matthewwhatever
Member
He's a strong performer in Question Period, I'll give him that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
He's a strong performer in Question Period, I'll give him that.
CitizenVectron
Member
Don't write them off quite yet, in the medium term. What if after the next election, the Liberals go down 10 and the CPC goes up 10? Then it's the NDP who holds the balance of power. Then they will matter quite a bit.
I really don't follow. Public Works (er, Public Services, now) is a portfolio with major responsibilities and a huge budget.
There's no chance they'd leave a Conservative in the speaker's chair (well, technically he's already left it, since the speakership is vacated at the end of every parliament).
I will be interested to see who decides to seek the job, though. It usually (Scheer being an obvious exception) goes to a veteran parliamentarian, but due to the culling of the Liberal caucus in 2011 there really aren't many of those left.
The Intergovernmental Affairs minister heads the Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat of the Privy Council. They advise on constitutional matters relating to the division of powers between the feds and the provinces, supervise negotiations between the levels of government, etc. When Dion held the job the biggest part of the job was leading the federalist counterattack on Quebec separatism after the 1995 referendum.
gutter_trash
Banned
too bad he changes his positions and ideologies for electoral opportunism
Going from a staunch Federalist in 1995 on the NO camp to degrade himself as a half-measures softy who wanted to win votes from nationalists by wanting to scrap's Dion's Clarity Act with his 50%+1 nonsense.... especially since 13% of ballots from his riding of Chomedy in 1995 were rejected. Thousands of votes is thousands more than just +1
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Wow, even the new thread is full of Mulcair hate huh? Some things never change.
CitizenVectron
Member
I like Trudeau and the Liberals, and I am also a federalist. But 50%+1 is a better policy than "clear majority - undefined." Mulcair is correct that the latter option makes it easier for people to vote to separate and not actual fear separation will happen. Look at 1995, where the question was so soft and vague that millions voted in favour of it, most thinking that it meant there would only be renegotiation of confederation with Quebec. But behind the scenes the PQ was preparing to unilateral declare independence. So you need clear questions, but you also need a clear victory condition. I don't agree with 50%+1 on a single vote (I think it should be 2 votes, 3 years apart, both need 50%+1 to pass), but it was what the UK chose for Scotland.
You need a clear question and a clear victory condition. Imagine the chaos if there were a referendum today and 55% voted to separate. What would Trudeau do? A majority want to leave, so shouldn't they have the right to self determination? What if it it was 60%, or 65%? We need clear rules. We don't need it at the moment because separatism is at a low, but it could come back in 10 or 20 years. It's easy to disagree with Mulcair, but he at least is taking a stance, where Trudeau has never taken any on what would result in a victory for separation.
AuthenticM
Member
GET FUCKED HARPER
Woohoo!!!
Woohoo!!!
gutter_trash
Banned
Scotland was forced by Westminster to rephrase their question clearly and removed the word ''should'' from their question. A clear question.
The Clarity Act was created because the 1980 and the 1995 questions were both convoluted. The 1980 is too long to post but here is the 1995 question:
All this matters not anymore, Justin has a majority. Canada is secure.
So why do you keep bringing it up?
Quoting for truth.
Some of these posts are really annoying to read, especially given how happy most ndp voters, new and old, are with the outcome of this election. Take a page from your own leader and respect your opponents.
It's actually a very good question. Shutting down the 'small business' loophole that rich people use to really dodge taxes is going to be really complicated.
gutter_trash
Banned
because Mulcair was brought up in this page and I pointed out his major present flaw of turning on his own convictions that he fought for in 1995
No one disagrees with the clear question part of the clarity act. No one but the bloc anyways.
I think, reading more about Sajjan, that with his mix of experience of 11 years as a VPD police officer, in addition to being an intelligence officer in the army when in Afghanistan, I would have liked to see him as Public Safety, because of the mix of security agencies it is responsible for (RCMP, CSIS, CBSA), and then thrown Andrew Leslie in as Defence Minister.
Ah well.
Ah well.
BigJonsson
Member
This scrumming is hilarious, I think a lot of the reporters missed doing this 
matthewwhatever
Member
Parliament returns December 3rd, Speech from the Throne coming December 4th.
He spent the majority of the campaign trying to pretend the Liberals didn't exist, so I guess it's only fair if I now spend the next four years pretending Mulcair doesn't exist.
Apparently inside DND there was strong resistance to Leslie as Minister -- maybe that played into him being left out?
He spent the majority of the campaign trying to pretend the Liberals didn't exist, so I guess it's only fair if I now spend the next four years pretending Mulcair doesn't exist.
