Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

The Canadian Political DISCUSSION Thread

3K views 27 replies 3 participants last post by  Macfury 
#1 ·
Since the other Canadian Political Thread has become a dumping ground for Google News Alerts involving the Conservative Party I'm opening this thread. The rules here: If you post a link to a Canadian political news story, it must be accompanied by some context. Why do you think the news is important? What do you personally think of the development? Be prepared to add some value to what you're posting.
 
#2 ·
Public funds: Gilles Duceppe in trouble

Uh oh...

Public funds: Gilles Duceppe in trouble

La Presse

The former Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has paid the salary of the Chief of his party, Gilbert Gardner, for seven years from the budget provided by the House of Commons for the operation of his office in Ottawa, learned La Presse.

This practice violates the rules of the House of Commons since the funds it gives to elected officials must be used to finance the activities of Parliament and not partisan activities. The other parties have confirmed to the press that their CEO is paid by the respective funds of the party, not even the money received from the House of Commons.

Mr. Gardner, who worked at the headquarters of the Bloc in Montreal and occupied essentially to the management and organization of the party, was hired in 2004 by Mr. Duceppe. He pocketed a salary that exceeded $100 000 in the last years of his term.

This file may be deemed sufficiently serious by the Governance Committee of the Commons, which is responsible for establishing rules for the use of public funds by MPs, to sound an investigation...
Looks like Duceppe could be in deep doo doo. If found to be guilty of the infraction it could leave him and the BQ having to pay back $700,000 to the Government of Canada... I would love for this to be the outcome. :D
 
#4 ·
Looks like Duceppe could be in deep doo doo. If found to be guilty of the infraction it could leave him and the BQ having to pay back $700,000 to the Government of Canada... I would love for this to be the outcome. :D
I wonder what happens if a party goes bankrupt? Is it a corporation or something else?
 
#3 ·
CBC reporter's link to B.C. premier too close for comfort: ombudsman

CBC reporter's link to B.C. premier too close for comfort: ombudsman

The CBC ombudsman has found B.C. legislative reporter Stephen Smart’s marriage to Premier Christy Clark’s deputy press secretary, Rebecca Scott, to be in violation of the national broadcaster’s journalistic standards and

practices.

Kirk LaPointe’s review stems from a complaint of conflict of interest by Merv Adey, who wrote to CBC News on Dec. 20.

“I do not wish to impugn Mr. Smart’s ability or character,” Adey wrote. “However, I believe it’s impossible for him to fairly carry out his job while married to the premier’s friend and communications person.

“One of a reporter’s first duties is to think and speak with a critical mind about his subject (in this case, the premier and her government and the opposition parties also). While married to a stakeholder in a political non-contract position, I think that’s really too much to ask of him.”

Wayne Williams, CBC’s news director for B.C., had responded to Adey on Jan. 3, insisting there is no conflict of interest and that CBC had “taken specific steps to address the issue, ensuring both distance and transparency.”

LaPointe said there is “no evidence [Smart] has taken advantage of his wife’s role, [and] even the complainant praises his journalist qualities.”

“But just because there is no impropriety does not mean there is no conflict,” LaPointe wrote. “Whether a real or perceived conflict of interest, no amount of managing it can do more than mitigate the impact of an impartial fulfilment of

duties.”

“As it stands there is a violation of CBC Journalistic Standards and Practices.”...
So the question is if Mr. Smart and Ms. Scott, just continued to date and have a relationship out of wedlock would that relationship still represent an "apparent" conflict of interest?
 
#5 ·
So the question is if Mr. Smart and Ms. Scott, just continued to date and have a relationship out of wedlock would that relationship still represent an "apparent" conflict of interest?
How far down the line does it need to go? Is assistant deputy press secretary OK?
 
#7 ·
It's time to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists

It's time to list Iran's Revolutionary Guard as terrorists

Seems Irwin Cotler, like Stephen Harper gets that Iran is a cesspool and should remain under careful scrutiny by the international community unlike some other's here who think Iran and it's leaders are a bunch of pussy cats...

...It should be known that Iran has been on an execution binge. This past December, Amnesty International reported on the escalation of Iranian executions, even by wonton Iranian standards. Six hundred people were put to death between the beginning of 2011 and November alone. While many of these executions were for alleged drug-related crimes, this category, too, recently has become a catch-all for the suppression of dissidents.

