to prevent people from toking and driving?  Hopefully they'll come up with something careful and considered, but I'm also a bit worried they just delete Schedule VII from the CDSA and call it a day.

For the record I'm not really in favour of this....but re: the details you ask for,  they're already in the law when it comes to liquor, don't see why this would be different.