Author Topic: Prime Minister questioned about expenses  (Read 14028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 37,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 481
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #150 on: January 08, 2019, 15:16:50 »
I'm not sure whether 'running the executive' is what you can call what he's doing. Most would agree, he's the worst PM to ever come along...

The current PM's interest in Canada, is what he can take out of us before he's done and disappears.

That is not the 'experience' I want to vote back in.

I've cut your post up a bit in my quotes because at the heart of it are three points I can't seem to agree with, despite trying. I'm not a particular fan of the Liberal Government (this one or the one previous - which are the only two I can really comment on having lived through them as an adult).

My first point is you are implying that the PM is not "running the executive", however that's a bit of a stretch. The country is still functioning, we're all still here and it's hyperbolic to assume that because you don't like his policies, that he's actually failing at running the country. Parliament still meets, the Supreme Court still rules on matters, and the day to day running of the Executive still occurs. Just because you don't like how it's occurring is moot. The point you made is that somehow the Executive is non functional, a point I would disagree with.

Second is your point that "most" would agree he's the worst to ever come along. I've yet to see a poll, analysis, article, scholarly representation or anything beyond a meme published by a right wing Facebook group to suggest that. In fact, I'd say outside of some of the more extreme echo chambers out there, mostpeople don't have a strong opinion one way or another about the PM or where he ranks. He may be the worst PM for you given how much your politics diverge, but it's inaccurate to assume because he is the worst for you he is the worst for everyone. I've met a lot of people (some even in the CAF) that really admire the PM, and I've met some that really despise him, but I can't say that one outweighs the other. Which brings me to my last point:

Maybe I'm naïve, or I've drank too much Left Coast water, but I truly do believe most politicians at all levels enter politics because they genuinely believe in their cause. I believe this of Scheer, Singh and Trudeau. I disagree with most but not all of the direction Trudeau has taken this country, but I can't agree with you it's out of some partisan self interest to enrich himself and disappear. Maybe I'm a bit of a globalist myself - but I've yet to see immigration as a threat to our way of life (legal or otherwise), the sky hasn't been falling in my world, and mostly it's been business as usual. Nearly every time my less moderate friends on both sides of the spectrum post a meme, I cringe at the inaccuracies, hyperbole and sometimes outright falsehoods portrayed therein.

I admire politicians because of their ability to handle an extremely intense scrutiny of their lives, background, past and what seems like every goddamn choice they make whether it matters to the public interest or not. I could certainly never handle that scrutiny. I barely tolerate the scrutiny I work under now.

So to sum up, I'm respectfully disagreeing with your post.

+1,300
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5185.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 267,537
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,310
    • Army.ca
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #151 on: January 08, 2019, 16:55:24 »
And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. Fully or partially. Recent polls suggest his polling is in the dumper. If he has done.anything right.
I seriously want to hear an arguement that he is doing good for the country. Shutting down oil progress, carbon taxes that will have nothing to do with climate  change. Uncontrolled illegal immigtration. Uncontrolled spending. Stealing private banking info. His trade deals are amatuerish and harmful. He embarrasses us on the world stage. Alienated the western provinces. Bailing out Bombardier again. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 913,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,059
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #152 on: January 08, 2019, 17:10:52 »
He's not doing a good job across the country according to his approval rating, which has dropped 20% in 6 months. That puts him as the 5th worst approval rating in Canadian PM history (right behind his father who was mid-mandate). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada_by_approval_rating

Also looking at that list, the only folks to poll that low within a year of an election and win were Pearson and Chretien. Others set their marks mid-mandate (Harper, Trudeau Sr) or lost (Martin, Campbell, Diefenbaker, Clark, Mulroney).

If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better. Even the Ottawa press gallery is turning on him.


Online JesseWZ

  • Directing Staff
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 37,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 481
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #153 on: January 08, 2019, 18:31:43 »
And thats fine. I dont expect everyone to agree. His advisor Butts ruined Ontario, and hes operating the same policies at the federal level on behalf of the PM.
Do you think hes operating for Canadians? Or the globalist, open border folks.
Now, I realize there are people here in various government positions requiring loyalty to the.government. Some may like to cozy up, hoping for future employment and a pox on positions right or wrong. Some have the balls to speak out, some don't. I'll listen but might not agree. Some I'd be willing to respond to. I dont respond to those on my ignore list.
Someone please show me where hes helping Canada and Canadians.

