Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

«‹›675 »

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Team THEOLOGY posted:

I'm not sure if you've been on the hill and through security much in a vehicle but when Pierre Pollievere did it, it was stupid as gently caress too.

It doesn't matter if they know who you are and it wasn't the parking lot. They check your vehicle at the checkpoint not just to make sure who is in it but to make sure it is safe. Then you are flagged through. Even the big green Parliamentary buses do it. It's a security concern, period.

I don't think it's much of a story either, for the record. But it was poorly handled. Then Charlie Angus called the person a "meter maid" which was a bit disingenuous too because she was an officer. Anyway whatever it's not that big of a deal anyway.

Gonna have to agree with TT on this. It's not a big deal, but it's loving stupid and out of touch and demonstrates that politicians are probably as a class all really egocentric. Blowing through a security checkpoint and not stopping when the RCMP asks you to are not things people need to try and defend or hand-wave away.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 01:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 11:46

Think: Sep 20, 2005

I have to say, Question Period was hilarious today because of all that.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:12

Tochiazuma: Feb 16, 2007

Cordyceps Headache posted:

Gonna have to agree with TT on this. It's not a big deal, but it's loving stupid and out of touch and demonstrates that politicians are probably as a class all really egocentric. Blowing through a security checkpoint and not stopping when the RCMP asks you to are not things people need to try and defend or hand-wave away.

From the Globe article on the same subject
"In a statement, the NDP said that Mr. Mulcair simply followed his normal routine by driving through the gate and waving at the officer on duty. The officer did not recognize the NDP Leader, and engaged in a pursuit."

But I'm sure it was an exciting high-speed chase with the wild-eyed Mulcair dodging pedestrians while blowing through stop signs. Absolutely.

I'd bet cash money that this pursuit took place at about 20km/h with Mulcair spending all of it wondering what the gently caress the RCMP guy behind him was doing.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:37

Team THEOLOGY: Nov 27, 2008

Tochiazuma posted:

From the Globe article on the same subject
"In a statement, the NDP said that Mr. Mulcair simply followed his normal routine by driving through the gate and waving at the officer on duty. The officer did not recognize the NDP Leader, and engaged in a pursuit."

But I'm sure it was an exciting high-speed chase with the wild-eyed Mulcair dodging pedestrians while blowing through stop signs. Absolutely.

I'd bet cash money that this pursuit took place at about 20km/h with Mulcair spending all of it wondering what the gently caress the RCMP guy behind him was doing.

Wait, am I the only one who pulls over when an RCMP officer with his lights on behind me is tailing?

Anyway, jokes or not, whatever. Again, it's not a huge story but to trivialize it and say its all good is a bit hypocritical. Again, it doesn't matter who it is, it's the principal not the practice. He knows better.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:44

Kafka Esq.: Jan 1, 2005; "If you ever even think about calling me anything but 'The Crab' I will go so fucking crab on your ass you won't even see what crab'd your crab" -The Crab(TM)

If only Angus hadn't opened his big dumb mouth when Polly did it.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:53

brucio: Nov 22, 2004

Team THEOLOGY posted:

Wait, am I the only one who pulls over when an RCMP officer with his lights on behind me is tailing?

Anyway, jokes or not, whatever. Again, it's not a huge story but to trivialize it and say its all good is a bit hypocritical. Again, it doesn't matter who it is, it's the principal not the practice. He knows better.

Agreed. Go back and read what the NDP (and CPC) folks were saying when Pollievre did the same thing in 2010, and bathe in the hypocrisy.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:53

Tochiazuma: Feb 16, 2007

Team THEOLOGY posted:

Wait, am I the only one who pulls over when an RCMP officer with his lights on behind me is tailing?

Anyway, jokes or not, whatever. Again, it's not a huge story but to trivialize it and say its all good is a bit hypocritical. Again, it doesn't matter who it is, it's the principal not the practice. He knows better.

Which is why he apologized. I just think that both in here and in the House it was made to be a much larger deal than it was. Which is politics, I suppose.

But, if I think we shouldn't 'waste time' on discussing it, I guess I had better try to get a better discussion going

As I think some posters in this thread would agree, the position of Prime Minister holds a lot of power, that Stephen Harper has made the most of. While I don't agree with a lot of his policies, I can say he has been masterful at using every lever of power available while in office.

So my question is: should the power of the PM be curbed? And if so, how?

# ? Jun 14, 2013 02:59

HookShot: Dec 26, 2005

This never would have happened to Jack Layton because he biked to work :colbert:

# ? Jun 14, 2013 03:26

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Did anyone watch Pamela Wallin's interview on CBC? She has her head so far up her rear end it's amazing. Too bad Peter Mansbridge doesn't have the balls to ask real questions, although he didn't have to push too hard to get her to self-incriminate (and pretend she wasn't doing anything wrong in the process).