According to Malekpour's family, the death sentence was reinstated under pressure from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has emerged as the epicentre of Iran's four-fold threat to human rights, peace and international security: The IRGC plays a central role in Iran's domestic repression, international terrorism, incitement to genocide, and nuclear proliferation. Further, as the Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center at Yale University notes, the IRGC is responsible for the murder of political dissidents both inside and outside of Iran.

This case should serve as the wake-up call that the Canadian needs to sanction the IRGC and list it as a terrorist entity. The United States has already labelled it as a terrorist group, while the UN and EU have imposed various sanctions against the IRGC and its leaders. It is regrettable that Canada continues to dither with regard to listing it as a terrorist entity here in Canada.

I introduced legislation in this regard several years ago, and have called on the Canadian government to list the IRGC as a terrorist entity both in Question Period and during House debate. The Conservatives continue to respond that they need more time to study and consider the issue. Frankly, the IRGC's well-documented international criminality should have been evidence enough of the need for the Canadian government to act. But Malekpour's case should prove the point beyond any doubt: The IRGC represents, and indeed embodies, the worst of the Iranian regime, including the targeting of Canadians.

The hope is that pressure from the international community may yet convince Iran to drop the false charges in this case and free Malekpour - allowing him to return to Canada. But however this case ends, the time has come to sanction the IRGC, and list it as a terrorist entity.
 
#9 ·
Seems Irwin Cotler, like Stephen Harper gets that Iran is a cesspool and should remain under careful scrutiny by the international community unlike some other's here who think Iran and it's leaders are a bunch of pussy cats...
I believe that it isn't simply that they're thought of by some Canadians as pussycats, but merely reacting to the hostility of the rest of the world toward them. I don't buy that idea either.
 
#11 ·
Outgoing CRTC chairman pushes big changes to agency and federal digital strategy

Outgoing CRTC chairman pushes big changes to agency and federal digital strategy

An interesting read:

Konrad von Finckenstein enjoyed his years as the CRTC's boss — now he'd like to see the place blown up.

Well, maybe not blown up, but so massively restructured and reoriented that it would be a different place altogether.

The tenure of the outgoing chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission covered a tumultuous five years in the industries he regulated — an era of mega-mergers and exponential growth of broadcasting over the Internet.

That growth leaves a lot of questions. Since the CRTC does not regulate anything on the web, how will Canadian content be protected in the future? Does it need to be? How should the feds respond when telephone, cable and television companies fuse into one?

The time has come, von Finckenstein says, to face facts: the old separation of telecom and broadcasting is obsolete. He advocates a single act to cover both sectors and a single regulator for broadcasting, telecom and even wireless spectrum — an area currently managed by Industry Canada.

"Whether you talk, whether you send video, whether you send a fax, an email ... it's just bits that are being sent over the same wire," he said in an interview. "That has completely changed our traditional definition of broadcasting and telecom. It's now essentially the same thing.

"It's time to review this legislation, it's 20 years old. We want a system that carries bits, carries them efficiently and gives Canadians as much access as possible."

At age 66, the plain-speaking, career bureaucrat with the suffer-no-fools reputation is a leading voice within the government for embracing the global digital revolution...

...Von Finckenstein's time at the CRTC was punctuated by controversial decisions, tension with cabinet and the creation of several new initiatives. Although the Conservative government is firmly geared toward cutting regulations, the CRTC chairman introduced some new ones.

Last fall, he placed new restrictions on big media corporations that hold both distribution interests (cable or satellite) and broadcasting networks, ensuring they couldn't keep TV programming away from competitors. He also forced cable and satellite firms to contribute to a fund to help support local television stations.

There were also a number of consumer-oriented initiatives — a do-not-call list for people who dislike telemarketers, better 911 service for cell users and a commissioner for telecom complaints.

And some of von Finckenstein's decisions were sent back to the drawing board by cabinet. The commission rejected wireless company Globalive's bid to launch a new cell service, deeming the company was not Canadian enough. Cabinet overturned that ruling.

Even more notable was the CRTC decision to allow big telecom Internet providers to impose usage-based limits on the smaller providers to whom they sell wholesale capacity. Industry Minister Tony Clement tweeted his disdain for the decision, riding a public backlash against the commission.

Von Finckenstein says candidly he realized that the commission's decision needed to be revisited as he sat before a parliamentary committee trying to explain it.

"Whether I like the way the minister tweeted or not is irrelevant," he said. "You've got to give him credit. He was right. This was a bad decision and it needed to be reviewed and we did it."
 
#14 ·
I think people are just going to be bouncing from one thread to the other since, what people do on forums is they comment on what they want to.

This idea that you can have a controlled environment where only what you deem "qualified debate" can occur just isn't possible on a forum, which is why one thread on this same topic makes sense. But it requires that you actually participate (showing all of us lowly forum posters) what "qualified debate" really is.

Have fun indeed!
 
#18 ·
Please stop your thread crapping. We are having political debates here and these require some rules and rigour. If you want a barroom brawl, snowball fight or a free-for-all, the other thread will be the "apple in your cup."
 
#20 ·
do you really think that won't occur here as well? Dream on, there are plenty of other posters here that'll disagree with you to create a debate here just as it does in the other thread. Perhaps you should label it "only conservative points of view allowed". That's really the truth isn't it.

That's all I have to say about it.
 
#19 ·
to you it isn't, but I see it as very pro your side. The truth is, you simply dislike the other point of view. Despite the fact that you are both free to post all the con friendly articles and points of view to your hearts content, you choose to litter the forum with duplicate threads.

Either you can learn to play in the same place, or I guess you prefer controlled environments. There was a reason for one contained political thread.
 
#22 ·
‘No real assets’ in pension plan that pays MPs well

‘No real assets’ in pension plan that pays MPs well

The plan guarantees investment returns of 10.4 per cent, but there are no actual investments.

"This is just accounting; it’s just on paper," Alex Laurin, associate director of research at the institute, told the Toronto Star this week. "There are no real assets."

In one of the blunter interviews in the wake of the report released by the Toronto think-tank, Laurin said the plan is "basically underfunded."

"That means they’ll be paid out by taxpayers through general government funds when they are due."

The institute found that while Canadians are limited to saving a maximum of 18 per cent of their annual income in RRSPs by the Income Tax Act, the MPs’ pension plan offers benefits equivalent to saving 50 per cent of their income every year. But the actual savings — or payments — to achieve those benefits never occur.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is also riding hard on the pension bandwagon, explaining the MPs’ plan in a manner very similar to the messages the group sent out about MLA pensions in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

The federation contends the existing plan is the best-funded in the world but lamented that taxpayers foot the bill for most of its perks at a rate of $23.03 for every dollar contributed by an MP.

The federation has called on MPs to ditch the pension plan in favour of a program that would see taxpayers and MPs pay equal amounts into the plan, which would be similar to the scenarios of most Canadians who enjoy pension plans.

The current plan sees MPs contribute $1 for every $5 paid in by taxpayers, but when the interest component is added, the taxpayer share is more like $23 for every $1 from MPs, says the federation....
Too bad the Reform Party couldn't bring about the end to the MP Pension back in the 90's and we wouldn't be in this situation today. The Liberal Majority defeated the Bill to dismantle the pension and then subsequently offered the Reform MPs an ultimatum take it now or lose it.

Regrettably the vast majority of them took it with the only two notable Reform MPs exceptions that turned it down being Preston Manning and Werner Schmidt... but at least a couple of them displayed the integrity of their convictions.
 
#23 ·
Most pension plans have no real assets any longer--or just a fraction of what they should have. The problem is the generosity of the plan, not how it is funded.
 
#24 ·
Most pension plans have no real assets any longer--or just a fraction of what they should have. The problem is the generosity of the plan, not how it is funded.
I cant' agree with that MF:

Top 100 Pension Fund Report: Risking it all

benefitscanada.com

In last year’s Top 100 Pension Funds Report, 66 of the funds on the list posted double-digit increases in assets for 2009. Only eight ended the year with decreases.

While many pension funds and industry stakeholders expressed surprise at the successes of 2009, sharp market rallies following periods of recession certainly aren’t unprecedented. What was perhaps less expected was the continued strong performance in 2010. In this year’s Top 100 report, just three plans had decreases in pension assets (as of Dec. 31, 2010), and the number of funds with double-digit increases has remained relatively steady (62 on this year’s list). This means that a whopping 97 reported increases in assets—a mere two years after 94 of Canada’s Top 100 funds posted decreases....

Many of the leading pension funds in Canada have already started looking at diversifying their investment portfolios to reduce exposure to equity volatility. According to Michael Nobrega, president and CEO of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) (No. 2), that fund’s journey toward portfolio diversification began in 2004, when OMERS held 82% of its investments in public markets. Since then, the team has worked toward implementing a 53/47 asset allocation between public and private markets, respectively. In the nearly eight years since adopting an investment policy with a strong private market weighting, Nobrega explains, the plan has seen annualized returns of 8.11%, which includes a 15.3% loss in 2008. In 2010, OMERS posted a 12% rate of return on its investments.
The CPP is asset driven as is the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. And if you look at RSPs and not RPPs (public or private) you will see that the majority of them have real assets (equities and other financial instruments) in their portfolios...