I'm just going to respond to a couple of your points. The one I highlighted in yellow assumes that no Canadian is a "globalist open border folk" when in all likelihood a substantial portion of the PM's current support comes from people at varying degrees of that spectrum. Are they no longer Canadian because they don't share your values? It's a very black and white view of what I see as a pretty grey reality.

I'm not sure if your point I've highlighted in red is aimed at me or not. I'm going to assume it's not but it still assumes a zero sum game regarding other peoples political views. The way it reads is either someone is masking their true (right wing) view point in order to get some type of patronage appointment or simply keep their job - or they have the balls as it were to speak against the government. There are a multitude of scenarios where neither of those conditions exist - and I would argue 95% of all people, and certainly 95% of people on this forum fall outside of the two arcs you just identified. There are plenty of folks as I mentioned before who voted for the sitting government and likely will do so again. I'm in neither of those camps. I'd like to think I'm politically pragmatic (and tell others that at parties to impress them) but the reality is I just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation and I really love to argue...

Puckchaser noted his recent approval ratings. It would be naïve (and statistically incorrect) of us to judge a sitting PM against PM's who had the benefit of a few years put between their policies and the associated outcomes. His approval rate may be poor now, but as Puckchaser noted, it isn't the poorest. I'd like to stress again that the discussion (at least in the last few posts) has centered around whether he was "the worst" PM in history - not whether he is currently polling poorly.
I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard... I will be seen and not heard...

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 163,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,095
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #154 on: January 08, 2019, 18:51:56 »
If he was doing a good job, he'd poll better.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

Four straight years of deficits.  Defence procurement is an unmitigated disaster.  Angering Asia-Pac trading partners.  Photo ops in India.  Tweeting taxpayer money to celebrities.  Bungling refugee/migrant arrivals.  Mismangement of pipelines.

It takes a lot to poll poorly in a good economy with record unemployment, but these kinds of things mean President Trump can get better numbers.  People aren't falling for diplomacy by socks anymore....
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 19:05:00 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,121
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,385
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #155 on: January 09, 2019, 02:22:18 »
Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.

There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it.

Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,924
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #156 on: January 09, 2019, 09:00:39 »
This may not be the list you are referring to.

I posted this sometime ago. From July 2017, the article on how to use the info:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3600967/tracking-federal-government-spending/

NOTEBOOK: How we use Twitter to keep track of thousands of federal government spending announcements - By David Akin

Extract as of 27 Jul 17:

1.
Quote
Thanks to this database, we can tell you that nearly two years into the 42nd Parliament, the Trudeau government has made about 6,800 different funding announcements letting MPs take credit for a combined $31-billion in spending on everything from a new sewer line to a new roof on a curling club to new research labs to new affordable housing projects. By contrast, the Harper government, over the entire length of the 41st Parliament (3 years, 2 months), made 7,308 spending announcements for a combined $45 billion.

2.
Quote
And just about all of those are also on Twitter via a special Twitter account I’ve set up called @OttawaSpends. Every time I put a spending announcement in my database, I also tweet it out. If you follow @OttawaSpends, you too can track every federal government spending announcement.

I would hazard a guess that the Trudeau gov't spending is now in the range of astronomical based on the deficit and debt. If you look at @HarjitSajjan , @CanadianForces , there sure a lot of "Studies" going on at DND.


The Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ottawaspends
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 09:07:46 by Rifleman62 »
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 95,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #157 on: January 09, 2019, 09:12:37 »
Honest question, were the Conservatives this flippant with money? Maybe I'm just getting older and trying to be more cognizant of money and the amount of taxes I pay but the Liberals seem to give a lot away.

There was a list going around of all the money the Liberals have given away since coming into office and it was unbelievable, I wish I saved it.

Maybe our collective problem is that such large amounts of money is so hard to relate to that 50 million dollars is just a snooty sounding tweet rather than something that would take a corporal 766 years to earn.