You can read and watch the whole painful exchange here. You can really tell that Wallin has practice expelling this kind of verbal diarrhea:

Pamela Wallin, with Peter Mansbridge in bold posted:

Let�s get back to the issue that you say is the sole issue that�s at hand, which is flight expenses, travel expenses. We�re not talking about a $25 cab ticket here. We�re talking at least $40,000 you�ve paid back.

Yeah, $38,000, but yes.

$38,000 and change, and there may be more?

There may be more, I don�t know.

That�s a lot of money.

Yes it is.

And it slipped through the system somehow?

Well that�s part of the issue. I mean, you have a failsafe in there, which supposedly is the Senate finance system, that�s supposed to check that. You know, I didn�t have travel claims rejected. But there were mistakes. Some of the concern and some of the things that I�ve paid back at this point, also for me, are a pretty fundamental issue and it hasn�t been resolved yet. But this whole question of going to Saskatchewan directly. They have two categories of travel: regular and other. Your regular travel is when you go home. But, they want you to get on a plane and get directly there. And no stops don�t, you know, don�t pass go, don�t collect you $200, just go home. That isn�t how I operate. If I have a day like a Friday where I can go to Halifax or Edmonton or Toronto and do a speech or do an event, I will do that on the way home. I am still going home. That doesn�t count as travel to my home. It counts as �other.� So the numbers in this category are large. They�re large for people who say, �why isn�t she going to Saskatchewan?� Well, I was. I was there 168 days last year. So, I got there somehow. I just did it, sometimes, not directly. There are no direct flights out of Ottawa. Anybody who tries to fly to Saskatchewan or leave Saskatchewan knows how difficult it is. It�s not a province that�s really well served. And I try to make best use of my time. So if I�m going to do something�

Was there that imbalance in the other Senators from Saskatchewan�s charges?

No, not that I�m aware of.

But, I mean, they were more on the direct-to-home flights, as opposed to the �other� flights?

Yeah. I, you know, I do a lot of public speaking. I do a lot of other events.

Are those for the Senate or are those for the party?

No, for the Senate. I did very little direct party work. Obviously in Saskatchewan, I went and campaigned for some of my colleagues, obviously I would do that. But, there weren�t charges associated with that, because I�m actually at home.

You see, it's really the Senate's fault for failing to disapprove of my using public funds to promote ~~the Conservative Party~~ our troops on the way to and from my home in Saskatchewan, where I almost spent 6 months living last year.

Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 14, 2013

# ? Jun 14, 2013 03:38

Kintarooooo: Feb 10, 2004; SA > Fark > xians.

eXXon posted:

Did anyone watch Pamela Wallin's interview on CBC? She has her head so far up her rear end it's amazing. Too bad Peter Mansbridge doesn't have the balls to ask real questions, although he didn't have to push too hard to get her to self-incriminate (and pretend she wasn't doing anything wrong in the process).

You can read and watch the whole painful exchange here. You can really tell that Wallin has practice expelling this kind of verbal diarrhea:

You see, it's really the Senate's fault for failing to disapprove of my using public funds to promote ~~the Conservative Party~~ our troops on the way to and from my home in Saskatchewan, where I almost spent 6 months living last year.

Here's a French lesson, courtesy of La Presse.

La Presse, en fran�ais posted:

Un examen des d�penses de voyage de Mme Wallin, entre septembre 2010 et le 30 novembre 2012, r�v�le qu'elle a r�clam� 29 423 $ pour ce qui est consid�r� comme des d�placements r�guliers entre la Saskatchewan et Ottawa, tout en exigeant 321 000 $ suppl�mentaires pour d'autres voyages ailleurs au Canada et � l'�tranger.

Trois cent vingt et un mille loving dollars to flights not between Saskatchewan and Ottawa. Let's be generous for two seconds and say it costs as much for the connections from Ottawa to Toronto that are either connections to Saskatchewan or just "simple flights to Toronto". That leaves at the very least 292k$ of questionable flights.

Can someone tell me how many boards she had to resign from recently (Gluskin Sheff and Porter Airlines), and how many she is still a member of?

# ? Jun 14, 2013 04:44

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

Jesus 300 grand is enough to sent practically 300 people anywhere in the world, round trip.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 08:12

Darude - Adam Sandstorm: Aug 16, 2012

You think it costs 1000 dollars to go roundtrip anywhere in the world?

# ? Jun 14, 2013 08:24

rhazes: Dec 17, 2006; Reduce the rectal spread!
Use glory holes instead!

