Canadian Politics

[Noeller]

Hey, no argument over here.....but how does it change? If Stephen Harper, the most West-aligned PM of all time, couldn't change things.......??

[Mr Dee]

In this day and age, should the parness of one's English really matter?

[iso_55]

 

 

Dion's english is poor and he's Foreign Affairs minister? Hypocritical that many "Progressives" ***** if a potential party leader can't speak french or their french is poor or complain that all Supreme Court justices need to speak both languages but nobody says a word when we appoint people who's english is subpar.

Whose

 

Tee hee

 

Dion is useless. And a joke of a politician. Obvious reward for being a good soldier.

[Noeller]

In this day and age, should the parness of one's English really matter?

the point, tho, is that it matters if one's French is fluent......and the hypocrisy is a shame.

[Mark F]

Bjorn Lomborg?

 

discredited a long time ago.

 

Here are some people that disagree with Bjorn.

 

Retired generals in the American military, two former secretaries of state of the USA, former director of the CIA , former Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel, and so on.

 

http://www.psaonline.org/climateaction

 

http://www.psaonline.org/climateaction

[17to85]

 

 

Lol climate change is a scam.

 

Even the chairman of exxon says that climate change is caused by burning fossil fuels.

 

I need a laugh. someone come here and post that he's in on the hoax. Or that you're smarter and better informed than he is.

 

Lol !!!

 

Also, You people that think burning fossil fuels is not a problem should read about the affects of the oceans absorbing  CO2.

 

It's measureable, and there's only one source. here.....

 

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

So how did the climate change before man burned fossil fuels?

 

Less rapidly

 

There are past instances of faster warming than we see now. There are also slower instances. The Earth is not a static system, it's been changing constantly for the 4.6 billion years it's been around and it'll keep on changing until the sun blows up and toasts it. The sooner we realize that change isn't always a bad thing the less we can have these knee jerk reactions. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

once we learn how to harness the power of the sun,  and tap it dry, then were ****ed

[kelownabomberfan]

Bjorn Lomborg?

 

discredited a long time ago.

What difference does it make who said what about whom? Did you actually read what he said? Doesn't any of it resonate? For $570 million mankind could save 300,000 lives a year from horrible malaria deaths. But instead it is going into solar panels. Doesn't that say anything, like maybe our priorities are skewed? Oh forget it. I realize I am wasting my time.

[Dragon37]

Here's my post bucko.

Doesn't sound to me that I'm speaking as a qualified expert...at all.

Sounds like I'm saying it sounds ridiculous to bring your own vehicles at an extra cost of $1.2 million.

So, do you have a point, or are you just being pissy?

 

Yeah I have a point, Bucko.  I am saying you don't have a clue what security costs, and your entire opinion is politically biased.  I am basing that on all of the bullshit you've posted about Harper in the past.  But really who cares. The election is over, and I would hate to sound "pissy".

 

When I was working up in Terrace and Chretien was the PM, he spent the entire month of July in his summer getaway in Masset, in the Queen Charlotte Islands.  The security detail and costs were enormous for him to be there, and communications alone were a huge challenge.   At least, from what I was told by people who were part of the detail and planning at the Masset airport.  But you know what, as much as I couldn't stand Chretien, I didn't begrudge him that protection, or the cost.  It is what it is.

What I would have to ask is was this the only option? Did the Indians not have the vehicles? I would, if I was a leader of a country, rich or poor, ensure that certain security items such as armoured cars or other costly and difficult to ship are on hand for such events. Of course a leader would have to bring a security detail and that is going to be costly but shipping vehicles just seems a bit extreme.

I would have the same questions if it was a Liberal or NDP government. In this case I think as much "blame" should be put on the Indian government. I sure hope Canada got some payback for such a large cost :/

[Fatty Liver]

 

 

Here's my post bucko.

Doesn't sound to me that I'm speaking as a qualified expert...at all.

Sounds like I'm saying it sounds ridiculous to bring your own vehicles at an extra cost of $1.2 million.

So, do you have a point, or are you just being pissy?

 

Yeah I have a point, Bucko.  I am saying you don't have a clue what security costs, and your entire opinion is politically biased.  I am basing that on all of the bullshit you've posted about Harper in the past.  But really who cares. The election is over, and I would hate to sound "pissy".

 

When I was working up in Terrace and Chretien was the PM, he spent the entire month of July in his summer getaway in Masset, in the Queen Charlotte Islands.  The security detail and costs were enormous for him to be there, and communications alone were a huge challenge.   At least, from what I was told by people who were part of the detail and planning at the Masset airport.  But you know what, as much as I couldn't stand Chretien, I didn't begrudge him that protection, or the cost.  It is what it is.