I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc. 
Optio

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 530,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,806
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #158 on: January 09, 2019, 09:18:59 »
... just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation ...
Good luck.  That's all some people have;  you can try providing facts, but it seldom gets past the obtuse partisanship.
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 87,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,924
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #159 on: January 09, 2019, 09:42:41 »
Quote
I would argue yes. I think it is more of a politician thing regardless of their party.  Remember all those economic action plan commercials that were essentially partisan advertising for the conservatives?  That cost us almost 3 quarters of a billion dollars in total.  Or painting their plane etc etc.

Example:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-cpp-ads-on-nfl-playoffs-your-pension-dollars-at-work-for-the-liberals

Andrew Coyne: CPP ads on NFL playoffs — your pension dollars at work for the Liberals
- 7 Jan 19
It’s even less clear how a feel-good advertising campaign contributes to anything but Liberal election prospects

Extract:

1. But the CPP isn’t a mutual fund: it doesn’t have to persuade Canadians to park their money with it. They have to, by law. No matter how irritated they may be at seeing more and more of their wages going to the CPP, there is no way they can withdraw from the plan, and no prospect of the increases being reversed. So why is the CPPIB paying — or rather, why are we paying — for expensive ads designed to make us feel good about all this “saving” and “investment”?

2. But whether the cause is internal bloat or external pressure, it is difficult to see why the CPPIB should be spending the money Canadians are forced to contribute to it on propaganda whose sole apparent purpose is to soften them up for more forcible contributing.

3. Sheer profligacy (reckless extravagance or wastefulness in the use of resources) is certainly one possibility. Spending at the CPPIB is quite literally out of control, and has been for some years, ever since the 2006 decision to switch from passive to active management, or from simply buying every stock in the market, with the aim of doing no worse than the market averages, to picking stocks selectively in an attempt to beat the market — a task at which, year in, year out, most investment managers fail.

Successive annual reports tell the tale. In 2000, when the CPPIB was founded (previously the CPP was confined to investing any spare change in provincial bonds) it had a staff of five. The CEO was paid $310,000. Total costs were $3.7 million. By 2006, it had about 150 employees, the CEO was making over a million, and costs were $118 million: considerably more, but not wildly out of line, for a fund that by then had nearly $100 billion under management.

And today? The board has over 1,500 employees. The average compensation among its top five executives is $4.5 million. And total costs have grown to $3.2 billion, or nearly one per cent of assets under management. By contrast, passively managed funds such as those offered by Vanguard or Schwab typically charge less than one tenth of one per cent of assets.

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5185.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 267,537
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,310
    • Army.ca
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #160 on: January 09, 2019, 12:34:14 »
I'm just going to respond to a couple of your points. The one I highlighted in yellow assumes that no Canadian is a "globalist open border folk" when in all likelihood a substantial portion of the PM's current support comes from people at varying degrees of that spectrum. Are they no longer Canadian because they don't share your values? It's a very black and white view of what I see as a pretty grey reality.

I'm not sure if your point I've highlighted in red is aimed at me or not. I'm going to assume it's not but it still assumes a zero sum game regarding other peoples political views. The way it reads is either someone is masking their true (right wing) view point in order to get some type of patronage appointment or simply keep their job - or they have the balls as it were to speak against the government. There are a multitude of scenarios where neither of those conditions exist - and I would argue 95% of all people, and certainly 95% of people on this forum fall outside of the two arcs you just identified. There are plenty of folks as I mentioned before who voted for the sitting government and likely will do so again. I'm in neither of those camps. I'd like to think I'm politically pragmatic (and tell others that at parties to impress them) but the reality is I just really hate hyper partisanship and misinformation and I really love to argue...

Puckchaser noted his recent approval ratings. It would be naïve (and statistically incorrect) of us to judge a sitting PM against PM's who had the benefit of a few years put between their policies and the associated outcomes. His approval rate may be poor now, but as Puckchaser noted, it isn't the poorest. I'd like to stress again that the discussion (at least in the last few posts) has centered around whether he was "the worst" PM in history - not whether he is currently polling poorly.

You're right. It's confusing. I was typing with sausage fingers on my phone and trying to be brief. Poor execution on my part.
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 183,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,261
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #161 on: January 09, 2019, 14:28:57 »
Realistically our PM is not doing an impressive job at the helm of our government. As has been succinctly put, to poll so low in this strong an economy suggests there are deep issues with the manner in which he governs. He seems entirely too theatrical, too interested in being seen to do certain things in certain ways. He continually missteps on a lot of superficial matters.

