• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Politics in 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
You should be, Altair.  Minister Goodale could help the situation by stating, "they will be charged."  He's a senior enough Cabinet member and seasoned politician to know the difference between the words he used, and a clear statement that they will be charged.

 
Kilo_302 said:
I don't get it. A few posts ago, the discussion was centred around the fact that many Canadians (including a lot of the media) were unhappy with Trudeau.

Now it seems a lot of you can't get over how much adulation he's receiving.

The common thread here  seems to be no one can accept that the majority of Canadians (including our media) like him. He reflects (rightly or wrongly) what Canadians want to see in our government. Harper did too, but for far fewer people.

Again, there's very little daylight between the NDP, the Liberals and the Green Party compared to the Conservatives (as they were under Harper) and the rest of Canada. So this is just a return to normalcy.

I'm in full agreement that this dinner thing is pure spectacle over substance. But for a lot of Canadians, this is a celebration of the end of the Harper years. Canada is returning to its normal place in the world. Most Canadians were extremely embarrassed by our stance on climate change under Harper, so it's no coincidence that the one thing of substance to come out of this visit was a joint announcement on climate action.

Face it, Harper was disliked around the world as much as he was disliked at home. And I'm saying this as someone who also dislikes Trudeau.

You better research outside your shell. When Harper left he received tons of adulation and respect for the job he did, from around the world. Governments and media. The only people happy to see him go were here in Canada, and maybe Putin.

And quit saying MOST Canadians like Trudeau. It's simply not true. 39.8% ≠ most. As well, polls only say what you want them to say, they should not be mistaken for proof\ truth.

 
Maybe this doesn't quite fit in this thread, but I'm starting to see a common theme. Stephen Harper was vilified in the media for his stance on the issues of the day. Justin Trudeau is not called to account on his stance on the issues of today, but to his popular culture references and appeal. We've elected the Kim Kardashian of the North.
 
Altair said:
Source? Not seeing this anywhere

I'm Sorry.  Don't you bother to read other posts than your own?

http://army.ca/forums/threads/81276/post-1422552.html#msg1422552
 
Thucydides said:
Don't forget that many of these women are not ministers, but Cabinet Secretaries, who have have far less pay or responsibility than Ministers.

That's not in any way true.  Under the way the system was structured, some of them would have been called Ministers of State before.  They are not any longer, as the Liberals changed the rules.  All cabinet ministers are considered to be equal.
 
PuckChaser said:
Gotcha. Don't pick the best person

A capable person can easily be found even with certain restrictions.  There has never been a cabinet made without some kind of caveat.
 
recceguy said:
Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmm.

POTUS and the PM had their world wide media lovefest yesterday.

1) The CAD dropped in value;

2) Every stock exchange in North America had dropped by the end of trading;

3) Oil dropped again, by a fair amount historically; and,

How about today?
 
George Wallace said:
I'm Sorry.  Don't you bother to read other posts than your own?

http://army.ca/forums/threads/81276/post-1422552.html#msg1422552
Someone responded earlier without needing to be a dick, thanks though.
 
Altair said:
Someone responded earlier without needing to be a dick, thanks though.

It was no need to be a dick to ask for a source when it has been posted on this site for 24 hours.
 
jmt18325 said:
That's not in any way absolutely true.  Under the way the system was structured, some of them would have been called Ministers of State before.  They are not any longer, as the Liberals changed the rules.  All cabinet ministers are considered to be equal.

FTFY. You know, because 2016!

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/11/05/one-third-of-women-in-trudeaus-cabinet-are-actually-ministers-of-state/

[qyote]
One third of women in Trudeau’s cabinet are actually ministers of state
By Elizabeth Thompson | Nov 5, 2015 9:56 pm | 16 comments |  Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on

One third of the women named to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Cabinet aren’t full ministers and could earn less than their colleagues, iPolitics has learned.

According to orders in council adopted during Trudeau’s first cabinet meeting, five members of his cabinet are actually ministers of state, although the OIC calls for them to be called ministers: Kirsty Duncan (Science), Marie-Claude Bibeau (Francophonie), Patricia Hajdu (Status of Women), Carla Qualtrough (Sport and Persons with Disabilities) and Bardish Chagger (Small Business and Tourism).
UPDATE: Trudeau’s office vows to fix gender gap in cabinet salaries

Bibeau was also sworn in Wednesday as minister responsible for international development. The Liberals have yet to clarify whether that makes her a full minister as well and reduces the proportion of female ministers of state to one quarter of the women in cabinet.
None of the men in Trudeau’s cabinet are ministers of state.

While a cabinet minister earns $80,100 above and beyond the basic MPs salary of $167,400, the parliamentary pay scale calls for a minister of state to earn only $60,000 on top of their MPs salary. While they receive many of the other perks a cabinet minister receives such as a car and driver, they are not legally among those authorized to sign orders in council and usually have to answer to a more senior minister.

According to the orders in council, Duncan and Chagger are to assist “the Minister of Industry” – presumably Navdeep Bains who was sworn in Wednesday as Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Bibeau is to assist Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion. Hajdu and Qualtrough will answer to Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly.

But while the orders in council state clearly that they are only ministers of state – not full ministers – nowhere is that mentioned on the prime minister’s website or in the package given out to reporters Wednesday. All are described simply as ministers.

Liberal Party officials say they don’t consider there is any difference between those who have been legally designated as ministers of state and their colleagues.

“We really do consider them full ministers and it has to do with technicalities around the bureaucracy and legalese and things like that but they are, in our minds, full ministers,” said one official who agreed to speak on background.

