The only real surprise is just how quickly Liberal promises crumbled

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

...is it not a basic expectation that ministers should be running their own departments?

The "modern" take on the Prime Minister's Office (i.e., that the Prime Minister makes every possible decision that comes across the government in some way, shape, or form) is an unfortunate centralization of power that started decades ago (with both Liberal and Conservative governments to blame), and it is refreshing to see some authority and responsibility being given, again, to ministers themselves and to individual government departments.

In all honesty, I think we are in for a very hard five years. This was an experiment that should have been tried with a minority government, at least then we had the option to force an election. This nit wit is unqualified to be Prime Minister, he's never held a portfolio, he was parachuted in because of his Daddy's reputation and he has not an iota what he is doing.

This is our George W Bush moment, which leaves me to wonder. Which one is Cheney?

 

[JLM]

In all honesty, I think we are in for a very hard five years. This was an experiment that should have been tried with a minority government, at least then we had the option to force an election. This nit wit is unqualified to be Prime Minister, he's never held a portfolio, he was parachuted in because of his Daddy's reputation and he has not an iota what he is doing.

This is our George W Bush moment, which leaves me to wonder. Which one is Cheney?

I'm not sure I'd criticise all his cabinet ministers. I think there's a couple of "keepers" in Ralph Goodale and Jody Wilson- Raybould & possibly Jane Philpott. Not sure about Kent Hehr- possibly picked as much for his disability as for his ability, but we'll have to wait and see. John McCallum doesn't impress me at all.

Another tiny fact just came to light tonight on the news. The money gleaned from taxes on the top 1% won't cover the tax savings bestowed upon the masses. Apparently he's about $2 billion short. But he has nice hair!

So what's to be said about Mr Trudeau's 'sunny ways'?
I have to laugh when I hear people praising Trudeau for 'his' policies. Don't people realize that 'his' policies are the policies that his caucus members and campaign managers concocted and scripted for him? If people like those policies then they should give the credit where it's due, not to the puppet who says what he's told to say.
Trudeau himself doesn't have the experience or the intelligence to make policies that would attract people. He's too wrapped up in his own image to even think about what the voters would like to hear.
I think that's why he wants his Ministers to talk for themselves and leave him out of it. He wouldn't know what to say if left on his own without a script to follow.

Egg Zachary! Giving Justin a majority Government just may go down as the folly of the 21st Century!

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Lisa Raitt is your source? A member of the most secretive peacetime government in history? Give me a break. She has absolutely no credibility. Isn't it interesting that it was the government she was a member of that gave false figures concerning the state of Canada's fiscal affairs during the election?

Exaggerate MUCH?
Oh no the secret agenda. I know it was ten years, but it could have happened at any minute.

 

[JLM]

That's one broken promise I won't attack the libs for.....

I fully agree but it just goes to show how incompetent they are...............to the point where they are disappointing a huge number of their supporters. (He picked totally the wrong person (McCallum) to be in charge of it)

When do you figure McCallum will be back in the back benches? April? May?

 

[Locutus]

>in this thread, people who don't know who is running the government

cabinet ministers...heh.

anyway, enjoy your ignorance.

 

[CDNBear]

I think that Mr. Trudeau was an "open book" during the election campaign. And I think it was that openness, that transparency, that encouraged voter turnout in the hope that we would have a Prime Minister who might do things a bit differently in Ottawa; and, so far, Mr. Trudeau hasn't let the voters down. There's something to be said for Mr. Trudeau's "sunny ways"!

I think only the naive believe anything but the "anyone but Harper" campaign generated the outcome.

 

[Locutus]

MacPherson: Liberals’ electoral plan reveals early-onset arrogance | Saskatoon StarPhoenix

 

[Bar Sinister]

Exaggerate MUCH?
Oh no the secret agenda. I know it was ten years, but it could have happened at any minute.

I guess you are going to have to point out my exaggeration. Please point out a peacetime Canadian government that was more secretive that Harper's Conservatives. BTW posting in large capital letters does not count in any way as evidence of anything.

 

[FiveParadox]

I guess you are going to have to point out my exaggeration. Please point out a peacetime Canadian government that was more secretive that Harper's Conservatives. BTW posting in large capital letters does not count in any way as evidence of anything.

"Secretive" does not go far enough. The Government under the Conservatives was so secretive that the Government was found to have violated the privileges of Parliament by defying a House order to produce documents related to the Afghan detainee issue. The Conservatives need to be ordered by the Speaker to comply, before they would work with the opposition parties on this issue.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I guess you are going to have to point out my exaggeration. Please point out a peacetime Canadian government that was more secretive that Harper's Conservatives. BTW posting in large capital letters does not count in any way as evidence of anything.