And quite frankly your post bears no relevance to the fact that the MP Pension is grossly disproportionately funded by the Canadian tax payer.
 
#25 ·
I was thinking of the number of pensions that are backed too heavily by company stock, or are incapable of paying to the level they are committed-- or simply those, like Kodak, that may have "borrowed" the assets of the pension plan.

But my point was that I didn't care whether it was backed by assets or not--I was bothered that it was being payed out by taxpayers at all.
 
#26 ·
I was thinking of the number of pensions that are backed too heavily by company stock, or are incapable of paying to the level they are committed-- or simply those, like Kodak, that may have "borrowed" the assets of the pension plan.

But my point was that I didn't care whether it was backed by assets or not--I was bothered that it was being payed out by taxpayers at all.
On this we can agree, unless the taxpayers are those that paid into the regime, e.g. CPP and other asset holding RPPs.

Also if you mean RPPs that get government contributions that are disproportionate to those of the individual retiree then again, I agree.
 
#27 ·
Where's the loyalty? Mon Dieu, is Mulcair's citizenship really a conflict of interest

Where's the loyalty? Mon Dieu, is Mulcair's citizenship really a conflict of interest?

Bien sûr, it is a conflict of interest... No person who may potentially be the leader of this country should have dual citizenship.... Period. End of story.

The fuss over Thomas Mulcair’s dual citizenship (Canada and France) as he campaigns for the leadership of the federal NDP is one of those issues that is more emotional than substantial.

The question begs as to whether the leader of a federal political party should “appear” to be in a conflict of interest over citizenship.

Our beloved prime minister likes to remind people that he is Canadian and only Canadian and no other country has claim on his allegiance.

The National Post feels this remark is something of a cheap shot, considering that its polls show Mulcair’s appeal is close to double that of his closest rival, Peggy Nash (36% to 20%).

To most Canadians, it’s a given that a party leader should be 100% for Canada and not share loyalty with another country.

That’s something of a double-standard, since we unquestionably accept those who have, say, double citizenship with the U.S.

Other Canadians, who come here from places like Iran, may have double citizenship without realizing it — until they return to the country of their birth for a visit and land in jail, or they’re tortured and perhaps murdered. It’s hard for Canada to argue on behalf of such people, if indeed they carry dual citizenship.

Huseyincan Celil is such a case. When he returned to Uzbekistan for a visit, he was turned over to the Chinese, who consider him a citizen and he now is in prison, with Canada unable (and perhaps unwilling) to help him. An innocent victim.

There’s a certain hypocrisy involved in the fuss by some over Mulcair sharing his Canadian citizenship with France. Presumably he’s as loyal to Canada as any other Quebec politician.

Or is he? A former Liberal cabinet minister in the Quebec government, he’s now NDP and a federal MP.

More significant than possible divided loyalties over dual citizenship is the fact there’s no requirement for federal MPs to pledge allegiance to Canada, per se. There should be.

Instead of taking an oath of loyalty and fealty to Canada, MPs take an oath of allegiance to the Queen — which these days seems bizarre: “I (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.”

That members of Parliament do not take an oath of allegiance on behalf of Canada is one of the great oversights of our country. New Canadians make such a pledge on receiving citizenship. Surely MPs should pledge to work on behalf of Canada?

Not if you’re a Bloc MP, it isn’t. Bloc MPs work for what they think Quebec should be — and that’s independent and sovereign. Fair enough, but should Canadian taxpayers be expected to finance Bloc MPs to work against Confederation?

This seems a greater failing than someone having dual citizenship, even if that person leads a political party. Yet there’s no discernible interest in changing the status quo.

If MPs were required to take an oath to work in Canada’s interests, Bloc MPs would have to perjure themselves, or refuse to take the oath and thus make targets of themselves, or be identifiable as honest people who won’t lie.

Still, it’ll be interesting to see if Thomas Mulcair surrenders to pressure and abandons his French citizenship, even while he pledges allegiance to the Queen.
:ptptptptp to Peter Worthington... x10. :ptptptptp
 
#28 ·
I agree that he should renounce his French citizenship at least as a minimalist nod to serve the interests of one country. I see no problem with the NDP being dumb enough to elect someone as leader who should not be able to accept the position of PM if he won... but that's just me.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top