The official said he was told they would get the same compensation as other ministers but couldn’t explain how ministers of state could be paid the same as ministers when the statute that governs the pay of everyone from the prime minister to caucus chairs says they are supposed to earn $20,000 a year less.

“Like their colleagues, they are full members of Cabinet, will receive benefits commensurate with the benefits and supports to their other Cabinet colleagues, and will lead on a number of the government’s priorities,” according to the departmental response shared with iPolitics. “This approach to their appointment ensures they have access to departmental support, as new organizations are not being created.”
Trudeau made history Wednesday by making good on his promise to ensure that women made up half of his cabinet. Asked after the swearing in ceremony why it was so important to him to have gender equity in his cabinet, Trudeau was blunt.

“Because it’s 2015.”

Trudeau’s decision to make gender a factor in who sits around the cabinet table sparked debate as well as criticism from those who felt that merit should be the only determining factor.

However, it was praised Wednesday by groups like Equal Voice, which said the 50/50 balance was a powerful symbol of commitment to having an equal number of men and women in decision making roles.

“Equal Voice applauds our new federal cabinet,” National Chair Lynne Hamilton said in a statement. “We are very pleased to see 15 very qualified women taking leadership roles in our government and look forward to working with them.”
[/quote]
 
George Wallace said:
It was no need to be a dick to ask for a source when it has been posted on this site for 24 hours.
Sorry if I don't have time to read every bloody thread.
 
Relax.  With luck, the next US president will be a Texan, and another Canadian PM will have a chance to piss on his rug.
 
George Wallace said:
Stop being such a "fool".

The novelty has worn off quite some time ago.
I have never put anyone on my ignore list. Congratulations.

At least topics will stay on points instead of being derailed by our bickering
 
PuckChaser said:
Maybe this doesn't quite fit in this thread, but I'm starting to see a common theme. Stephen Harper was vilified in the media for his stance on the issues of the day. Justin Trudeau is not called to account on his stance on the issues of today, but to his popular culture references and appeal.[size=14pt] We've elected the Kim Kardashian of the North.

SNIPER ROUND.

I don't dislike Trudeau because he is P.E.T.'s son, or because he is a Liberal.  Or because of his hair.

What I dislike the MOST about him is what MOST Canadians (IMO) do like about him; the surface, superficial stuff that carries no actual weight when it comes to what makes a person the right person to lead a country IMO.  Comments on his looks, grown women making air-headed comments on news stories about him like they are 16 and he is the football team captain who just won the local high school championship game.  How they are bedazzled by nicely matched clothing, posed pictures, and a smile and can't see past any of that.  All that empty headed "Teen Magazine" bullshit. 

:boke:

I dislike how empty-headed, shallow and easily swayed the (as some claim) majority of Canadians appear to be, because they voted on the political future of their country the same way they would vote for the graduating Class King or Queen when they were in grade fuckin' 12; a shallow popularity contest.

Anyone who thinks none of that happened, at all, guess what?  You're probably one of the people I'm talking about.  :-*

One example of empty-headed meaningless nonsense.  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
Anyone who thinks none of that happened, at all, guess what?  You're probably one of the people I'm talking about.  :-*

Sadly, my friend, you have just taken 4 years of poli-sci and condensed it into a single sentence.  Similar comments were heard when PET was campaigning and then again following his marriage to Margaret.  If one were to scan the archives of the Star you would find a half page front page photo of Pierre diving into a pool as if that were the most important story of the day so  nothing has changed.  Unemployment is up, the treasury is empty, the provinces are once again feuding (east against west),  but hey, everything is ok, our leader says so and he has such a nice smile. 


 
Eye In The Sky said:
SNIPER ROUND.

I don't dislike Trudeau because he is P.E.T.'s son, or because he is a Liberal.  Or because of his hair.

What I dislike the MOST about him is what MOST Canadians (IMO) do like about him; the surface, superficial stuff that carries no actual weight when it comes to what makes a person the right person to lead a country IMO.  Comments on his looks, grown women making air-headed comments on news stories about him like they are 16 and he is the football team captain who just won the local high school championship game.  How they are bedazzled by nicely matched clothing, posed pictures, and a smile and can't see past any of that.  All that empty headed "Teen Magazine" bullshit. 

:boke:

I dislike how empty-headed, shallow and easily swayed the (as some claim) majority of Canadians appear to be, because they voted on the political future of their country the same way they would vote for the graduating Class King or Queen when they were in grade ******' 12; a shallow popularity contest.

Anyone who thinks none of that happened, at all, guess what?  You're probably one of the people I'm talking about.  :-*

One example of empty-headed meaningless nonsense.  :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

That is amazing.  How did you do that ?  You just hit the nail on the head...

Give yourself a mic drop and walk away, you just won the arugment.
 
Totally agree with EITS.

A telling moment was Trudeau's recent trip to Washington. The media couldn't resist talking about what kind of outfits and shoes his wife was wearing. As if that has ANY relevance to the issues facing our nation.

Justin and his wife are a socialite couple. I'm sure they are nice people, but give me a break. He should be attending dinner parties in Wesmount or Outremont. Instead, he's leading our country.

WTF over. Canadians get what they deserve.
 
I think the above are examples of why Conservatives lost the election.  Optics matter.  The Trudeau's are popular.  That doesn't mean that Justin is unfit to govern.  Watching him answer questions at American University put to bed any lingering doubts I may have had about his intellect.
 
With that logic, Kayne West should be the Democratic nominee for the election in the US. Until Canadians support substance in their politicians, we'll get people like Cheryl Gallant and Justin Trudeau elected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top