What I would have to ask is was this the only option? Did the Indians not have the vehicles? I would, if I was a leader of a country, rich or poor, ensure that certain security items such as armoured cars or other costly and difficult to ship are on hand for such events. Of course a leader would have to bring a security detail and that is going to be costly but shipping vehicles just seems a bit extreme.

I would have the same questions if it was a Liberal or NDP government. In this case I think as much "blame" should be put on the Indian government. I sure hope Canada got some payback for such a large cost :/

 

 

So you want to blame India for Harper's decision?  Payback???  Really?

[The Unknown Poster]

Even if India had armoured vehicles, is it the norm for a country to trust the building and vetting of foriegn security vehicles for the leader of the nation?  I'd assume the RCMP felt it was needed so they did it.  End of story.

[Mark H.]

OTTAWA - With Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau preparing to announce a cabinet that is 50% women, researchers have discovered a sharp 5000% increase in the number of men who suddenly have strong opinions about how cabinet appointments should be a “meritocracy.”

Across the nation statisticians are at a loss to explain a recent and drastic jump in the number of men who have spontaneously developed hard opinions about the qualifications of Federal Cabinet Ministers.

“This is affirmative action, and even though it has been statistically shown to improve working conditions over time, I don’t like it,” said longtime man Thomas Fielding. “Someone’s genitals don’t make them qualified for a job. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my job as the manager of a pro sports team.”

Several noted political scientists agree that Trudeau’s female quota is a controversial move. “I suddenly and inexplicably find myself very concerned about this issue,” added Dr. William Harkin of the University of Calgary, also a lifelong male. “Unlike Trudeau, Prime Minister Harper only chose the most qualified people for his cabinet posts, like a climate change denier [Peter Kent] as his Minister of the Environment. Or his numerous Ministers of Defense who never once held military positions.”

He concluded, “I mean, Jason Kenney alone was Minister of Immigration before being shuffled to Multiculturalism, then Social Development, and then finally National Defense - clearly because he was the most qualified person in the entire country on all those four completely unrelated files.”

Several prominent media figures have also joined in the backlash against Trudeau’s gender parity cabinet. “I think this should be a strict meritocracy, an opinion I have held for several hours now” opined Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of The Walrus and lifetime member of the dude team. “Women should be expected to earn their positions the same way men do - take for example my mother Barbara Kay. Despite being a woman she earned her column at the National Post through hard work, talent, and having a son who was on the editorial board at the time. Like I said, meritocracy.”

Reached for comment, Canada’s researchers said, “We’re just happy we can report on this data trend without worrying about getting the hose again.”

 

--An earlier version of this article mistakenly suggested Jonathan Kay was the comments page editor for the National Post at the time his mother was hired. The Beaverton regrets this error, apologizes to both Jonathan and Barbara Kay and would like to add that the National Post is hot garbage. 

http://www.thebeaverton.com/
 

[The Unknown Poster]

If the government is as talented and insightful as the person who wrote that satire, we're in trouble.

[kelownabomberfan]

 

OTTAWA - With Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau preparing to announce a cabinet that is 50% women, researchers have discovered a sharp 5000% increase in the number of men who suddenly have strong opinions about how cabinet appointments should be a “meritocracy.”

 

 

 

Actually, I've been surprised at how many women I've talked to that are not happy about Trudeau's policy either.  They don't want hand-outs, they want to be recognized as being just as good as men.  Quotas in a lot of ways are slaps in the face to people as it tells them "you are only getting this job because of what you are, not who you are".  But what's done is done.  What happens in the next election and there are more women than men elected?  Will a lot of extremely talented women be excluded from cabinet because of this policy?  It really can be a double-edged sword.

[The Unknown Poster]

@GlobalNational: New Liberal government reinstating long-form census, but won’t talk penalties https://t.co/doSmGkxPwO#CDNpoli

[The Unknown Poster]

National Post

Tasha Kheiriddin

I wasn’t going to write about gender parity in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet. I figured I had said everything I had to say about the issue on CBC Sunday night and Twitter the next day. Quotas are wrong, demeaning and a political sop to female voters. Next issue, please.

But the fawning reaction from some of my media colleagues over Trudeau’s appointment of 15 women has pushed me over the edge. Sorry — I respect you all, but I feel like I’m trapped in a time warp, back in the days of U.S. President Bill Clinton. During his presidency, 44 per cent of Clinton’s cabinet and sub-cabinet appointments were women — and in the eyes of the feminist establishment, that made him immune to criticism, on policy or anything else.

The only thing worse is the historical revisionism that assails one at every turn. Overnight, Canadians seem to have developed collective amnesia about the role of women in the previous Conservative government, which, while far from perfect, wasn’t minimal either. In former prime minister Stephen Harper’s nine years, Canada had two female environment ministers, two female health ministers, a female labour minister, public works minister and heritage minister. Those are the same portfolios for which Trudeau is now being credited with appointing women — as if they had never held them before.