Now that you have revised your original post let me re-post the original.
And just to avoid confusion I'll paste it in red, so no one thinks I made this ridiculous statement.

Lisa Raitt is your source? A member of the most secretive peacetime government in history? Give me a break. She has absolutely no credibility. Isn't it interesting that it was the government she was a member of that gave false figures concerning the state of Canada's fiscal affairs during the election?

Note the underlined part?

A member of the most secretive peacetime government in history? Interesting.

I guess you must have been watching Jersey Shore or maybe Oprah when that whole war in Afghanistan was going on eh? Did you know there was a war? I won't put it in caps, because I don't want to offend your sensitivities about being called to task on dumb statements. Incidentally, aside from the fact that this nation was and still is at war, would you say that the Canadian Government was more secretive than say: the Russian Government who invaded the Ukraine, or maybe the Pakistani government who looked the other way on Osama, or perhaps even the Syrian Government who gassed their own people?

Now, don't get too flustered there Bar Sinister. Look at what you wrote and think hard. Those are your words not mine.

Hint: Don't make silly exaggerated statements and you won't be made a fool of. If you want to talk about corruption or secrecy we can dredge up Adscam and Shawinigate. Or we can talk about how the Liberals tried to paint the Afghan war as a peacekeeping endeavor when Jean Chretien committed us.

Or you can just retract your statement, but I bet you don't have the stones to do that.

"Secretive" does not go far enough. The Government under the Conservatives was so secretive that the Government was found to have violated the privileges of Parliament by defying a House order to produce documents related to the Afghan detainee issue. The Conservatives need to be ordered by the Speaker to comply, before they would work with the opposition parties on this issue.

The Afghan detainee issue. Good grief, another straw man.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Afghan detainee issue. Good grief, another straw man.

How is that a straw man?

Fact: The House has the authority, as a part of its collective parliamentary privileges, to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and to order the production of papers. These are the powers that the legislature needs in order to conduct its work, and to oversee the work of the Government.

Fact: The House ordered the Government to hand over a number of documents related to the Afghan detainee issue, and the Government refused to follow the House's order. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case that the Government had breached the privileges of the House.

Fact: The Government broke the law and subverted the authority of the elected House when they refused to produce the documents, despite the fact that "under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient."

So, yes, when we're discussing the secrecy of the previous Government, it is perfectly relevant to bring up this high-profile case where the Conservatives decided that they were above the constitution and parliamentary law, and kept secret from the House.

Sources:

1. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd ed. (2009)
2. Debates of the House of Commons: April 27, 2010

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

How is that a straw man?

Fact: The House has the authority, as a part of its collective parliamentary privileges, to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and to order the production of papers. These are the powers that the legislature needs in order to conduct its work, and to oversee the work of the Government.

Fact: The House ordered the Government to hand over a number of documents related to the Afghan detainee issue, and the Government refused to follow the House's order. The Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case that the Government had breached the privileges of the House.

Fact: The Government broke the law and subverted the authority of the elected House when they refused to produce the documents, despite the fact that "under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient."

So, yes, when we're discussing the secrecy of the previous Government, it is perfectly relevant to bring up this high-profile case where the Conservatives decided that they were above the constitution and parliamentary law, and kept secret from the House.

Sources:

1. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd ed. (2009)
2. Debates of the House of Commons: April 27, 2010

Fact: This was an attempt by the opposition, particularly the NDP, to try and create scandal where there was none and in doing so they smeared the good name of Canadian soldiers who were merely following the rules in Afghanistan by turning prisoners over to Afghan officials.

If you want to talk about secrets lets look at that hand written receipt Jean Chretien wrote when he sold his shares in a hotel next to a golf course. Or perhaps we can talk about how damned mad Paul Martin was when he found out that money to the tune of what? A hundred million dollars. Had been spent on false advertising.

Most secretive government in Peacetime, my foot.

What a goddamn joke.

Anything to deflect from the airhead you have running the party now.

 

[CDNBear]

"Secretive" does not go far enough. The Government under the Conservatives was so secretive that the Government was found to have violated the privileges of Parliament by defying a House order to produce documents related to the Afghan detainee issue. The Conservatives need to be ordered by the Speaker to comply, before they would work with the opposition parties on this issue.

Because there was no precedent for a sitting govt in time of conflict to do so. Just because the opposition can, doesn't make it right or ethical.

You and I have been down this road.