Apparently inside DND there was strong resistance to Leslie as Minister -- maybe that played into him being left out?
Look, this thread isn't going to be any fun if we all just get along now. ;P
gutter_trash
Banned
pretty much this, plus he backed out of the English language Consortium Debates just because Harper didn't want to show up, completely being dismissive of Trudeau.
CitizenVectron
Member
You are avoiding the actual question though. We all agree with the Clarity Act in terms of having a clear question, no one is disagreeing with that. I am saying that we need a clear victory condition as well, which you won't address, and neither will Trudeau, which is a cop out.
gutter_trash
Banned
PKP has openly said that he will not negotiate the question with Ottawa, so the Clarity Act has Canada's back.
matthewwhatever
Member
Was he saying it sarcastically? Like, "Yeah, sure, huuuuuuge learning curve. It's going to be soooooo hard to learn how to manage a government department.", topped off by a Liz Lemon-style eye roll?
This may prove interesting for Toronto, given the money the Harper government pledged to change the Scarborough RT replacement into a pointless subway, rather than the LRT it was supposed to be.
No, it struck me as an earnest and humble tone.
Infinite Stars
Member
Ugh. A bunch of my friends parents are posting shit about an Alberta Independence party and how it will save the province. Screw this crap if I have to see it for the next 4 years.
It wasn't relevant at all, though. This is what's so incredibly frustrating about your posts. I could bring up that Mulcair's birthday was 2 weeks ago and you'd tell me he was a flip flopper.
If we're gonna piss-off Alberta, let's go 100% on it.
Time to ban the Calgary Stampede for animal cruelty. 😗
gutter_trash
Banned
Trudeau delivers! Tax cuts for the middle class first order of business
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...nne-une-priorite-pour-le-gouvernement-trudeau
http://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...nne-une-priorite-pour-le-gouvernement-trudeau
CitizenVectron
Member
Are you a moron? Like, actually handicapped? I already said (twice) that the clear question aspect is good, but what about a clear victory condition for either side? What is your stance on that? Or do you have no stance at all, afraid to actually take one, just like Trudeau?
And stop bringing up irrelevant things. If someone mentions the NDP or Mulcair in a certain context, you don't need to (and shouldn't) bring up something else unrelated unless it adds to the existing discussion. We don't all pile on Trudeau's mistakes or failings every time we discuss him, nor Harper. Sometimes you need to stay on topic.
Infinite Stars
Member
These whiny Pissants for lack of a better term frustrate me because they want Alberta as it's own nation inside of Canada, but want to still be considered Canadian. They cite Switzerland and Europe as examples. Nevermind the logistics on that, but Liberal is a boogeyman word to them.
That would be a grand improvement. Can you start now please? It'd be great for everyone.
I assume it's primarily because people with higher salaries are already contributing to their own pensions, hence making it a bit of a difficult political sell for that tax bracket.
Ultimately, people pay into CPP for themselves because it's in their own self interest to do so. That argument becomes less convincing the more money you make.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I guess my reaction is that I don't notably see the fit and the tradition has been to give NL Ministers ministries relevant to the province. I guess if ACOA ends up under Public Works or w/e (no ACOA minister announced) maybe that's the salient fit.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Yeah, the big names got real jobs so it may just be something to give to someone just for optics.
I've already given up hope, particularly if we don't move toward a true MMP style system for the next election.
matthewwhatever
Member
In my defense, I didn't exactly bring him up out of nowhere: he gave his first press conference since their election night drubbing, and I was paraphrasing exactly what he was saying. CBC even spent several minutes talking about how strange they found his tone, so I wasn't pulling quotes of of thin air. I didn't just randomly start talking about him so I could criticize him. He said something stupid, and I thought it was worth talking about.
I mean, I fully understand how annoying it can be when someone constantly brings up the same topic over and over again, no matter how tangential the connection may be. I know how much you disapprove of people who post like that.
matthewwhatever
Member
Fine with me. (The dropping it, that is, not the ignoring it.)
Veteran MPs who aren't in cabinet:
- Mauril Belanger
- Rodger Cuzner
- Wayne Easter
- Mark Eyking
- Geoff Regan
- Hedy Fry
- David McGuinty
- John McKay
- Joyce Murray
- Judy Sgro
It won't be Belanger, since he's made a career out of minimal effort. Fry would probably be seen as too partisan. Don't know about the Maritime MPs, but I feel like they might be leading up committees with their cabinet experience. Murray would be an interesting choice -- her Liberal leadership campaign was built on bipartisan cooperation, plus I don't think we've ever had a female Speaker.