And yet despite that, our government, if unimpressive has also not been a disaster. We have to contend with an erratic, unpredictable, and unreliable ally and trading partner to the south. What was once a stable, predictable and trusting relationship with our largest trading partner now has us branded as a 'national security threat' for the purpose of levying punitive trade tariffs on us. We are quite literally in a trade war with our biggest market partner, and despite their president's assertions that 'trade wars are easy to win', here we still are in a truly bizarre stalemate. The future of NAFTA is uncertain. It remains in force for now, and it's very plausible that the US president will fail to get his new trade agreement ratified by congress. NAFTA may yet live. Or it may not, and that uncertainty is a problem. Congress may or may not attempt to take back some of the control with regards to trade tariffs. Again, that uncertainty is a problem.

So our government has had to navigate thsoe particular shoals and rapids... And really has not done too bad a job of it. To have hurt Trump's feelings at G7 does not mean a policy misstep on our government's part; it would be imprudent and not in our national interest to govern in accordance with his characteristic thin-skinned emotional turbulence. I damned well expect them to stand up for our national interests. In the realm of trade we have sought to liberalize trade relationships with other markets. Our over-dependence on the US market has finally proven itself to be a strategic risk, and the government has worked to open up other markets. That's not a bad thing. No trade agreement will ever be 100% awesome for us as there must always be quid pro quo, but I'm happy to see trade barriers continuing to get knocked down. Our new government wisely stayed the course on CETA, and has now negotiated the Trans Pacific Partnership to our general advantage. I think that a Conservative government would probably have done more or less the same thing, so the Liberals don't get a ton of points from me for acting on an obvious positive.. But at least they did do it.

Job numbers and employment levels are strong, and people will vote with their wallets. The dissatisfactions on this are generally quite regional. That will cost a lot of votes in Alberta - as it should. Our federal government has badly bungled the energy portfolio. They should be standing up and taking ownership of this matter in the national interest. That will mean pissing off some groups. It will mean some contentious court cases that will drag on at length. It will take some resolve and some acceptance of political risk within the executive branch to get some things moving. I don't think our current government has that in them. However outside of the oil patch the economy is generally getting along quite well with a few high profile but very local exceptions such as the Oshawa plant closure.

The government will get hammered to some extent over immigration concerns, but the majority of this is a whipped up partisan frenzy, and nothing I've seen suggests the Conservatives could have or would have handled it any better. We're bound by our laws and international treaty, and there's not much that would be subject to easy legislative fix. While nothing the government has done on this portfolio impreses me, I'm more pised off at how easily the conservatives are leaning towards the temptation of populism on this, and all the ugly stuff that's happening at the fringe of those particular movements. I want to see them talking actual policy options that would make a tangible difference, but I'm not seeing it yet.

I voted Liberal last election. It's very likely I will vote Conservative in the next one, but I usually vote in favour of 'changing the diaper' come election time... I have no party loyalties. I also care more about matters like national defense, procurement, and judicial matters than most voters.

The thing is, the liberals don't need to rock to get the next election. They just need to do better than the other guy. The NDP are practically dead in the water if Singh doesn't win his byelection, and it's looking very plausible that he won't. (incidentally the byelection was called in the past hour, for February 25th.) The prospects of significant left wing vote splitting are looking slim. However mediocre the Liberal government is, they don't seem to have a viable contender from the left. And against this mediocrity the Conservatives have a wholly uninspiring leader in the form of Andrew Scheer.

Voters will go to the polls having pondered three motivations: the Party, the Leader, and the Alternative. The Party vote is already set- by this I mean those who will more or less mindlessly follow their party into any election independent of other variables. All parties have them; they will generate most of the noise on social media, will be responsible for most of the misinformation, and generally are the most annoying thing about any election. They won't turn an election, they're simply the proportion of votes that aren't up for grabs and who cloud the discourse with inanity.