 

[JLM]

Some f**king genius on one of the threads asked why people who are opposed to the import of refugees would get upset because Justin failed to fulfill his promise! Duh, it has f**k all to do with the validity of the promise but rather his inability to fulfill promises regardless of what members of the electorate think of them. (I am NOT against the importation of refugees, just want to see it done in a sane, safe and workable manner, which means taking the necessary time to do it properly)

 

[CDNBear]

Some f**king genius on one of the threads asked why people who are opposed to the import of refugees would get upset because Justin failed to fulfill his promise! Duh, it has f**k all to do with the validity of the promise but rather his inability to fulfill promises regardless of what members of the electorate think of them. (I am NOT against the importation of refugees, just want to see it done in a sane, safe and workable manner, which means taking the necessary time to do it properly)

That's just one of the weak ways they try and shut down the exposing of their messiah's flaws. The fluffers will do anything to protect his shininess.

 

[tay]

Some f**king genius on one of the threads asked why people who are opposed to the import of refugees would get upset because Justin failed to fulfill his promise! Duh, it has f**k all to do with the validity of the promise but rather his inability to fulfill promises regardless of what members of the electorate think of them. (I am NOT against the importation of refugees, just want to see it done in a sane, safe and workable manner, which means taking the necessary time to do it properly)

I said that too... post 96


And opponents of Justin should be rejoicing in his broken promises (although I don't see this as one simply because the refugees don't want to come here, is something no one could have anticipated) but that means all of Justin's promises will likely be broken.......


So the 'old stock' Canadians that don't want the refugees but they sneer when the number of refugees is way below target?

I'm personally happy they can't find enough who want to come over and I have been in favour all along that I would be happy sending money to Countries like Germany who are taking the majority of them in.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Now that you have revised your original post let me re-post the original.
And just to avoid confusion I'll paste it in red, so no one thinks I made this ridiculous statement.

Lisa Raitt is your source? A member of the most secretive peacetime government in history? Give me a break. She has absolutely no credibility. Isn't it interesting that it was the government she was a member of that gave false figures concerning the state of Canada's fiscal affairs during the election?

Note the underlined part?

A member of the most secretive peacetime government in history? Interesting.

I guess you must have been watching Jersey Shore or maybe Oprah when that whole war in Afghanistan was going on eh? Did you know there was a war? I won't put it in caps, because I don't want to offend your sensitivities about being called to task on dumb statements. Incidentally, aside from the fact that this nation was and still is at war, would you say that the Canadian Government was more secretive than say: the Russian Government who invaded the Ukraine, or maybe the Pakistani government who looked the other way on Osama, or perhaps even the Syrian Government who gassed their own people?

Now, don't get too flustered there Bar Sinister. Look at what you wrote and think hard. Those are your words not mine.

Hint: Don't make silly exaggerated statements and you won't be made a fool of. If you want to talk about corruption or secrecy we can dredge up Adscam and Shawinigate. Or we can talk about how the Liberals tried to paint the Afghan war as a peacekeeping endeavor when Jean Chretien committed us.

Or you can just retract your statement, but I bet you don't have the stones to do that.


The Afghan detainee issue. Good grief, another straw man.

Nice attempt at a deflection. But it probably only impresses the those who don't understand what staying on topic is all about. This thread is about a ConservativeMP criticizing the current government for not carrying out its promises; a Conservativegovernment that not only hid the actual size of the deficit, but actually bragged about having a balanced budget during the 2015 election campaign. The thread has has nothing to do with Afghanistan or the Russian government or Pakistan. In fact your references are so far off-topic it is obvious that you are clutching at straws. I also have to laugh at your reference to "stones." Apparently so far as you are concerned the opinions of women do not count. Unfortunately for you it is brains that count when making an intelligent reply and not testicles.

 

[CDNBear]

Unfortunately for you it is brains that count when making an intelligent reply and not testicles.

Well that explains why your posts are more chest thumping than thought filled.

 

[davesmom]

...is it not a basic expectation that ministers should be running their own departments?

The "modern" take on the Prime Minister's Office (i.e., that the Prime Minister makes every possible decision that comes across the government in some way, shape, or form) is an unfortunate centralization of power that started decades ago (with both Liberal and Conservative governments to blame), and it is refreshing to see some authority and responsibility being given, again, to ministers themselves and to individual government departments.

Do you really think that Ministers are free to run their departments as they wish? Haha! Just wait until some of them come up with a plan that the PM doesn't agree with and see what happens!
They are under restrictions as to what they can do and say and any innovative ideas would have to be run past the PM and approved before they can put their idea forward.

Recommended listening for those who voted Liberal - "Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then" (Against the Wind, Bob Seger)

 

[B00Mer]