In his last cabinet, Harper also named a woman to the national revenue, transport, social development, foreign affairs and consular services, western diversification, seniors’ and fisheries portfolios. (On a historical note, Canada’s first female justice minister, Kim Campbell, who went on to become our first female prime minister, was appointed by a Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney. The first woman ever appointed to cabinet was Ellen Fairclough, appointed by another PC prime minister, John Diefenbaker, in 1957.)

Even the current head count is not overwhelming. Trudeau appointed 15 women to his cabinet. Harper, in his last cabinet, appointed 12. That’s despite the fact that he had fewer women than Trudeau to choose from. The main difference is that Trudeau’s cabinet was capped at a more reasonable 30 portfolios, Harper’s at a bloated 39, including a slew of ministers of state. So percentage-wise, Trudeau hit his 50 per cent quota of XX chromosomes.

But to achieve this target, Trudeau changed the number, titles and composition of cabinet portfolios. For example, he took on intergovernmental affairs and youth himself, taking those two out of the equation. He also cleverly split some up. The Ministry for the Status of Women, for example, became a portfolio on its own, instead of being occupied by another minister, as was the case under former labour minister Kellie Leitch. Others, such as multiculturalism and seniors, disappeared. As for the Western diversification and other regional corporate-welfare portfolios, they appear to have been consolidated under economic development.

For the most part, this reorganization is a good thing. But do taxpayers need to fund a stand-alone ministry for the status of women? No. Some may argue we don’t need this ministry at all. But separating it out allowed Trudeau to add another woman to the list. (It might have been more counter-culture if Trudeau had appointed a man to the role, but never mind.)

And for all the brouhaha about women, from a cultural perspective, the cabinet is surprisingly not very diverse. While two aboriginal-Canadians and four Indo-Canadians were appointed, there is no one of Asia nor black descent. Everyone else looked kind of, er, pale.

But this isn’t how one should take the measure of a cabinet. Yes, it should have diversity, not for diversity’s sake, but because as any business knows, a range of perspectives makes for better decision-making. Merit should count first and foremost, even if, as we know, it is sometimes not the main criterion. One of the most important criteria in this cabinet — and any cabinet, for that matter — is actually loyalty, which crosses gender, cultural and geographic lines.

This whole conversation is unfortunate, because it obscures the real story of today. What I wanted to write was this: Trudeau’s picks were all competent and qualified. Many bring compelling personal stories and experiences to the table. The ceremony struck the right balance of pomp, circumstance, homage and levity. It represents a promising start for his government and I wish him well because he has a daunting task ahead of him.

But that got drowned out in a sea of tweets and TV commentary about how fabulously female this cabinet is. Which is what the Liberals probably wanted, because it is a feel-good story and a vote-getter, too.

Still, one wishes the feminists could stop crowing and see past the politics. Or maybe, like in the Clinton era, sadly, they just don’t care.

[Fatty Liver]

@GlobalNational: New Liberal government reinstating long-form census, but won’t talk penalties https://t.co/doSmGkxPwO#CDNpoli

 

From the article posted previously.

 

"Though the threat of jail time was also often held out as a terrible injustice, it never seems to matter to Harper supporters that, in fact, no one had ever been jailed for refusing to fill out the census."

 

 

If you're going to snipe, at least bring bullets.

[Noeller]

They shouldn't have made a big deal about the parity before hand and just gone ahead and done it. People got worked up because you made a point of saying "this is all about parity! Look how progressive we are!" If you'd just made your selections and not made a point about the parity, and just said "these were the most qualified people, period..." then this would all be a moo point. 

[Fraser]

People act like in history a white guy has never gotten a job over a minority or women simply for being a white guy.

Also agree with noeller. Should have been done quietly.

[Mark F]

Did anyone take a look at the people in the cabinet?

 

There are quite a few very high achievers, male female, and so on and so forth.

 

Some really impressive resumes in there, not that that means they'll do anyting worthwhile.

[Taynted_Fayth]

I liked Sajjan's track record in being our new defense minister, and i think theres a hotty in the cabinet too, something i thought id never say

[The Unknown Poster]

I liked Sajjan's track record in being our new defense minister, and i think theres a hotty in the cabinet too, something i thought id never say

Are you talking about Justin Trudeau?

[Taynted_Fayth]

lol no, i think maybe melanie joly but i only saw her for like 2 secs on the news

[Noeller]

 

I liked Sajjan's track record in being our new defense minister, and i think theres a hotty in the cabinet too, something i thought id never say

Are you talking about Justin Trudeau?

 

I snorted...that's good. But seriously, that new Defense Minister....holy hell. I don't think you could find a more worthy candidate if you called down to central casting..

[Taynted_Fayth]

I dunno what impressed me more, that he was a decorated military man doing 4 tours, or that he was a vancouver detective working the street gang unit... i watch to serve and protect, vancouvers got an underworld