So, against that, the election will turn on the Leader(s) and the Alternative. Trudeau was elected in large based on (ultimately flawed) perceptions of the former. I won't go so far as to say a 'cult of personality', though certainly there was a bit of that. But he talked a good game, for better or worse he *was* inspiring to many voters, and in contrast with Stephen Harper, enough people found him compelling. A lot of that shine has worn off now, though they're still polling in potential majority territory. If the Conservatives had elected someone who was individually impressive and inspirational, they would be in a good position to run a positive campaign going into this. Unfortunately they did not, at least not in any way yet apparent. Electing Scheer as leader was essentially a decision to 'stay the course' in how the party does business... As such the CPC is banking heavily on courting voters on the premise of being 'the alternative' to the current government, which they will necessarily have to paint as very bad- to an extent that will probably encourage all kinds of actors to play pretty loose and fast with the truth. I fear we are in for quite a dirty election.

I expect to hold my nose and vote Conservative on this one, but I'm not entering this election with much optimism, and I anticipate being thoroughly sick of it by the time it's done. We will probably see a minority one way or another, and then all kinds of braying nonsense to follow. Potentially the 'best' strategic result for the CPC might actually be a loss to a Liberal minority, the election of a new leader (I still don't think we've seen the last of MacKay), and then having the ability to trigger a confidence vote a couple years down the road and take another kick at it with greater long term potential. If they could win a subsequent election with the right guy or girl, the next one or two after that might be considerably easier. With Scheer at the helm, unless he really steps it up, every election they face will probably be quite the battle.

We shall see...
+600 « Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 16:45:49 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5185.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 267,537
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,310
    • Army.ca
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #162 on: January 09, 2019, 21:50:53 »
Do you feel the conservatives would still be allowing the unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants through the border? That they could not declare an emergency or use the not withstanding clause, or something? I don't think, we'd be employing our federal law enforcement services on the borders as baggage handlers. Nor do I think we'd be housing thousands of them in Toronto, sucking Ontario dry.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but to throw up your arms, say there is nothing you can do about it and let thousands and thousands more through is not an answer or action. At this point, if I understand right, they have no plan to stop it either. That is not a PM providing security for Canada. I don't think Harper would have let this happen. Nor do I think Scheer lacks the cojones to roll up his sleeves and say not on my watch when he's going to have to. We'll see..

Although in full reality only our current PM would be likey enough to send out the invite in the first place. Thus making this, truly, all on him and purely hypothetical for anyone else.

Sorry I mispoke. Should have been saying the PM and Butts all along.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 21:59:46 by Fishbone Jones »
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 183,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,261
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #163 on: January 09, 2019, 22:39:43 »
Do you feel the conservatives would still be allowing the unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants through the border? That they could not declare an emergency or use the non withstanding clause? I don't think, we'd be employing our federal law enforcement services on the borders as baggage handlers. Nor do I think we'd be housing thousands of them in Toronto, sucking Ontario dry.

Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic, but to throw up your arms, say there is nothing you can do about it and let thousands and thousands more through is not an answer or action. I don't think Harper would have let that happen. Nor do I think Scheer lacks the cojones to roll up his sleeves and say not on my watch.

Although in full reality only our current PM would be likely enough to send out the invite in the first place. Thus making this on him.

You certainly are being overly simplistic, and you're repeating factually inaccurate talking points that I've corrected you on before. At this point that's a conscious choice on your part.

First off, it's not an unimpeded flow. Every single person who crosses with the knowledge of law enforcement is immediately arrested, searched, identified, run against various databases both domestic and international, and their personal effects searched and inventoried. Secondly, what you refer to as RCMP acting as 'baggage handlers' is the police upholding their legal responsibility to maintain custody and care of the personal effects of a person they have arrested. Just as police are responsible for a prisoner, they are responsible for belongings seized incidental to arrest. I have of course explained this to you before, so I don't know why you're still trying to ignore it other than perhaps to try to get a dig in at me on this one. Until the arrested party is handed off to Canada Border Services, the RCMP are legally responsible for the safekeeping of all of their effects. It is of course also necessary to search those effects for things that aren't allowed in the country, which is done and which has resulted in some people being immediately held in custody and deemed inadmissible. Once these people are handed off to CBSA, they then by and large claim asylum, and go through that process which ultimately results in some staying and some being removed from the country. At the point of crossing the border illegally, however, police are responsible for arresting them, for keeping them and their belongings safe and secure, and for handing them off to CBSA, the appropriate authority for the next steps. And I'll say that the CBSA officers who've been deployed to Quebec to assist with this have done a bang up job holding up their end of things.

You seem to suggest that we could invoke the notwithstanding clause to pass legislation that would prevent them physically entering Canada. S.33 of the Charter does indeed give the government the authority to suspend a selection of charter rights. Could they suspend S.7 (life, liberty, security of the person) and allow police to deter border crossers by simply beating the crap out of those who attempt to cross? Or maybe just shooting them? I suppose that would have an impact, but likely not one that would reflect positively on our country... The law does not allow us to simply turn them around and force them back into the United States. Once they enter Canada's territory, they're Canada's problem. We cannot violate the sovereignty of the US by forcing them back across. One way or another as soon as they step foot on Canadian soil, they are a Canadian problem to be dealt with under Canadian law. But there's no viable, practical way to stop that first foot being set in our country. There are innumerable places to cross and very finite resources. The best thing for Canadian security is for every individual crossing to be arrested and identified immediately so that at least apparent threats to Canadian security, or those already deemed inadmissable, can be detected and dealt with immediately. That, at least, is largely happening. Could a suspension of said section of the Charter let us just arbitrarily jail all of them pending completion of their hearings? I suppose. But because you also seem concerned about resources being 'sucked dry', I don't imagine you would be too happy with the reality of Canada having to quintuple its immigration detention capacity. We don't have that many spare jail cells or police / correctional / border officers floating around.

Now if you were to suggest a rational policy approach, like greatly expanded funding and hiring for the quasi-judicial panels that hear these claims in order to reduce the backlog and get people processed (and consequently many kicked out) faster, I'd be right there with you.... But you haven't, so I can only speculate as to what notions you may have. Other rational policy approaches could include further outreach to the communities from which many of the asylum claimants are sourced, to try to deter them from coming up here in the first place. That was in fact done with some modest success, but it cannot stem the tide fully. Other rational policy approaches could include working with the US to reduce flow-through of people who show up in the US on a valid tourist visa and immediately bus to the border and come across. That has also been done as well to some extent. I'm not in a position to say whether there are further returns possible on this.

The simple reality is that most of those entering Canada illegally via the land border at the couple of well known illegal crossing sites are already resident in the United States, most with some sort of legal status, and we have only a limited ability to deter them from crossing the border on foot. The notwithstanding clause is not some sort of magic wand you can wave and magically the illegal immigrants just go away, sorry. The necessary logical result of what you're fumbling at would be basically empowering authorities - presumably the RCMP - to do things that would probably be quite unconscionable and that would bring that organization as well as our nation itself into disrepute. No thanks. The current approach is far from ideal, but there is at least room to throw more resources at the processing and try to get people moved through the system quicker to whatever the result may be. Many, after all, *do* quite legitimately qualify for asylum status. I'm fine with that. Many others do not and will be ordered removed from the country, and I'm fine with that too.

As to a state of emergency, the applicable legislation for that would be the federal Emergencies Act. It's quite specific in how it applies. The straw you are reaching for would be 'public order emergency', but that straw, like many of the legal realities of the situation, is eluding your grasp. A 'Public Order Emergency' must be based on something that constitutes a threat to the security of Canada as defined per S.2 of the CSIS act. You can find that definition here, and it should be readily apparent to you that the shoe does not fit.

I will eagerly await the Conservative platform on border security. I want to see what viable approaches they intend to take that would have a positive tangible impact. I strongly believe that it is the absolute sovereign right of a nation to control who enters its borders, and this is something we need to get better at. However, to actually achieve strategic goals on the issue will require more than just pounding on a table. We must contend with 6400km of land border from BC to New Brunswick. We must contend with a neighbour to the south whose government is causing great fear among its immigrant population. We must contend with being a nation governed by the rule of law. These are objective realities that preclude quick or easy solutions to the approximately 20,000 people illegally crossing the border per year. At this same time, this represents less than 7% of Canada's total immigration. At the local level where diasporas congregate this may be profoundly inconvenient, but at the national level it is not the sort of crisis one abandons principles over.

I remain disappointed with how PMJT handled this initially. He screwed up in how he reached out and basically encouraged people to make their way to Canada one way or another. I'm not happy with it, and it's another one of the things I'm displeased with his performance in. Now we have to deal with the problem, and my interest extends only to the pragmatic and viable approaches everyone vying for election actually has to offer. I'm wholly uninterested in the massive amount of mud slinging to come. I want to know what parties intend to *do* about it, with enough specifics that we can take what they say seriously.
+900 « Last Edit: January 09, 2019, 23:09:52 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 210,925
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #164 on: January 10, 2019, 00:17:27 »
 :ditto:    :goodpost:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 95,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #165 on: January 10, 2019, 10:05:34 »
So on a more tangible criticism of the PM and things that will come back to bite him.

Look only to the reception he has received from the aboriginal communities across the country.

He promised reconciliation.  Made a lot of promises that that community isn't really seeing any real results of.

He'll be hard pressed to get any support from there this coming election.   

+300
Optio

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 352
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #166 on: January 10, 2019, 11:19:28 »
Job numbers and employment levels are strong, and people will vote with their wallets.

One thing that may come to bite the Liberals leading into a fall election is the new carbon pricing. Canadian's will have had many months to look at the cost of things rising, and the Conservatives will be using that to remind people that they are all now poorer because of a Liberal policy.

People like the environment plenty, just not at the expense of being able afford to travel to see it.
+300

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 183,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,261
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #167 on: January 10, 2019, 13:23:36 »
One thing that may come to bite the Liberals leading into a fall election is the new carbon pricing. Canadian's will have had many months to look at the cost of things rising, and the Conservatives will be using that to remind people that they are all now poorer because of a Liberal policy.

People like the environment plenty, just not at the expense of being able afford to travel to see it.

Agreed. This will bite them in the ***, and I think will have more of an impact at the polls than the issues with First Nations will. There’s less of a positive electoral offset with the carbon pricing issue.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 212,039
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,745
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #168 on: January 10, 2019, 13:40:29 »
It will only bite them if the Conservatives can show how the successive increases needed to change behavior will actually effect the average consumer. The government's own findings on the subject indicate that something on the order of $300 per tonne is the threshold. That amount would effectively double the cost of fuel, and the knock on effect on food and heating costs for instance.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 95,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #169 on: January 10, 2019, 13:45:36 »
It will only bite them if the Conservatives can show how the successive increases needed to change behavior will actually effect the average consumer. The government's own findings on the subject indicate that something on the order of $300 per tonne is the threshold. That amount would effectively double the cost of fuel, and the knock on effect on food and heating costs for instance.

Despite soaring hydro prices in Ontario and scandal, Kathleen Wynne was able to pull off a majority win two elections ago.  The opposition at that time was a hot mess.  Just shows you that it will take more than just numbers and pocket book effects. personality will play a huge part in it. 
Optio

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,452
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 352
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #170 on: January 10, 2019, 13:53:08 »
Despite soaring hydro prices in Ontario and scandal, Kathleen Wynne was able to pull off a majority win two elections ago.  The opposition at that time was a hot mess.  Just shows you that it will take more than just numbers and pocket book effects. personality will play a huge part in it.

The thing is Ontario is a major player in deciding federal elections, and they just punished the Ontario Liberals harshly in response to their wasteful and arrogant ways. Some of that anger may get directed at the federal Liberals if they are perceived to be going down the same road. We still have 10 months for it all to come together one way or the other.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 95,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,012
Re: Prime Minister questioned about expenses
« Reply #171 on: January 10, 2019, 14:00:26 »
The thing is Ontario is a major player in deciding federal elections, and they just punished the Ontario Liberals harshly in response to their wasteful and arrogant ways. Some of that anger may get directed at the federal Liberals if they are perceived to be going down the same road. We still have 10 months for it all to come together one way or the other.

Sure.  And they had a viable alternative this time around.  I'm just not sure that there is one at the federal level at this time.  I find that if the electorate sees no alternative that makes sense, then they'd rather stay with the devil they know.  10 years with the Ontario Liberals and how long was it until Stephen Harper finally won a majority?
Optio