Canadian Politics Thread

your leader needs to be a certain type of outgoing, outspoken personality who's going to nail the PM's ass to the wall over all his failures, and it's been obvious for a long time that Iggy wasn't that guy. The lack of transparency over the fighter jet purchase -- which according to the Liberals, was so horrible that parliament couldn't function another day because of it -- was barely an issue during the campaign.

I don't even know that it's a personality issue as much as that there has just been no sense for the last half-decade that the Liberal Party stands for much other than believing that they deserve to be in power because of their past glories. One of their prouder moments from the past decade was refusing to enter combat in the Iraq War - and then they picked as their leader one of Canada's most prominent supporters of that war. In the Commons, the Ignatieff-led party was an Official Opposition that rarely opposed the government - and then they brought down that government at a time when, as you say, there seemed to be little popular will to change to a Liberal government. Out of nowhere, they put together an NDP-esque platform - and then they refused to co-operate with the NDP, not only by swearing off a coalition but also by strongly contesting NDP-held ridings like Outremont and generally ridiculing the NDP for having no chance at forming government, as though the Liberals had been anywhere close in years. They brought down the government over contempt for Parliament - which is a fundamental issue - but during the campaign, they always brought this issue up alongside relatively trivial things like Bruce Carson's 22-year-old girlfriend or the CPC kicking students out of a private party rally or the funding of Kairos, as though the LPC themselves had no sense of how serious an issue contempt for Parliament is. (The first time they released an ad showing Michelle McPherson in her underwear was the point where I started giving up on the LPC altogether.) If you're going to fight an election on Parliamentary procedure, you need to impress on people how seriously you take procedure. This is especially the case since, as you note, there wasn't that much sense that the Liberals even cared that much about some of the issues beyond procedure itself: Not only did the lack of transparency over fighter jet purchases not come up all that much but the Liberals didn't even seem to have that much of an alternative defence strategy (which the NDP did, however dumb you might think it is). They never really seemed that opposed to the principle behind buying the jets in the first place. If we need attack aircraft, then we probably need it regardless of the price, honestly. We could perhaps have more of a competitive bidding process but I don't know how many firms even manufacture these jets in any case.

I'd sooner take my chances with a bunch of McGill students, frankly.

booming post

I wish I could edit the writing but thanks.:P

the Liberals have *always* been the party about staying in power. (well except for the last four years obv)

that IS their core belief!

a friend of mine got elected as an mp im pretty jealous apparently u make 130 g/year

the Liberals have *always* been the party about staying in power.

I wasn't around for it but I do think e.g. the PET-era Liberals at least stood for something that went beyond sheer expediency - centralized federalism, bilingualism, multiculturalism, a mixed economy... Even things like abolishing the death penalty or adopting the metric system do seem to reflect some principles other than just maintaining power. They continued trying to emulate European social democracy even in the early 80s, after the tide had turned in the US and UK.

ok. i'll give you the Trudeau years. even my old man who hated Trudeau told me that he at least had a vision for Canada. but he was sort of the exception to the rule imho.

Saw this on Power and Politics last night. I think it might support Barry's reading of some things:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/986517--voters-not-swept-up-by-ndp-wave-they-wanted-stability-focus?bn=1

The NDP does have an opportunity to prove themselves now though. If they can refrain from doing anything too stupid and if they can make it clear that their priorities are in line with Quebecers' (and extend their base outside Quebec), I see no reason why they should not be able to retain or expand their strength.

i can see a few of those pylons getting turfed. a few aren't exactly "ready for prime time" apparently!

Quite possible but there could also be gains elsewhere. Harper's and Harris's early caucuses had soem characters too. Besides, we'd need to see how the new caucus actually performs in the Commons before judging.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/in-the-commons-the-kids-are-alright/article2011610/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-voters-elected-the-ndps-vegas-girl-anyway/article2010885/

"some"

Really OTM op-ed about what the political centre should be doing:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/990513--liberals-have-to-create-a-new-political-centre

The weird thing is, I think that the current Liberal party does stand for these things but they've been doing such a horrible job at communicating their goals and differentiating themselves from the other parties. They seem to think that the way forward is for parties need to be more innovative with policy making, but that's way easier said than done.

"They seem to think" = I was referring to the op-ed writers, not the LPC (who aside from Dion's "green shift" have been running in place creatively for a while now).

the whole Dion debacle makes me think "creativity" is going to be something they avoid for quite some time.

I get what they're saying and I'd like to keep a multi-party system with a centrist party. If no one has the answers to these problems yet, though, who's to say they need to come from the Liberals and not from another party? Even the Green Shift was basically the diet version of longstanding Green Party policy, wasn't it?

xpost but they have nothing to lose anymore!

The answers *could* come from other parties, but not from the 2011 versions of the CPC or NDP. That'll change quickly though, because both parties will be trying to reach out to the centre in the next few years, so the LPC need to beat them to the punch and stake their ground if they want to remain relevant.

i think both of them have been doing that for the last 5 years.

Not as aggressively as they'll be doing it now.

A week late, but when did being an opposition backbencher become "prime time"? If there's anything that blows away the image the CPC has very effectively sold their constituents of anyone to the left of them being a latte-sipping academic elitist with no grasp of what average Canadians are worried about it's a single mom in a dead-end job who's not giving up her hard-earned vacation for anyone.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1002515--page-of-protest-livens-up-throne-speech?bn=1

Do people really care about this? It seems like the kind of story that interests the media 1000X more than ordinary people.
Any sympathy I might have had for what she did ended with this:

"This country needs a Canadian version of an Arab spring, a flowering of popular movements that demonstrate that real power to change things lies not with Harper but in the hands of the people, when we act together in our streets, neighbourhoods and workplaces,” DePape said in the release."

People are getting gunned down in the streets by dictators and she thinks there's some vague equivalence between that and politics in Canada? Seriously, fuck people like this.

A 21-year-old wanted to make a point. A surprising number of people do seem to care. It was a fairly empty gesture. More to the point, it was an abuse of her position and a display of contempt for Parliament so she deserved to get fired. I'm guessing she was tired of her job anyway.

She was, I believe.

Oh sorry, read that as fired. Curse you tiny iPhone screen!

I'm reading several facebook postings calling this "amazing" etc., but I have to wonder if they would say the same if they weren't sympathetic to her anti-Harper message. I mean, for half a second I was like that too, but then I got pissed off at her apparently dismissive attitude toward the security issues and have to think her lack of respect for her own job responsibilities is kind of a big deal actually!

For sure she deserved to be fired for all the reasons you guys mentioned, even if her mini political manifesto wasn't completely batshit crazy.

And yeah, she's obviously fucked for life when it comes to getting any decent job in the future (certainly in civil service) but hey, she deserves it.

So many little things about this irk me, but mostly it's the excessive press-readiness, like she seemed way more excited to be in front of cameras telling her story than in any cohesive or impactful message.

I kind of doubt this is going to have a lifelong impact on her career prospects. "It was a youthful mistake that I have learned from" will probably be enough if someone asks about it in the future.

the whole thing is kind of ridiculous and clearly comparing the harper government to arab dictatorship will make any reasonable person roll his or her eyes but I wish more young people were like her instead of being so politically apathetic.

that come off harsher than I intended. I'm basically just saying I wish young people were more politically involved, even if it means occasionally saying or doing stupid things

I guess she got what she wanted:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/05/rogue-page-nets-michael-moores-support

I don't think what she did is especially awful, but you'd think being a Senate page might be a good place to start if you ever wanted to have some actual political influence down the road. You'd presumably have some access that you wouldn't otherwise have--if you knew how to go about it, you'd have the ear of some people who directly influence policy. But it'd be slow and tedious, and it'd take place out of public view. Michael Moore would never know who you are.