Maybe Bill Casey? I think he's fairly widely admired, he has history in Parliament and knows the system.
Veteran MPs who aren't in cabinet:
- Mauril Belanger
- Rodger Cuzner
- Wayne Easter
- Mark Eyking
- Geoff Regan
- Hedy Fry
- David McGuinty
- John McKay
- Joyce Murray
- Judy Sgro
It won't be Belanger, since he's made a career out of minimal effort. Fry would probably be seen as too partisan. Don't know about the Maritime MPs, but I feel like they might be leading up committees with their cabinet experience. Murray would be an interesting choice -- her Liberal leadership campaign was built on bipartisan cooperation, plus I don't think we've ever had a female Speaker.
Maybe Bill Casey? I think he's fairly widely admired, he has history in Parliament and knows the system.
The same could be asked of EI premiums since they cap off at about the same level. I'm not gonna complain too much though because I enjoy the ~$100 more a week in take home pay when I pass the thresholds for both of them.
Onion_Relish
Member
What a lot of people don't realize is that a tax cut for the middle class also benefits richer people as well due to the progressive tax code. Of course, once we get into bigger digits (above 130k~) thats when the hurt comes on, but the modifications really aren't that major. It's more of a symbolic gesture than anything substantive. The real grist comes from stimulating the economy, funding new jobs and hoepfully making us more competitive in the international marketplace, not saving ma and pa 2000 every april
Jeanne Sauve was speaker back in the time of Trudeau, pere (and subsequently Governor General).
I could maybe see Casey, though I imagine some people on the Tory side of the aisle would not look especially favourably on it.
Maybe Kevin Lamoureux will make a bid for it; he's relatively junior among MPs, but he's a longstanding member of the Manitoba legislature, and given that both Carr and Mihychuk leapfrogged ahead of him into cabinet, he may seek other opportunities.
The speakership is very much a real job.
My assessment of the renamed ministerial posts:
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard - "Fisheries and Oceans" was just fine; the add-on is cumbersome and unnecessary.
Minister of Employment, Workforce and Labour - Another overly complicated renaming; what was wrong with "Minister of Labour"? The new name pretty much just says the same thing three times.
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development - I think "Minister of Industry" was a lot more succinct.
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship - Pointed Jab at Previous Government, Part 1.
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change - Pointed Jab at Previous Government, Part 2.
Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs - this is the third word for native peoples in this job title in the last decade, I believe. I gather "aboriginal" is falling out of favour, in which case, obviously it's proper to change the name (though we still call the legislation the department administers the Indian Act).
Minister of Public Services and Procurement - shorter and more to the point, I guess, though the history nerd in me kind of mourns the loss of the longstanding "Public Works" term.
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard - "Fisheries and Oceans" was just fine; the add-on is cumbersome and unnecessary.
Minister of Employment, Workforce and Labour - Another overly complicated renaming; what was wrong with "Minister of Labour"? The new name pretty much just says the same thing three times.
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development - I think "Minister of Industry" was a lot more succinct.
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship - Pointed Jab at Previous Government, Part 1.
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change - Pointed Jab at Previous Government, Part 2.
Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs - this is the third word for native peoples in this job title in the last decade, I believe. I gather "aboriginal" is falling out of favour, in which case, obviously it's proper to change the name (though we still call the legislation the department administers the Indian Act).
Minister of Public Services and Procurement - shorter and more to the point, I guess, though the history nerd in me kind of mourns the loss of the longstanding "Public Works" term.
matthewwhatever
Member
My first job ever was doing high school co-op for John Manley's Hill office, and I once got sent on an errand to the Speaker's office. It was pretty dazzling -- like, the most baroque, gaudy room imaginable. I was told it's the nicest office on the Hill outside of the Speaker of the Senate, so I could see people wanting the role just for the perks.
That would then require the CPP to pay out more in pension benefits. Eventually, you have to cap it.
The Last Emperor
Member
Not surprised at the "old stock" Canadians who are pissed at the diversity of the cabinet
"How can Trudeau give national defense to a dude with a brown guy. How do we know he's not an undercover Islamist"
Lmao
"How can Trudeau give national defense to a dude with a brown guy. How do we know he's not an undercover Islamist"
Lmao
I visited the Speaker's office when I was in Ottawa with the Forum for Young Canadians back in 2005 (we also got to sit in the government benches in the Commons). Pretty nice. And yeah, there's a lot of prestige to the job, plus it is in fact important to have a capable and impartial person managing the Commons.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked