 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Views from Canada
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Views from Canada From: Dave the Gnome Date: 20 Oct 15 - 03:27 AM Sounds a good result to me but I don't live there! What are the views from our Canadian contingent? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,achmelvich Date: 20 Oct 15 - 03:31 AM seems a great result-well done. watch out for the neighbours though- they won't like it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 20 Oct 15 - 01:06 PM The Russians? The US doesn't care right now, except that it will mean a new ambassador. We're too busy confusing Trump with something good while Sanders continue to gain ground. I want to see the age breakdown in the Canadian vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: meself Date: 20 Oct 15 - 01:11 PM One of the Canadian contingent here seems pretty unhappy about it - but I'm pleased as punch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 02:41 PM Trudeau seems very smart, compassionate, caring, accessible, and (as indicated by the very high vote turn out) has captured new interest from many citizens in creating a better country and democracy and erasing some of the negative impact from Harper (aka Bush jr.). Over 80, 000 volunteers helped him knock on doors throughout Canada, spreading a positive, attack free platform. He has a big challenge to deliver on many parts of his dynamic and positive platform and vision for Canada. But, he has a group of talented Canadiands to help. Just today he has stated a return to a team approach reinvigorating tge public service, including government scientists. He also highlighted an immediate focus on working with provincial officials and on improving the plight of Canadas First Nations peoples. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 02:44 PM Everyone has a Mom, including Trudeau. I found this postvelevtion interview interesting: trudeaus Mom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 20 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM I am very happy. I hope Trudeau offers the Environment portfolio to Elizabeth May. (Trudeau, the new PM designate, is Liberal. Elizabeth May is the one elected Green Party member.) The seat breakdown was Liberals, 184 Conservatives (CPC) 99 New Democratic Party 44 Bloc Quebecois 10 Green Party 1 Total seats in the House of Commons is now 338. That is an increase of 30 seats from 2011 when there were 308 seats in the House. The 2011 election figures were CPC 166 NDP 103 Liberal 34 Bloc 4 Green 1 A majority now is 170 seats. (A majority in the House is 50% plus 1.) I expect the Libs will try to follow through on their campaign promises. Already Trudeau has said he'll cancel the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II order. That would have cost us 40 billion in the long run and the plane is crap. It is an encouraging result because finally the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women will be addressed. There are now 10 indigenous MPs and that is a good thing. Some deadwood from the CPC (Conservative Party of Canada) lost their seats and I am ecstatic about that. There are many 'bridges' to mend internationally and nationally. It will take time, but I think Trudeau will do it. He was the one candidate who said openly that Canada will have to run at least two years of deficit budgets, but that could change because we have no idea as a country what we have in the bank. The goddamned Conservatives have been BSing about that for years. Bill C-51 will be revisited and amended. The constant fear-mongering about Muslims will stop, and the TPP will be aired to the Canadian people for public input (I hope!). It feels to me like we saved our country from becoming a totalitarian state, and I am grateful Canadians (most of whom don't like being told what to do at the best of times) made that very clear to Harper. Harper will resign I expect today although he will keep his seat in the HoC. I hope they put the sack of shit in the back row of the HoC because I am sick of seeing his face. PS I voted NDP in my riding and I'm glad the candidate retained her seat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 03:49 PM My take is the significant losses by the NDP were due to two factors- outside that some would never vote NDP, as some see it as a anti business, pro labour socialist party. 1)The last vote gave them significant support in Quebec, but it was soft support garnered by an ill Jacl Layton, versus strong linkages to the party. Mulclair was unable to retain this support, as he was a former Liberal Quebec province Environment Minister. Wiith a less likable style than Layton, he was less able to connect with Quebec citizens. To a degree, pandering to the significant number of Quebec voters on Quebec issues, Mulcair sacrificed some support elsewhere in Canada. 2) Trudeau was the underdog, but faced relentless and personal Harper attack ads long before and dyring tge election. Some folks felt this unfair, and it likely helped Trudeau. Instead of firmly capturing the anti-Harper torch, Mulcair focused much of his energy on attacking Trudeau (as he feared Trudeau could capture anti Harper vites from the NDP). This strategy seemed to backfire, as some saw it as unfair. It enabled Trudeau to be seen as leading the anti Harper charge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 03:57 PM Trudeaus wife-not your traditional type |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 20 Oct 15 - 05:35 PM I think you are right about much of that, Ed. Another dynamic that entered the picture was the tight campaign Trudeau ran. His campaign people were brilliant. I followed the election returns from the time the polls closed in Newfoundland/Labrador until they closed in BC. I had expected the Libs to beat the CPC, but not so drastically. I'd thought it would be about 157 Libs, 117 Cons, 60 or so NDP and a few each for Bloc and Green. I'd figured the battleground would be the GTA. But when the red 'wave' that started in Nfld/Labrador kept going through NB, NS and PEI, I realized it was a new ballgame. I did not expect the Libs to get 40 seats in PQ and 80 in Ontario; blew my mind. I was very happy to see Nunavut's Aglukkaq shot down by Tootoo. She was a cabinet minister who imo was useless as tits on a bull. We have exciting days ahead, and Trudeau's promise to change the first-past-the post system is very encouraging. BUT, he won't lead the next government if he doesn't address serious issues like Bill C-51, homelessness, poverty, indigenous people's issues, veteran's affairs, etc. The overthrow/gutting of the environmental protection of over two million lakes and rivers to 159 lakes and rivers is unconscionable. Trudeau has his work cut out for him, that's for sure. And so do Canadians. But at least now I feel like we're in this together as a country. Alberta is a sore spot, but it's difficult to change the habits of a lifetime. That'll happen though. We are a remarkably rich country in terms of our resources, but we need to have Canadian companies employing Canadian people. If we lack specific skills, then we can certainly teach/learn them here. Our greatest resource, one so often overlooked, is the Canadian people. We have some tough years ahead of us, but we are a tough country, and I like Trudeau's can-do attitude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 05:56 PM Trudeau was up early today, shaking hands near the subway in his constituency-then off to Otttawa for a news conference. I detect he is genuine, full of energy and the back room old boys have not mired him down yet. He seemsvtonhave a goid team to help. Some priorities he seemed to indicate include, First Nations issues (including missing or murdered women) , building bridges with Provinces (especially related to the environment, infrastructure and energy and tge economy), tax breaks for the middle class, the public service, including freeing up and listening to scientists, rebuildung the navy with savings from fighter jets and making links with partners like the USA. I detect he wishes to change Canada's role in the Middle East, away from active involvement to less training assistance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: meself Date: 20 Oct 15 - 06:13 PM Trudeau has been smart enough to surround himself with very capable people. My fear is their connections with the various big corporations; it may be a challenge for Justin to keep them in line, to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. We've already seen evidence of this issue .... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:14 PM What big corporations ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 15 - 07:58 PM His main stratigist, Butts (with Cape Breton rootss) headed upvan environmental group (WWF, I believe). I believe Butts and the second in command worked on Ontario Liberal campaigns. I am not aware of any big corporate contacts with them, but others may have them? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 20 Oct 15 - 08:08 PM Last Guest was me. With a name like Butts, you have to be tough:) on Trudeau and Butts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 20 Oct 15 - 09:21 PM Fun fact: The prime minister of Canada's mother is the same age as Hilary Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 20 Oct 15 - 10:06 PM Great n depth commentary! #... "I hope Trudeau offers the Environment portfolio to Elizabeth May." I wish he w/could but she is anti-pipeline and he is pro... do you think they can compromise in some way? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 20 Oct 15 - 10:23 PM BTW... Elizabeth May would be my choice for PM if such a choice was available. I wanted NDP with Mulcair as PM but let's hope Trudeau does BETTER in future. Just thank goodness Harper is gone and hope Parliament returns to the institution it was meant to be instead of omnibus bills and no debate. (Mulcair shot himself in the foot when he said he would get rid of the Senate. He knew it will never happen and it was just a bullshit move to try to get votes... twit.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 21 Oct 15 - 12:22 AM again trudeau ran a decant and principled campaign, and was positive in the face of personal attacks from both harper and mulcair. mulcair was a one time Margaret supporter when a cabinet minister in quebec, a real political opportunist. harper is an evil racist and oild industry hack who would sell out the country to make one more nickel for his oil industry backers. the alberta oil run conservatives ruined alberta--never collecting world level royalities, and never saving them, and creating the toxic wasteland of the north. and they tried to do that for all of Canada. so we are free of this scheming evil man. the worst of racist Christianity and the toxic oil and military industries. trudeau faces challenges, but I doubt he will lie cheat and bribe to get through like harper did. so we are free at last!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: meself Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:26 AM Am I the only one aware of this: "one of Trudeau's campaign co-chairs ... sent an email to an oil company on how to lobby in favour of the Energy East pipeline" (Ottawa Citizen)? To me, this says something about who he has around him. No "big corporate contacts"?! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:14 AM Trudeau has plenty of talented folks to choose from on hisvteam. I am happy May was elected, as she presents a different perspective on many fronts. However, she is an unpredictable "loose cannon", and, as such, could do more harm than good on a number of fronts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:06 AM Is sanity breaking out in North America? Let's hope it's contagious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:56 AM The NDP lost my vote when Mulcair, pandering to Quebec separatists, went against the ruling of the supreme court by saying his government would accept a vote of 50% plus 1 to separate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:28 AM Meself, if you read to the end of the article, you might have learned that the campaign co-chair guy resigned when his lobbying efforts were made public, indicating that the Liberals consider such double-timing to be non-kosher. Let's hope that trend continues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:38 AM meself, when Trudeau found out that Dan Gagnier had written the letter he let Gagnier (campaign co-chair) go. I expect Trudeau would have fired him had Gagnier not left of his own accord. Certainly that broke no laws but ti wasn't a good thing either. At the least it was morally reprehensible. In Trudeau's defence, I don't think he knew. Trudeau has kept himself out of the Energy East thing. He is on the record as saying how inappropriate it was and beyond that I don't know what more he could have done. We have not had a single one of the main parties get through the past decade without someone--make that many someones--getting caught breaking the law. I liken the situation to Michael Sona's actions in the robocall scandal. I don't think Harper knew that was happening. What I do know is that for the first time in nine years and eight months I don't wake up each day wondering how much more of our democracy will get "thrown under the bus" to consolidate our government's grip on the law and the CPC's stranglehold on power. I too am sick of the plots and schemes that have been blatantly thrown in the face of Canadians and about how little we have been able to do to change that. I expected a minority Liberal government--indeed hoped for one. When the count came in at 184 seats I felt like Christmas had come early. Besides, I made a deal with god close to a year ago--and I am an atheist, but I was grasping at straws--that if Harper and the CPC lost this election I would go to church once a month. (Previously I went no more frequently than a few times per decade, and then only for hatched, matched or dispatched ceremonies.) I will spend the next few days looking for loopholes, but I don't think I have a way out. I can live with that. There are enough churches in the area that I won't get stuck with any one group of the faithful nor they with me. Best wishes to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Greg F. Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:08 AM Is sanity breaking out in North America? Not South of the Saint Lawrence River & the Great Lakes, more's the pity. Congratulations, Canada! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Mooh Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:35 AM Absolutely delighted that Harper is history. Can't fathom who would vote for his party and what it stands for. Not so sure about Trudeau as PM but no matter he's certain to be leagues better than Harper. Had hoped for an NDP majority or at least official opposition. Very disappointed that they got so few seats. I understand what happened. The Cons voted in droves in an act of paranoid self-preservation of their bigoted hatred and ignorant and extremely narrow social, national, and world view. The Liberals smelled blood in the water and voted in droves in a sense of renewed hope and optimism, aided by a large percentage of (otherwise) NDP supporters who were afraid that the Cons might survive for another term, and anything but conservative (ABC) had become a rallying cry. The collateral damage was a thrashing of the NDP which lost many very very good parliamentarians. As for the Block, I'm surprised they're still living the dream (or fantasy) and now that their leader lost his own seat, it questions the viability of the party, again. The Greens, god bless their idealistic souls, kept their leader's seat and she's a wonderful parliamentarian who I hope will be consulted by the ruling party often on matters green. As I understand it from folks kind of "in the know", the new PM is already being pestered by pleas to undo the Harper damage. I hope he heeds those pleas, but it will take years to do the repairs. Peace, Mooh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:39 AM If I may paraphrase Yeats: For Trudeau may keep faith For all that is done and said. Trudeau will have an uphill battle and will need the support of the NDP to keep the Conservatives in check, as I understand that they do have things in common. So do the Greens; I can't speak to the BQ. Working together and compromise will be the order of the day. I am a bit sorry that The Bridge Party didn't win any seats -- I had hoped for them to win four. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 21 Oct 15 - 12:04 PM ""NDP supporters who were afraid that the Cons might survive for another term, and anything but conservative (ABC) had become a rallying cry. The collateral damage was a thrashing of the NDP which lost many very very good parliamentarians"" Soft Liberals voting NDP, because of a lack of interest in the previous Liberal leader in the previous federal election is one reason why the NDP became the official opposition last time.. Unfortunately for the NDP, they erroneously began to believe the larger number of votes they received at this point indicated strong NDP support in Ontario and Quebec. This aloofness was indicated by Mulcair's odd election proclamation that the NDP only needed 35 seats to defeat Harper. Wishful thinking, versus reality, can lead to big surprises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 01:53 PM http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=par&document=index&lang=e§ion=pol That is an Elections Canada link and it enumerates the 23 parties that ran in this election. The Bridge Party (note that their official title is 'The Bridge Party of Canada') ran only one candidate, so Rap's hope was doomed from the get-go. From Macleans Magazine here is the party-list and the number of candidates they ran this election: Number of party candidates Alliance of the North: 1 Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada: 8 Bloc Quebecois: 78 Canada Party: 1 Canadian Action Party: 3 Christian Heritage Party of Canada: 30 Communist Party of Canada: 26 Conservative Party of Canada: 338 Democratic Advancement Party of Canada: 4 Forces et Democratie: 17 Green Party of Canada: 336 Independent: 74 Liberal Party of Canada: 338 Libertarian Party of Canada: 72 Marijuana Party: 8 Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada: 70 New Democratic Party: 338 No Affiliation: 6 Party for Accountability, Competency and Transparency: 1 Pirate Party of Canada: 5 Progressive Canadian Party: 8 Rhinoceros Party: 27 Seniors Party of Canada: 1 The Bridge Party of Canada: 1 United Party of Canada: 1 That is the most current info I could conveniently locate. I think the Greens ran a full slate (meaning one candidate in each riding, so their number on that list should (I think) read 338. However, I was wrong once before in 1967, so please excuse me if I have screwed up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 21 Oct 15 - 04:42 PM ""Trudeau will have an uphill battle and will need the support of the NDP to keep the Conservatives in check"" I suspect with a majority, not much help is needed. Opposition parties, including the NDP, will likely be more of a thorn to Trudeau, especially since they are smarting from their "perceived" throne being stolen. The conservatives will likely be busy licking their wounds and "finding themselves", since they were led by a "one man show", and are feebly prepared for a change in leadership. Harper was not the mentorship type. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 05:54 PM "Harper was not the mentorship type." I compliment you on a masterpiece of understatement, Ed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:05 PM "The Trudeau government has its clear priorities, many of them embarrassingly more progressive than the NDP's platform. The NDP caucus can hardly oppose any of them, but nor can it expect the Government to pay attention to NDP overtures. Why should they? To fight the dreaded Harperman, the Liberals, and specifically their leader, received nothing but abuse during the campaign, often gratuitously personal and always strategically dubious. The Liberals will hardly be grateful for NDP advice about the right way to run Canada." A good day for Canada, an awful one for NDP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 21 Oct 15 - 07:36 PM On the NDP party: ""What is the point of a social democratic party that is afraid of democratic socialism? What is the point of running as faux Liberals when the real Liberals are already there? What is the point of being in politics if you never have a chance of forming government? Yet if a left-wing party's only chance at power is to move rightward, why bother?"" Toronto Star |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Oct 15 - 08:44 PM I note Trudeau said he wants to dump your first past the post, and bring in something fairer. On the popular vote this time thasuggests the Liberals and the NDP would need to get into bed together, and also that the Conservatives aren't too likely to get back in a hurry. Pleased to see no Conservatives got in in Newfoundland! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 21 Oct 15 - 09:04 PM No Conservatives got in in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Nunavut, Northwest Territories or Yukon. It was a great day for this country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 21 Oct 15 - 10:20 PM A visit from Santa in the North? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:15 AM Trudeau indicated he would make changes to C-51 and here you go. Changes to Anti Terror law |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Dave the Gnome Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:21 AM Glad to see that my initial reaction of it being a good thing was right! Not often that happens :-) Cheers all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:28 AM Here in Ottawa, the civil service is cautiously optimistic about its current efforts to negotiate a new contract with Treasury Board. One of the Liberals' last overt campaign actions before the vote was an open letter to the Public Service of Canada promising a newly respectful attitude from the Prime Minister's Office and the return of professional independence for everybody but especially for scientists. Oh yeah, and Statistics Canada will start doing the long-form census again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 22 Oct 15 - 09:01 AM Needed changes to Bill C-51 will be addressed quickly also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:36 AM Last Episode of 24 Seven |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 22 Oct 15 - 11:38 AM BTW... some very insightful and knowledgeable posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 22 Oct 15 - 12:20 PM Thank you, gnu. My laugh for the day. Much appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 22 Oct 15 - 12:38 PM Much easier to watch than Harper singing. Fancy Dancing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:12 PM Trudeau, not a stick in the mud. His Dad would be proud. Top that, world leaders |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:52 PM Hahahhaaa! All of this must be driving Evil Stevil nuts. Let's see if this works... https://www.facebook.com/drigcanada/photos/a.787962457989564.1073741828.787938944658582/924347107684431/?type=3&fref=nf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 22 Oct 15 - 04:54 PM Ya might hafta be on Facebook to get that one... it's brilliant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 22 Oct 15 - 06:13 PM "The swath of red ridings that propelled Justin Trudeau to a thunderous Liberal victory Monday boasts more newcomers as a percentage of the population than any other party's territory." Federal election surprises |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:19 PM So am I right to understand that Canadians follow the European convention on the political meaning of Red and Blue rather than that of their neighbours to the south? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:27 PM Maybe Gretsky was hit with a puck to the head? The Great obe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:35 PM In Canada, red is liberal and blue is conservative. Other parties have different colours (because it's Canada, after all), for instance, the Greens are green. I doubt that the implications of the demographics are lost on the Republican number-crunchers here, but I also doubt that they can convince the powers-that-be. I really want to see the age, income, and education levels! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 22 Oct 15 - 08:46 PM Gretsky... fuck Gretsky. I thought the world of him as an athlete but.... why am I typing any more words? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Mr Red Date: 23 Oct 15 - 04:16 AM I can't help noticing that there is a big measure of dynasty creeping in, or never went away in the world as a whole. Bush, Clinton etc. You see it in sport, particularly where huge amounts of money are needed like motor sport. On the positive side you can see that a powerful charismatic parent would imbue all sorts of respect and education on an offspring. And maybe a bit of genetics. If it works don't change it, the names that is! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:12 AM Justin Trudeau is the first "son of" to reach such high office at the federal level in Canada, but not the only interesting scion in the new Liberal government. Ottawa-Kanata, the riding next over from us, elected one Andrew Leslie, late Lieutenant-General and Commander of the Canadian Army; Mr Leslie is the grandson not only of General Andrew McNaughton, Commander of First Canadian Army from 1940 to 1944, but also the Honorable Brooke Claxton, Minister of National Health and Welfare under Mackenzie King and Minister of National Defence under Louis St. Laurent. Much is hoped for and expected of Mr Leslie. Meanwhile, I'm sure I'm not alone in the hope that Justin Trudeau is more like Pitt the Younger than he is like George Dubya Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:25 AM Nit everyone embraces the idea that Mr. Leslie would be a positive pick. This is a concern for some in Atlantic Canada, where the navy and ship building is important, and wherec the Libs got hefty vote support. Leslie bad news? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:26 AM Oops, nit=not:( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:32 AM From Halifax Chronicle Herald: Today's editorial cartoon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:44 AM Ed T., I agree that Mr Leslie comes with more baggage than any other freshman MP we have ever seen in our lifetime. He comes from an Artillery family and he served in the Royal Regiment until he reached the rank of Colonel; further, his (extensive) experience of joint operations never included maritime task forces. On the other hand, his entire military career was spent in the unified Canadian Forces, which have consistently pursued "jointness" over more than 30 years, so he's not blind to the needs of the non-pongo services -- or of the industries and regions supporting them. More than that, Mr Leslie is very, very smart -- intelligent enough to avoid appointments for which he is not well prepared. Full disclosure -- I am slightly acquainted with the guy, and I have a brother who knows him very well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 23 Oct 15 - 08:57 AM Further to my last: Ken Hansen, the analyst quoted in the article linked to above, focuses on then LGen Leslie's 2011 recommendations for CF Transformation. At the time, he was working with government priorities and planning assumptions that included drastic budget cuts in the Army and Navy to accommodate -- among other things -- the procurement of new ships for the Navy and the Coast Guard as well as the F-35 for the Air Force. After Afghanistan, we were supposed to do fewer (and cheaper) overseas deployments -- remember the peace dividend? We were supposed to get one of those. Didn't happen. Four years is a long time in politics and staff planning. After securing the leadership of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau recruited Mr Leslie as his military advisor. I would bet money that if he had the CF Transformation task today, knowing what he knows about the new government's priorities, Mr Leslie's recommendations would look quite different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 23 Oct 15 - 09:04 AM Let's just hope that he shifts the CF's role back to it's traditional one of peacekeeping which is more in tune with Canada's reputation as a kinder, gentler and less belligerent nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,John from Kemsing Date: 23 Oct 15 - 10:16 AM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,John from Kemsing Date: 23 Oct 15 - 10:20 AM This is excellent news. I hear one of his first tasks is to repeal the law whereby visiting people can be deported for helping their wife-to-be with a few D.I.Y. jobs around the home! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 23 Oct 15 - 10:24 AM Interesting, Charmion. If selected, hopefully, he performs well, to calm current concerns. I suspect many Canadians, though certainly not all, have the similar feelings, last Guest. While the last government seemed obsessed with questionable pre-emptive bomb dropping strategy - they seemed to have "shallow thinking" when it came to domestic defense. For example, while there was a lot of talk about the Northern priority, it was not evident in defense nor science. Building naval ships for northern defense with little, if any, ice breaking capacity seems like poor strategy to me. Added to this, is a deminished northern science capacity, as most Coast Guard ships, with formerly excellent science focused capacity, are now ancient. The same goes for what I see as minimal Canadian air defense capacity in the North. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 23 Oct 15 - 12:06 PM Candid reporters recollection on Trudeau |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 23 Oct 15 - 05:11 PM Ed T., thanks for posting that article by Susan Delacourt. I agree with you about shallow thinking by the Conservative government. Mr Harper sure talked a great game of Arctic sovereignty and strengthening the Forces, but, once we were clear of Afghanistan, delivery just kept not happening. Priorities shifted, then drifted. To the best of my knowledge, we still don't have the fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that has been promised in every Report on Plans and Priorities since the late 1990s, and I recently read in the Globe and Mail that the Navy is out looking to rent operational support ships as the fleet is now down to its last creaky old oiler. What ever happened to General Hillier's "big honkin' ship"? Oh, right. We got four Globemasters instead. However, I think Canadians should give up any hope of a return to "traditional" peacekeeping. The practice of forming a multinational force to sit a buffer zone and babysit the cooling hostilities of two belligerent powers was a thing of the Cold War, when the belligerents were typically clients of the super-powers and the peacekeepers came from other clients of the super-powers. (UNEF I, fielded after the Suez Crisis, and the International Control Commission in Indo-China are the most glaringly obvious examples of this phenomenon.) The failure of UN-style interpositional peacekeeping in Somalia (1993), Croatia and Bosnia (1995) and Rwanda (1996) should have convinced even the most starry-eyed romantic long ago, but this fantasy just refuses to die. Bottom line: the Canadian Forces will never do that again. "Traditional" peacekeeping is over. We can, however, expect to see a lot more deployments like Operation Hestia, the humanitarian mission in Haiti after the big earthquake of January 2011, and Operation Mobile, Canada's participation in the 2011 blockade and no-fly zone in Libya. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 23 Oct 15 - 06:05 PM Excellent posts. Again, I am thankful for the edification and viewpoints. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Dorothy Parshall Date: 23 Oct 15 - 07:47 PM I second what Gnu just posted. This thread is more interesting than CBC reporting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew Date: 24 Oct 15 - 02:46 PM There have been so many lacklustre performances by those late of the services as MND--Andy Mcnaughton (Andrew Leslie's paternal grandfather), Gilles Lamontagne, Paul Hellyer, Douglas Harkness, George Pearkes, Allan McKinnon, C.M. "Bud" Drury, Gord O'Connor and Gordon Churchill come to mind--that Andrew might do better to steer of it. Only Layton Ralston and Brooke Claxton (Andrew's maternal grandfather) might be said to have stood out. (Like Andrew, five of these ministers were late of the artillery.) Andrew has a master's degree from the London School of Economics in conflict studies, so I would argue that the best fit for him would be Minister of Foreign Affairs. Marc Garneau might be a good fit for defence; a sailor has never had the post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 24 Oct 15 - 03:09 PM Four east coasters I am keeping an eye on: Dominic LeBlanc, whose Dad was forner cabinet minister under PET, Senator and GG. Dominic ran for the lib. Leadership and gif his Masters of Law degree at Harvard. Scot Brison, originally a PC, served as Minister of Public Works under Paul Martin and was Finance critic in opposition sibce 2010. He has an impressive international financial record. In givernment affairs. Geoff Regan, a lawyer and former Fisheries Minister, son of a provincial Premier, who was also a cabinet minister in PETs government. His wife is the NS, Liberal, provincial Labour Minister. Bill Casey, formerly a MP in the Harper government (a progressive) , who left the CPC over Harpers failure to honour a signed funding agreement with Nova Scotia, which gave him political "folk hero" status in Nova Scotia. He knocked off a major CPC candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 24 Oct 15 - 03:10 PM Just a Southern view, but I think that both Canada and the US would be well advised to build icebreakers and other equipment for the North. Russia already has done so. No, I'm not trying to stir old Cold War pots! I think that the North is going to change, radically, in the next few decades -- see this, for instance. (By the way, I subscribe to that magazine.) There are now cruise ships plying the Northwest Passage, and that means change. The permafrost is melting and changing, meaning still more change. The North is changing, and Washington, Ottawa, Oslo, Copenhagen, Helsinki, and other capitols had best awaken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 24 Oct 15 - 03:53 PM http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/8-arctic-countries-to-sign-historic-coast-guard-deal-1.3284090 You might wish to give that a read, Rap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 24 Oct 15 - 04:08 PM May included in Climate event |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 24 Oct 15 - 04:34 PM The Canadian Coast Guard is not a military organization. My observation is Russia has significant government ice breaking capacity in the Arctic,while Canada is at, or near, the bottom. Canadian Science capacity has diminished significantly in the area, as the research fleet is mostly old, and many with such capacity are no longer certified to operate in ice infested waters. Since it takes many years to design and construct such vessels, I would not expect much change in the short term. Much needed is research on dealing with oil spilled in cold ice infestec arctic waters, as it is complex and coukd have a major environmental impact . Even if there is no oil development in the area, increased vessels transiting the international waters presents a huge risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: meself Date: 24 Oct 15 - 05:39 PM Of course, if the price of oil doesn't go back up - way up - it is unlikely there will even be much oil-exploration, let alone development, in the Arctic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 24 Oct 15 - 05:44 PM Regardless of the current oil situation, which could easly turn around, is still of interest for oil transport. Additionally, any transpory ship causality can spill significant quantities if oil, in a vulnerable area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 25 Oct 15 - 12:08 PM "Mr. (Pierre Elliot) Trudeau could talk to anybody because he kept his independence … The Americans did not like the fact that he was friendly with Fidel Castro," said Chretien. "Talk to everybody and try to offer a solution." That is what I meant wnen it comes to taking more of a peaceful, middle ground approach, versus taking sides on just about everything and dropping bombs, helter skelter. Keeping the high ground, and closer to the UN, versus ignoring it puts Canada in a better position to be helpful to solve disputes-and they are not all in the Middle east, where the oil abounds. The world has changed, but there is still a valuable role to play in the middle. Canada vacated this position under Harper- while damage was done, it Is not too late to reposition. Chretien's advice on foreign policy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 26 Oct 15 - 09:08 AM An interesting post-election interview of Eliz. May, from CBC, Subday Edition, Michael Enright. Eliz. May |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 26 Oct 15 - 09:38 PM Thanks, #. I'm glad of that. But we still need more study Up There. "Up Here" a few issues ago had an interesting article on what the Arctic will look like in, I think it was, 2050. If you can find it -- I can't find it online -- it's worth a read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 26 Oct 15 - 10:48 PM My view. Trudeau is young. Those ads about not being ready yet? Yup. He WAS a loose canon but he got elected because people voted strategically (loooonnnng story). Now, he will be reined in by the old guard to an extent. He still has the power to speak his own mind but it will be with more counsel from people far more wise in "the ways" of getting shit done. I have my thoughts on some of the things he promised... some are just not doable in the time frames he stated or alluded to but that will work itself out. Me? I don't care about pot legalization (as if that will happen! hahahaha!) and lots of other things. I care about lots of other things. But, right now, after the Syrian bombing is stopped, I care about one thing. Fuck that memorial to the victims of communism and that fuckin Mother of Canada statue crap on the Cape! Take some of that new infrastructure money and build that new justice building that was supposed to be built and named after PET and make that fuckin piece of shit Harper attend the opening ceremony. After all, the Supreme Court smacked Harper's ass more than once and I would relish to see his ass supremely kicked... humiliated. Of course, there would be a light tea and sandwiches afterwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 05:13 AM Age of Justin Trudeau. Joe Clark was Canada's youngest PM, at 39, JustinTrudeau is 43. Trudeau has been a MP for 7 years. JFK became USA President at the same age as Justin Trudeau, and Obama at 47. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 06:36 AM Refreshing to see Canada's youth engaged: ""Former Senate Page, who as a young Senate page disrupted the reading of the government's 2011 throne speech with a "Stop Harper" sign, is delighted voters finally turned her admonition into reality"" Page-Stop Harper |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 27 Oct 15 - 10:39 AM Again, interesting articles, especially the one about Jean Chrétien. Keep 'em coming, Ed. People here -- both across Canada and on this board -- like to talk loosely about Canada being "traditionally" a nation that does peacekeeping and acts as an "honest broker" in international relations. My reading of Canadian history produces a rather different picture: as I see it, until Trudeau the Elder came along, Canada "traditionally" raised disproportionately large armies of amateur soldiers to fight in overseas wars under British command, and had little to no voice in international relations. Pierre Elliot Trudeau changed that, taking us out of Central Army Group in the NATO force in West Germany (where our mechanized brigade group operated as part of a British formation), and shifting our defence priorities to focus on sovereignty in Canada, which meant domestic operations and cooperation with the United States in NORAD. That whole honest broker thing came from our participation in UN peace-support operations and the UN Security Council, both artifacts of the Cold War balance of power in which Canada managed to remain a client state of the USA while remaining aloof from the war in Viet Nam. BTW, that was smart stick-handling by both Lester Pearson and Trudeau the Elder. Of course, Canada is even more of a US client now, thanks in no small part to the Manichean world view of the Conservative Party under Mr Harper. But that's a whole 'nother topic of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 27 Oct 15 - 12:50 PM Ed... Joe Who? >;-) I should have not used the word "young". Unskilled, off-the-cuff, and flippy-floppy come to mind. Never say never if you are gonna change yer mind based on polls and media whims. The again, he is the PM and I am not. As for Joe, I wish he had stayed longer but you can't thumb yer nose at such as Big Oil and get away with. Too bad. I'd like to have me some a that there Petro-Canada share $$$. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 01:18 PM "Unskilled, off-the-cuff, and flippy-floppy". Did you mean "not ready":) Actually, after suffering the opposite from Harper, I suspect these very qualities were seen as refreshing by many. Oddly enough, Mulcair accused Trudeau as speaking from talking points during one of the debates. I especially found his actions to free up liberal Senators from attachment to the Liberal Caucus refreshing, possibly off the cuff, at a minimum, not reflecting established political skills and approaches. Some of these qualities could prove to be beneficial, or a disaster. Hopefully, it's the latter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 01:29 PM An quote in a recent column from one of my favourite Canadian opinion journalists. ""Parties who act like gerbils, and expect to achieve something other than going around in circles from jumping on the same old spinning wheel, stand only to tire themselves out."" Chantal Hebert on the future direction for the NDP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 02:26 PM ""OTTAWA (Reuters) - The Canadian government said on Tuesday it will allow environmentalist Paul Watson to reapply for his passport, three years after the document was confiscated by German authorities. A spokesman for the Citizenship and Immigration Department denied Watson's allegation that the decision to withhold the passport was driven by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's dislike of environmentalists."" Paul Watson can reapply for Cdn. citizenship |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:17 PM Oops,looks like Reuters reissued a June story?Odd? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 27 Oct 15 - 04:57 PM Last guest was me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: ragdall Date: 28 Oct 15 - 02:16 AM I'm thrilled that Justin is PM. I'll find out in the months to come if I was naive to believe that he intended to keep the promises he made to us. One that is important to me is already in the works. I won't have to walk a block or two, on an icy road, in bitter cold, to check if any bills cheques or correspondence has arrived in the post, or worse, come home one day to find a huge chunk of my front lawn has been replaced with a concrete slab holding a group mailbox. My mail will continue to be delivered to my door and the Liberals will work on ways to save Canada Post. Perhaps some of the taxes from Marijuana sales could be used to subsidize the service? rags |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 28 Oct 15 - 08:31 AM Canucks have a proud history of compromise. Sign the petition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 28 Oct 15 - 08:59 AM Well, I'd sign it, but being a US citizen my signature would be ignored. If Canada is a "client-state" of the US why aren't you folks trying to bribe me with stuff like fabulous vacations and cruises and things? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 28 Oct 15 - 09:02 AM A more fitting legacy for the ex PM: Sign the petition |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 28 Oct 15 - 09:03 AM As a compromise, howz about naming only parts of the Calgary Airport for Harper - like "the Harper baggage carousel" , the Harper Control Tower", or the Harper Tarmac"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:23 PM I think a new disease should be named after him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Jeri Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:38 PM Harpes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 28 Oct 15 - 04:46 PM Harper to resign, surprise, surprise;) Ran out of tricks? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 28 Oct 15 - 07:46 PM Trudeaus Defense Decision |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 02 Nov 15 - 06:30 AM Arctic, Russia-Canada |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 02 Nov 15 - 05:54 PM "As for Canada, our Arctic surveillance remains gossamer thin and our navy is still waiting for the first Arctic/offshore patrol ships, which were initially promised eight years ago and whose numbers have been slashed back to help slay the Conservative's deficit dragon." That is from a CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-pacific-arctic-brian-stewart-1.3297267 Canada needs to take a hard look at our armed forces, decide what strategic and national interests they will face/be used for and get to it. If we are going to have an army then we have the responsibility to support it. Same goes for navy and air force. We need military leadership that follows through on the government's orders, but we must recognize that stupid orders lead to stupid results and that what we really need is a clearer vision of what role we want to play in world affairs, if any. We have had ten years of bad government, something we can only fault ourselves for because we put them in office. Since we're back to the drawing board anyway, we may as well fix it right. If we continue to have standing armed forces, what should be our priorities? I think we have to drop the strategic dimension and concentrate on home defence at the national level, SAR (on land and sea), large emergencies like floods and snow/ice storms, and if we get entangled internationally it should not be at the behest of existing empires like the US, China, Russia or the oil-rich countries. We have got ourselves into increasingly shady wars and for what? We have done some of the UN's dirty work and for what? We initially put troops in Afghanistan so as to free-up some American troops the US needed pronto for the Iraq War. Over a decade later we're still involved. For what? Our special warfare troops are world-class, and maybe we need more concentration in that area of combat operations, or maybe we need to change our approach to the countries that want not so much our help but more tellingly, our involvement. And if we are going to have armed forces, we'd be well advised to build the weapons here, in Canada. We can do very well without so much of the crap we buy from elsewhere, and that includes boats and planes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 02 Nov 15 - 09:45 PM Scott Taylor on Canada's military involvement in the Middle East. Scot Taylor column |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 02 Nov 15 - 09:47 PM Last post was Ed T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Nov 15 - 03:07 AM That's a good article, Ed. Thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:20 AM One more sleep! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 03 Nov 15 - 06:55 AM 10 more sleeps |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:25 AM Cabinet has been vetted and sworn to secrecy. Tomorrow will be a good day. Lots of work has to be undone. Anyone got a hunch on the recall of Parliament? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 03 Nov 15 - 10:50 AM I suspevt parliament will be recalled sooner, versus "in the new year" , as projected by some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 03 Nov 15 - 11:15 AM There are a few things Parliament is needed for, pronto, so a BAG puts it at November 14-16, 2015. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 03 Nov 15 - 02:35 PM Although I detest* such, I would like to see an omnibus bill with a bunch of things like the long form census included (I'll stop at that as there's no need to go on and on and on), debate limited on it and shove the works up... er... down Harper's throat. Give that prick a taste of his own medicine. #... yeah. I figure the 17th will be day one or, at least, I hope so. *Detest is not a strong enough word for how I feel about omnibus bills but I wouldn't mind seeing one introduced to kick start a return to our Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Rapparee Date: 04 Nov 15 - 08:52 AM Is there enough of a coalition to toss out, say, C51? I haven't been following the US news very much the last few days, much less Our Northern Neighbour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 04 Nov 15 - 09:09 AM Trudeau supported C51 but he has said he will modify it to get rid of some of the more troubling clauses.....we shall see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 04 Nov 15 - 09:14 AM At this point a coalition isn't necessary--other than to make the House more peaceful. The Liberals have a comfortable majority and even if everyone else ganged up on them, the Liberals still have 184 of the 338 seats. All they need from a vote is 50% plus one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 04 Nov 15 - 10:26 AM Thanks for the link to that Scott Taylor article, Ed. He neatly summarizes most of my own most uncomfortable thoughts about our military adventures since the end of the Cold War. Canada's defence problem is that, while we have no effective enemies, our friends are almost as troublesome as enemies would be. But if Canada were to make like Sweden and disentangle itself from its web of military alliances in favour of a focus on domestic requirements such as search-and-rescue, the result would be a massive loss of markets in the United States and, possibly, exclusion from the G8 (or however many are in the club these days). Our branch-plant economy would be shaken to its very foundations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 04 Nov 15 - 03:34 PM I am uncertain if your assessment would hold up to close scrutiny, Charmion, nor whether Swedens case would be the only optiion to consider, nor am I certain that the only option was to totally disentangle Canada from all defensive military alliances? In recent years, Canada, given it's size, has taken on a disproportionate size of the military load in non-defensive military adventures, forvexamole, in the Middle East. Canada has done well, reputation wise, in the past focusing on United Nations sanctioned initiatives. Canada, like many nations is a member if NATO. Note that while many countries participate in joint NATO defense, not all have chosen the recent course of Canada, and I suspect suffered not much, if any, economic consequenes. Generally, economic and trade alliances and trade differ. As to the G8, Canada is not a member because if our military might. Japan, forvexample, hardly suffers economically because it is not dropping bombs in the Middle East. I note Leslie was not selected as Defense Minister. Maybe it is for other reasons, but, there was cobsiderable concern about his potential appointment on the east coast, which has high hopes for Trudeaus election time comnents supporting the Navy. While I support military spending, especially for genuine national defense, peace keeping and UN santioned missions, the billions spent in agressive (many oil supply inspired) military adventors, has accomplished little ( beyond making enemies with locals, that is). However, this spending has taken resources from military spending to defend our own countries interests and borders - for example in the north. (While search and rescue has a DND lead, supported by other departments, it is hardly ever considered a "primary role"). But if Canada were to make like Sweden and disentangle itself from its web of military alliances in favour of a focus on domestic requirements such as search-and-rescue, the result would be a massive loss of markets in the United States and, possibly, exclusion from the G8 (or however many are in the club these days). Our branch-plant economy would be shaken to its very foundations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:16 AM Opinion column on Canada's new Defense Minister, provides interesting military background: National Observer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:40 AM I don't know which metrics you're using to determine size, Ed, but as I see it, Canada's contribution to military operations in the Middle East has never been large, and is now downright teeny-tiny. Here's a run-down of the "traditional peacekeeping" missions, by which I mean mandates limited to observation, monitoring and supervision of compliance with cease-fire agreements. * In UNEF I and II (1956-1978), the Canadian contingent consisted mostly of logisticians, communicators, technicians and engineers, plus a few combat arms types for leadership, staff support, force protection and labour. UNEF I ran to about 1,000 personnel, or about the size of a modern battle group, out of an army mustering something like 40,000 all ranks. UNEF II was about 1,150 deployed from the post-Unification CF of about 95,000 strong. * In 1978, according to Wikipedia, we had a contingent of about 110 people in UNIFIL; if I recall correctly, that group was spun off from UNEF II, then winding down, for the theatre-activation phase of the mission. * In UNDOF on the Golan Heights (Operation Danaca), we provided a logistics battalion (typically about 100 personnel) from 1973 to 2002-ish; now, that mission is down to two staff officers deployed under Operation Gladius. * In UNTSO (Operation Jade, running since 1953), we contribute military observers, never more than 10 at a time. * In the MFO in the Sinai Peninsula (Operation Calumet, running since 1981), our people are air traffic control technicians who provide a "flight-following" service. That contingent tops out at about 30 all ranks. * In the Office of the United States Security Coordinator in Jerusalem (Operation Proteus, running since 2005), we contribute staff officers whose activities are described with great delicacy in the Canadian Joint Operations Command website: "The CAF members deployed on Operation PROTEUS fill a variety of key roles within the USSC as an integrated part of the organization. Task Force Jerusalem has grown and adapted to new roles within the USSC, and now has an emphasis on institutional capacity-building. The members of Task Force Jerusalem: - provide the Palestinian Authority Security Forces (PASF) with training advice and support; - help the PASF develop logistics capabilities; - support the construction of security infrastructure for the Palestinian Authority; and - facilitate co-operation between the Palestinian Authority and Government of Canada on issues that are not usually of military interest, such as borders and crossings, and movement and access." Said website does not indicate the size of the deployed task force, but I happen to know that it has varied from as few as one member to about 35 all ranks. And that's it, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 15 - 09:49 AM Since you refer to economic in your earlier post, Charmion, these were the cost metrics I refer to, not human costs. I would hardly call the billions spent in the Afghanistan mission "teenie" - which was hardly a peacekeeping nor defensive mission. These resources, IMO, could have been better spent in actual defense, or preparedness to assist in less agressive missions in other parts of the world. While it does not take that many troops to drop bombs (there, in Libya, Iraq, or Syria), the financial costs alone (to the bombed population and to Canadians) are significant. Considering the lack of transparency (aka Harper) regarding Afganistan, from outside estimates, it is likely that that this mission alone cost Canada between $30 to $40 billion (note the future costs to veterans lingers). Given his way, I suspect Harper would have continued down this path in the middle east, or accelerated it more. Firtunately, Trudeau may inject more sense into the situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 05 Nov 15 - 10:36 AM We are fortunate to have Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan--a guy who's been there and done that--to inject wise council into civilian thinking about what a military is and what the human cost is. ' "He was the best single Canadian intelligence asset in theatre, and his hard work, personal bravery, and dogged determination undoubtedly saved a multitude of Coalition lives," said Brigadier-General David Fraser in a letter to the VPD [Vancouver Police Department]. "Through his courage and dedication, (then) Major Sajjan has singlehandedly changed the face of intelligence gathering and analysis in Afghanistan." ' I haven't felt this positive about Canada in ten years as I do today. But sufferin' jaysus there is a pile of work ahead of us. Belt-tightening time for a bit I think. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 05 Nov 15 - 11:28 AM But Ed, you referred specifically to operations in the Middle East, not Afghanistan, and those "peacekeeping" missions are the cheapest kind there is! Hardly any people, no complex weapons systems, only combat support and combat service support equipment ... How is that disproportionately large? Afghanistan was large by comparison only with Canadian deployments (not counting Germany) since 1970. Joint Task Force Afghanistan was capped at just under 3,000 all ranks, in all units and functions -- or about the size of the 1st Canadian Division in Italy circa 1943. As for the billions spent, a lot of that was spent to acquire howitzers, helicopters, Globemasters and other big-ticket items we needed just to operate in that theatre, and to fund the development projects that the great and the good thought would make the war go away but didn't, from primary schools and police sub-stations to the dam on the Arghandab River that was supposed to ensure the supply of electricity to Kandahar City. The last combat rotation of Operation Athena was spent laying the bed of a new road through the Panjwa'i District from Sperwan Ghar to Mushan, rather less than 30 kilometres. (See the latest film by Paul Gross, "Route Hyena", for a highly romanticized view.) Wanna guess how much that cost, with the construction site under constant guard by a company of infantry and a squadron of Leopard tanks? But in the league table of per-capita defence spending, Canada has never cracked even the middle ranks of the NATO nations. For many years, it was said that only Luxembourg spent less than us, and if we have edged up in the ranking by much it's very recent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 05 Nov 15 - 11:29 AM When asked about why (cabinet gender) parity was important to him... "Because it's 2015," Trudeau said. A cheer went up in the crowd gathered outside of Rideau Hall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 05 Nov 15 - 12:41 PM Smart lady... always was. Hopefully, the new minister won't be a piece of shit like the last one was. Sad to say he was from NB. Glad to say "so long" to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:24 PM Charmion, it seems you are "nitpicking" when it comes to the term Middle East in my earlier post. This seems to be defined differently by different folks. Bush referred to "the greater Middle East" when discussing the "coalition missions" , this definition is fine with me, so, consider it as amended (if, it really matters the discussion, and your original case). I would hardly consider the Afghanistan mission peacekeeping, but if you promote it as such, good luck. Again, my meter was actual Canadian dollars diverted from defense and peacekeeping in other areas, including Canada. Possibly some of those dollars coud have been used to rebuild capacity and equipment for santioned UN and reasonable NATO defense purposes? You seem to put a case forward that Canadas involvement in Afghanistan was money well spent. I disagree. I also suspect Canadas bombing missions in Libya, Iraq and Syria did little to make much better. Some feel it may have made things worse (as the Arab League once cautioned that suddenly emiving leaders could open up a Pandoras box in the region-much like we see today). BTW, because of a lack in transparency brought about by Harper, accurate data the real financial costs of Canadas military involvement in "the greater Middle East" is difficult to determine. libya mission |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 05 Nov 15 - 01:48 PM I've been reading up on this guy. Very impressive resume. Good choice for Minister for more than one reason. Here is but one snippet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1fWSq0mnXM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Charmion Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:27 PM No, Ed, I never claimed Afghanistan as a peacekeeping mission; I'm surprised that you could get such a ntion from what I have written. And if you consider Afghanistan to be part of what we are pleased to call the Middle East, you're in a small minority, at least in Canada. The namers-of-things at DND like the phrase "Southwest Asia" for that locality, and -- ex-civil serpent that I am -- I assumed that we were following their convention. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 15 - 02:47 PM Charmiron, I dont see that it was a "far reach" to conclude you support Canadian foreign military missions, such as Afganistan, (as your case did not seem that clear to me). If I misunderstood, my mistake.I will move on with an understanding that you do not. Whatever you, andbothers choose to call the" Middle East" Charmion, is fine with me.for clearity, I will use this definition in any future discussion we may have the pleasure in engaging. I see no real purpose to stick on a difference in termonology, once it is explained (which I have provided). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 15 - 03:01 PM An interesting interview withbthe new minister, gnu. A good sign. Hopefully, we are not disapointed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 05 Nov 15 - 06:40 PM it's fantastic to see a progressive cabinet. a native woman as minister of justice, so we should get an inquiry in murdered native women, implementation of the truth and reconciliation commission, and hopefully some fairness in courts for natives. (I haven't forgotten the british columbia law society trying to discipline a native right lawyer for saying judges have participated in a conspiracy for centuries to destroy native rights. this being so controversial--the American justice dept head, ramsay clark, wrote a public letter about harassing lawyers for natives-- so they sent it to the Ontario law society--the law society for upper canada. they said, yes it's contempt of court but it's true, and we cannot discipline lawyers for speaking the truth in court. imagine speaking the truth in court--some of the racist mudcatters should try it here) and he didn't use blair or leslie, so the right wing didn't win out. a very educated and talented group of mps, totally different from the used car sales men and convicted criminals of the harper caucus. so the cabinet has a very educated and talented group, and it's half women, and has more minorities than ever before. so harper and his race baiting and hate politics are gone, and so is Q , our own harperite racist here on mudcat. maybe we will have respect for the courts again. harper spent over a hundred million dollars for twenty losing appeals to the supreme court and federal court of appeal. lost em all. including trying to secret the criminal records of people convicted of torture and sexual abuse of children. criminal records are public in Canada. but not to the scoff law harper. protecting the worst criminals possible. that says it all. so lets hope for a return of decency. a friend wrote an article about"is it wrong to steal candy from a baby"? the harper government answer" whose baby"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 05 Nov 15 - 08:03 PM free Commonwealth movement? A petition to allow free movement among Commonwealth Nations. Considering that the UK is part of the EU, I suspect it will never happen, for security reasons-at least in Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 06 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM Looks like we won't be rushing into the TPP. That is one big relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 06 Nov 15 - 03:05 PM Canadian scientists unmuzzled? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: meself Date: 06 Nov 15 - 08:02 PM I like the guy - but here's what I don't like about him: the media decide they've caught him in some kind of not-quite-political-correctness - i.e., some of his female ministers are mere junior ministers - what an insult! - so his way of dealing with it is NOT to say, Tough shit, but rather to say, No, no, it's okay, we're going raise their salaries so that they'll get paid as much as the real heavies - after all, what's another $100,000 of taxpayers' money when my image as Mister Nice-Guy is on the line? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 06 Nov 15 - 09:24 PM Yeah, but at times diplomacy does take away one's ability to say fuck you. The guy has had the job for 48 hours. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 07 Nov 15 - 02:13 AM It seems like a reasonable explanation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew Date: 08 Nov 15 - 08:44 AM Ed, the decision not to put Andrew Leslie into cabinet was likely driven by a combination of regional representation and gender parity criteria. Had there been room for him at the cabinet table, I do not think it would be wise to put him in a portfolio that contains a department where, in a previous career, he buried bodies and shut skeletons in closets. With his master's degree in conflict studies from the London School of Economics, he would seem to be a better fit for foreign affairs. I am watching to see if he winds up a parliamentary secretary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:05 AM Maybe so, brother of Charmion. However, the Defence choice does seem fresh, and is in line with many other cabinet choices.I would not rule out that Butts had a major role in some of those choices, versus the "old boys club" way of political thinking. One may have to do a reboot of the old was of thinking to better understand this new government? But, time will tell. I felt this article considered Canadas various military choices into interesting moral perspectives. IMO, the practice of changing regimes is complex, and often backfires, wastes resources creates enemies and frequently does more harm than good-especially, if done in a cavalier way, and not reul santioned by the UN. As I see it, engaging in war in expectation of an economic benefit is morally wrong and is a worn out economic approach in the current global trading villiage. various perspectives |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,ollaimh Date: 08 Nov 15 - 06:48 PM let's pray we don't join the tpp. but it probably depends on the united states. lets hope Clinton and sanders stay against it. then we can get off without much trouble. this isn't a trade deal, it's deal to destroy social services, envornmental protections and labour, workers, women's and human rights, so we all will be at the lower protections. this so the military capitalist corportions can have international legal power over governments. and as usual ed the talking horses a... is wrong on everything. does he have a shadow of education on anything? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 08 Nov 15 - 09:23 PM LOL don't hold back ollaimh tell us how you really feel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:12 AM Ok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,# Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:26 AM ollaimh, I agree with you about the TPP. I disagree about Ed. The TPP is a Harper legacy and it needs to be rewritten or ignored for twenty years and then rewritten. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:50 AM I suspect this guy is right about his concerns, which likely means he is wrong :) TPP |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 09 Nov 15 - 11:27 AM Harper said the TPP was great. Out of the other side of his face, he said he would give at least $1B to the auto industry and also compensate dairy farmers. As I have mentioned in the past, fuck Harper and the TPP. One has been semi-done. I hope the TPP gets completely undone. We don't need poisonous dairy products from USA and NZ and we... blood pressue... that is all for now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 09 Nov 15 - 12:49 PM The document regarding this is thousands of pages long so I doubt that many have a full understanding of it, at least not enough to make a judgement.. I have no idea why one would think that Dairy products from the US of NZ would be "poisonous" I may be a good idea to know a lot more before dismissing it out of hand, yes ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:07 PM "Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) is a synthetic version of the naturally occurring growth hormone somatotropin. It is approved for use in the US to increase the production of milk in dairy cattle. However, it is not approved for sale in Canada." I dont believe rBST is allowed in milk in the UK either. What concerns some is tge TPP agreement would allow this product in milk and milk products andvthat it would not be marked as so in the products. While tgere is no evidence (yet) that it impacts human health, it seems to impact the cows health. The hirmone ix only used to increase milk production. growth homones not in Canadian milk |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:12 PM I am aware of that, but that does not render them "poisonous". It has been suggested that those countries that do not allow it are doing so for economic reasons, i.e. to keep out competition in order to keep local dairy products very high priced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM "There is no question that some hormone, both in treated and untreated cows, does pass into the milk. This is of no apparent consequence because bovine growth hormone is inactive in humans. In any case, like any other protein, it is broken down in our digestive tract. BGH actually exerts its milk producing effects by triggering the synthesis of a protein known as insulinlike growth factor-I, or IGF-I in the cow's liver. This protein is always present in milk but is found in higher concentrations in the milk from BGH treated animals. These elevated levels are still within the range of variation for untreated milk, and in fact no technology exists that can determine whether a specific milk sample came from a treated or an untreated cow. IGF-I is also a protein hormone, and therefore does not survive the digestion process. Arguments about possible health consequences of BGH or IGF-I as present in milk are based more on emotion than on science." McGill University - Office for Science & Society |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:54 PM I suspect the term poison is emotional. However, it seems reasonable that folks should have a choice of what they injest through labeling. Let's not forget that some compounds deemed safe to ingest have later found to not to be nor safe at all. Personal choice seems to be the key, that would potentially be negated by this economic agreement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 09 Nov 15 - 01:59 PM I don't understand the bit about personal choice. We do not appear to have it now. Countries either allow this or they don't...so the consumer, in either the US of Canada has no choice now. And I know that in many parts of Canada they also have no choice over the extraordinarily high price of Dairy Products. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:08 PM Since I doubt many Canadians would prefer their milk with growth hormone, choice now is an inoperative notion. However, with the introduction of it into the Canadian milk market, without labeling it. Of course choice will be impacted. That's not to difficult to comprehend. Yes,milk is more expensive now in Canada because of supply management. That has nothing to do with adding growth hormones in dairy products to increase profits. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:18 PM Since I doubt many Canadians would prefer their milk with growth hormone If you read the post of 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM you would know that all milk contains growth hormone and if you drink animal milk you are ingesting growth hormone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 03:42 PM OK, more specifically BST and rBGH. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:10 PM "Queen's portrait pulled down, Alfred Pellan paintings back up in Foreign Affairs building"" Canadian picture |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM Guest... don't mess with my milk or my dairy farms or my apples or my blood pressure. PERIOD. Canada got rid of that shit years ago based on good science. Ya wanna talk science? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 09 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM Most people seem not to understand the issue of so called growth hormones. Reading the actual science would be helpful on any case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 05:15 PM Agreed, science literacy is sadly lacking among the general public and the pseudo science served up on the interweb is not helpful (and there is shitloads of it out there). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:11 PM Now THIS Canuck military strategy is the best yet! Any Herring Chokers or nearby folks out there who will understand this? I am still laughing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:34 PM The scary thing is I understand CCT perfectly well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:39 PM Agreed, there is also a shitload of BS Science, more appropriately called corporate sponsored food science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 09 Nov 15 - 06:57 PM Most legitimate "scientists" are very Leary of so called "corporate science". Please read independent scientic reports on this subject. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:05 PM "OK, more specifically BST and rBGH." They're all the same thing. I guess you missed the part in the post of 09 Nov 15 - 01:23 PM where it says that the added BGH is indistinguishable from the native and that measured levels in treated milk fall within the range of variation for untreated milk. That's an important fact right there but one that is conveniently ignored by those espousing a cause but not understanding the science. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:07 PM Canadas Arctic ignored ""All of Moscow's effort and attention, combined with Canada's neglect, has effectively turned the Arctic Ocean into Putin's Lake."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 07:41 PM there is also a shitload of BS Science, more appropriately called corporate sponsored food science. Could you provide links to this. I would be very interested in seeing the names of university based or government funded food scientists who are receiving funding from corporations and publishing scientifically unsupported data. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:17 PM No need to provide a multitude of links to corporate fubded research that provides the basis of food and drug sector decisions- it is the way government operates today.Unfortunately, government science is mostly underfunded and welcomes the research, regardless of its accuracy. Corporate interests have a large impact on government and those elected and of course is always given the benefit of the doubt, when economics are figured in. If government food and drug aporovals, based on science were so good, why do so many approved drugs cause do many problems? The reason many countries do not permit their dairy industry to use these added, artificially sources hormones is animal health. Dick animals receive more antibiotics, which ends up, in varied amounts, in dairy products. Labeling could be as elementary as in fruit products, for example, no sugar added -in this case no growth hormones added. OK, Q? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: gnu Date: 09 Nov 15 - 08:30 PM Q? WTF is that shit? You got a case, prove it. And, BTW... start another thread for it and don't try to screw this one up with unsubstantiated bullshit. One more BTW, I can't be arsed with bullshit that ignores science by trivializing it in a condescending manner like a bully on a playground. Put or shut up. I have read the science. I shant spoon feed it to you. Nor will I be back. I am done with this tread. gnightgnu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Views from Canada From: GUEST Date: 09 Nov 15 - 09:43 PM And, then there was the pseudo-science that some chatter on about fraking. LOL |