I guess the supportive sentiment with this is a bit like when people sympathize with police who bend the rules to get to the baddies (fictional and otherwise) but that kind of thing is ultimately wrong because it's subjective and hypocritical.. dunno. Just can't get behind what she did.

SOY BOMB!

And what do you know about it Mike Hanle y? Just because you went to Ottawa once, does not give you the right!

So the Auditor General's report is out and is indeed damning of the spending in Clement's riding as well as the way Parliament seems to have been misled about it, although the actual cost of the summit turned out to be less than what was forecast:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1005376--conservatives-misled-parliament-over-g8-costs-auditor-general

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/06/09/auditor-general-report.html

(I'm not that $664M is actually low.)

Someone on another board pointed out this piece from January suggests that Harper got exactly what he wanted, without needing to actually trigger the election himself: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/why-stephen-harper-will-trigger-a-spring-election/article1867837/

Phasing out the per-vote subsidy might complete the trick, Nicholls argued: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

(I actually disagree with him about the value of the subsidy itself, of course.)

In terms of other general dicussion, I'm disappointed that Brian Masse wasn't included in shadow cabinet. He's been a high-profile NDP critic since 2004, has done good work, is articulate, and sweeps Windsor West each time. It seems a bit odd to include some total newcomers before him. Also, Peggy Nash was depressingly evasive on Power and Politics last week when asked about the NDP's position on the Clarity Act.

Poilievre's evasions are kind of amusing when asked about all the 'border' spending in Clement's riding:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=1985803192

one day i will punch Tony Clement in the face.

So how about these strikes? The threat of back-to-work legislation seemed really sudden to me in the Air Canada case (especially considering that Canada Post is probably the more essential service). Are we going to finally see a real attack on organized labour in Reagan/Thatcher style? We're definitely going to see some actual opposition from the Official Opposition, in any case, which will at least be interesting/exciting.

If comments on a CTV article are any indication of anything, there does seem to be an anti-union mood going around:
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110619/ndp-might-filibuster-20110619/20110619/?hub=OttawaHome

Just tuning into the marathon postal debate: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1855274535

Pat Martin's speech is pretty epic.

"what's the name of our old party?" lol :/

If the NDP can keep this up all weekend, making well-written on-topic speeches and not just filibustering, I'll be impressed.

Jack Layton has more cancer and is stepping down for a while. He didn't look good at his press conference today.

Yeah, he was looking rough from the pictures I saw. I hope he has a speedy recovery.

meanwhile, Harper is using Google+ to post pictures of kittens.

So the new interim NDP leader is a separatist. Funny stuff. Apparently the NDP don't bother to vet their candidates before allowing them to run on the party ticket or before handpicking them to be leader of the party.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/02/pol-turmel-bloc-quebecois.html

Not saying I'm thrilled about this but I do think that for many left/labour people in Quebec, your earlier comments are very relevant:

I could imagine a situation where I would vote for the BQ if I lived in Quebec even though I'm not a separatist. I know I'm not the only one on this board who admires the BQ for being socially progressive, and I happen to like Duceppe as a leader.

My impression was that, especially for QS voters, the sovereigntist aspect of the party's platform came second to their socialist policies on other issues (especially considering the alternatives in QC provincial politics).

Having said that, sovereigntist parties are definitely still sovereigntist parties. It's poor optics at best and potentially more dubious than that, while I do wonder if it might have seemed less clear-cut to a prominent QC labour leader. The strongest argument the NDP/Turmel could make now is that her resignation from QS and full acceptance of NDP leadership shows that whatever her affiliations have been, she is a committed federalist now.

I always thought it was a little questionable to choose a rookie MP as leader, though, despite her union leadership credentials and despite the fact that she is just an interim leader. There are NDP MPs who have served, and served well, for a long time, who are being overlooked.

It does seem like the Liberals are in a good position to benefit.

is this really a big deal? sometimes I don't understand the rest of Canada