[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

There is one major diff though between 2010and 2020.

With Harper, his government was about to fall in a non-confidence vote. With Trudeau, a non-confidence vote, which is unlikely to pass, is the first thing on the agenda upon the House's return.

Agreed.  Harper did it because he correctly calculated that the would be coalition would fall apart if he gave it enough time.  He also knew nobody wanted another election.  This time there is no thought of a coalition and the Conservatives will want an election - the only question is whether the other opposition parties also want one.

Just so I'm clear - in 2008-2009 was Harper right to prorogue Parliament?  According to you.

And is Trudeau right to do it in 2020?

No, I was just agreeing with Josephus that the politics are different in each case.

Please answer the question.

[Grey Fox]

Can you define "right"?

[Barrister]

Can you define "right"?

Was Harper's proroguing Parliament in 2008-2009 acceptable, legitimate, etc.

[Josephus]

Not sure why you say four years? If the NDP doesn't support a no-confidence vote now, there's no reason they won't a year or two from now; especially when, like I said, the Liberals will be forced to raise taxes to attempt to pay off the deficit.

They won't raise taxes before an election, while in a minority government.  They'll rack up deficits and leave the mess for the next government, or next session after they won.
In any case, the NDP would not have any objection to a budget that would significantly raise taxes on the middle class, it's kinda their raison d'être.

No. The NDP's rasion d'etre is to complain. So if Trudeau raises income taxes, which I beleive he will, or an extra point on the GST, the NDP would say "He's hurting poor people, these taxes unfairly effect poorz. We need to tax corporations and rich people more."

[Grey Fox]

Can you define "right"?

Was Harper's proroguing Parliament in 2008-2009 acceptable, legitimate, etc.

Thank you.

[crazy canuck]

Can you define "right"?

Was Harper's proroguing Parliament in 2008-2009 acceptable, legitimate, etc.

I answered your question by saying no.  Not sure what more you are looking for.

But now that I see your definition of "right" I will give a more qualified answer.  Neither decision was right in the terms of avoiding Parliament bringing down the government through the use of Parliamentary tactics.  One would hope both decisions would be punished politically.

If you define right as legitimate, then they are both constitutionally legitimate.  But there is a lot that can be done that is constitutional that is not "right".

Blurring that distinction is part of what Oex's concern is, that this kind of maneuver will be common place by the executive to further erode the authority of Parliament.  Constitutional? yes. Appropriate? no, not unless you want to move to a Presidential model without the American checks and balances.

[crazy canuck]

Not sure why you say four years? If the NDP doesn't support a no-confidence vote now, there's no reason they won't a year or two from now; especially when, like I said, the Liberals will be forced to raise taxes to attempt to pay off the deficit.

They won't raise taxes before an election, while in a minority government.  They'll rack up deficits and leave the mess for the next government, or next session after they won.
In any case, the NDP would not have any objection to a budget that would significantly raise taxes on the middle class, it's kinda their raison d'être.

No. The NDP's rasion d'etre is to complain. So if Trudeau raises income taxes, which I beleive he will, or an extra point on the GST, the NDP would say "He's hurting poor people, these taxes unfairly effect poorz. We need to tax corporations and rich people more."

I disagree, the NDP's role is to develop policies the Liberals can steal, make the cornerstone of Canadian society and claim all the credit, while the NDP are unable to stop squabbling over inconsequential issues long enough to mount a serious challenge*

* with notable exception of the all too brief Layton leadership.

[viper37]

Not sure why you say four years? If the NDP doesn't support a no-confidence vote now, there's no reason they won't a year or two from now; especially when, like I said, the Liberals will be forced to raise taxes to attempt to pay off the deficit.

They won't raise taxes before an election, while in a minority government.  They'll rack up deficits and leave the mess for the next government, or next session after they won.
In any case, the NDP would not have any objection to a budget that would significantly raise taxes on the middle class, it's kinda their raison d'être.

No. The NDP's rasion d'etre is to complain. So if Trudeau raises income taxes, which I beleive he will, or an extra point on the GST, the NDP would say "He's hurting poor people, these taxes unfairly effect poorz. We need to tax corporations and rich people more."

well, ok, they'll certainly do that while in the opposition.

[viper37]

But now that I see your definition of "right" I will give a more qualified answer.  Neither decision was right in the terms of avoiding Parliament bringing down the government through the use of Parliamentary tactics.  One would hope both decisions would be punished politically.

If you define right as legitimate, then they are both constitutionally legitimate.  But there is a lot that can be done that is constitutional that is not "right".

There's a huge difference.  Trudeau wasn't directly threatened by a vote of no confidence, he was threatened by an inquiry into his personal lack of ethics.  Now that Morneau is out, he's managed to shift the blame on him.  Just like he tried (unsucessfully) with Wilson RayBould with the SNC affair.

Blurring that distinction is part of what Oex's concern is, that this kind of maneuver will be common place by the executive to further erode the authority of Parliament.  Constitutional? yes. Appropriate? no, not unless you want to move to a Presidential model without the American checks and balances.

When you start rewarding reckless spending, illegal financing and total lack of ethics, you can't seriously complain about further eroding the authority of Parliament.

But anyway, as I have been told many times here, there's no "appetite" for Constitutional changes in Canada, so we're not gonna fix anything for a while after our deaths.

[HVC]

We've won another battle in the softwood wars

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-producers-cheer-u-s-denounces-wto-decision-on-softwood-lumber/ar-BB18k3kM?ocid=spartan-dhp-feeds

WASHINGTON — Canadian lumber producers cheered the latest decision Monday from the World Trade Organization on Canada's long-standing dispute with its largest trading partner over exports of softwood lumber — a finding the United States quickly denounced as unfair, biased and flawed.

The WTO dispute-resolution panel declared that the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission were wrong in 2017 when they imposed countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, having concluded that Canada's regulated forestry industry amounts to an unfair subsidy for Canadian producers.

In particular, the panel agreed with Canada's argument that Commerce made a number of errors in determining the benchmark Canadian timber prices it used to determine whether producers north of the border were paying adequate stumpage fees to the provinces.

"For more than three years, our industry has paid billions of dollars in countervailing duties that (Monday's) decision confirmed should never have been paid in the first place," B.C. Lumber Trade Council president Susan Yurkovich said in a statement.

"This report is a scathing indictment of the U.S. Department of Commerce's subsidy findings and the biased process it followed in reaching them."
U.S. trade ambassador Robert Lighthizer, long a vocal critic of the WTO's dispute resolution system, had a different perspective.

"This flawed report confirms what the United States has been saying for years: the WTO dispute settlement system is being used to shield non-market practices and harm U.S. interests," Lighthizer said in a statement of his own.

"The panel's findings would prevent the United States from taking legitimate action in response to Canada's pervasive subsidies for its softwood lumber industry."
The 2017 flashpoint over countervailing duties was just the latest flare-up in a cross-border trade dispute that has raged between the two countries for nearly 40 years.
U.S. producers have long argued that Canada's system of provincially regulating stumpage fees, which are paid to the Crown in exchange for the right to harvest timber, unfairly subsidizes an industry that is privately owned and operated in the U.S., with pricing set by the competitive marketplace. As a result, the U.S. argues, imports of Canadian lumber should be subject to countervailing duties.

The WTO report, which comes less than two months after the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement formally replaced the NAFTA trade deal, also follows the U.S. decision to restore 10 per cent national-security tariffs on exports of Canadian aluminum. The U.S. has accused Canada of violating the terms of the agreement that saw steel and aluminum tariffs lifted in 2018.

Similarly to the aluminum sector, Canadian exports fill a critical role in the U.S., where demand for lumber significantly outstrips domestically available supply.
"For three decades, we have been saying that the U.S. trade remedy process is flawed. Unfortunately, this is just the latest chapter in the ongoing attack on the Canadian lumber industry," Yurkovich said.

"Each of the prior two lumber disputes ended with neutral, international tribunals issuing rulings that forced Commerce to rescind their flawed and unsupported subsidy findings for similar reasons. (Monday's) decision is an important step towards, what we expect, will be the same result."

[Barrister]

I don't visit for a day, and nobody mentions that Erin O'Toole wins the Conservative leadership?

[Monoriu]

I don't visit for a day, and nobody mentions that Erin O'Toole wins the Conservative leadership?

I'll start caring once he becomes prime minister 

[HVC]

Another tool as conservative leader? Quelle surprise

[viper37]

I don't visit for a day, and nobody mentions that Erin O'Toole wins the Conservative leadership?

I was busy. 
Great victory, I did not expect that.  I doubt he's the one to lead the Conservatives to victory, sadly, but we will see about that later.

[Grey Fox]

In their current state, a conservative victory would be a disaster.