An official message from the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control

It costs upwards of $2000 round-trip to get to certain places in Africa from Canada (flights to-from are generally from Europe to their former colonies). And this is cheap, lovely 12 hour layover flights.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 09:17

Guigui: Jan 19, 2010; Winner of January '10 Lux Aeterna "Best 2010 Poster" Award

Cordyceps Headache posted:

In pure terms of energy used to transport people, public transit always wins. Even if we bought every poor person a car (which he wold also hate, the liar), who's going to pay for the gas? That's his big loving deliberate omission, the actual cost of the energy to move all the subsidized hunks of metal he's decided solve the transit issue. It's a really awful argument. You might as well say we should build blimps instead of air planes since they cost less, without ever calculating the fuel efficiency factors that makes blimps much worse than airplanes.

There was a really interesting study conducted in 2009 that compared the environmental cost of all methods of transit - from Airplane travel, to cars, to rail, to busses. This study looked at the environmental costs required to maintain these vehicles, power these vehicles, and allow these vehicles movement (road and rail maintenance).

The finding noted some interesting points. It goes without saying that cars are one of the worst offenders, as the % of people moved versus energy required to move them, maintain the cars, and maintain the roads is high. Airline travel, on the other hand, did not have as high an impact the study authors predicted, as the increased cost in jet fuel was minimized somewhat by not having to maintain a roadway for them to fly in.

Surprisingly, the highest, and the lowest, winners were busses. A city buss that is full of people (apparently) is the most efficient method of moving people around as; and conversely, busses are also the biggest losers if they are running without passengers.

If someone here also knows of the study and could post me a link, I'd be grateful. I remember hearing it on the CBC back in 2009 and wouldn't mind giving it another read.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 12:13

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

I support the NDP and I definitely think Tom was being dumb for not stopping. Even if he was doing rolling stops at the signs, went a mere 20k/h, and only asked "Don't you know who I am?" as an actual interrogative since he goes through that checkpoint every day, it's still dumb and rude. Cops behind you? Stop. And unless it's a total fabrication there's no way around asking to look at the badge to get them into trouble later.

It's a dumb, self-made distraction and any politician that's more concerned about promoting their cause rather than their own ego would cooperate fully with police - and it's exactly the sort of pointless, gossipy distraction the Opposition shouldn't want to cause right now while the Conservatives are struggling with scandals.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 14:51

cougar cub: Jun 28, 2004

Sorry, what scandals? We should be focusing on how angry Tom treats hard working Canadians poorly.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 15:02

Giant Goats: Mar 7, 2010

Ceciltron posted:

Jesus 300 grand is enough to sent practically 300 people anywhere in the world, round trip.

It really isn't. When you factor in the taxes and other fees, it can cost about that much just to fly someone one way from Victoria to St. John's.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 15:10

Guy DeBorgore: Apr 6, 1994; Catnip is the opiate of the masses; Soiled Meat

Tochiazuma posted:

Can I throw out the possibility that "Don't you know who I am?" means "Isn't it your job to know what the Leader of the Opposition looks like when you work on Parliament Hill?"

I know it's politics but holy crap could we mountain-size that molehill faster

I agree completely and would care equally little no matter who did it.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 15:33

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

Giant Goats posted:

It really isn't. When you factor in the taxes and other fees, it can cost about that much just to fly someone one way from Victoria to St. John's.

$300,000? One way across Canada? For one person? Are you considering getting a Concorde out of mothballs just for your personal use one time? :stare:

# ? Jun 14, 2013 16:03

Lobok: Jul 13, 2006; Say Watt?

Blade_of_tyshalle posted:

$300,000? One way across Canada? For one person? Are you considering getting a Concorde out of mothballs just for your personal use one time?

It's Trudeau pulling you on a rickshaw and he delivers speeches the whole way.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 16:06

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Lobok posted:

It's Trudeau pulling you on a rickshaw and he delivers speeches the whole way.

BREAKING: RCMP reports Trudeau's remains discovered in torched-out rickshaw outside of Kamloops, BC. Developing...

# ? Jun 14, 2013 16:24

bunnyofdoom: Mar 29, 2008; I've been here the whole time, and you're not my real Dad!

Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:

BREAKING: RCMP reports Trudeau's remains discovered in torched-out rickshaw outside of Kamloops, BC. Developing...

Oh boy, then there will be another leadership race. I think I could manage more 80 hour weeks. And maybe we'll end up with Prime Minister Astronaut.

EDIT: Serious, as much as I love Marc, I don't want anything bad to happen to JT, at all.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 16:27

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

We argued about random alcohol and drug testing at work here at some point.

Abella continues to be the best justice on the Court.

quote:

The Supreme Court of Canada says an employer who wants to impose random alcohol testing on unionized workers in a dangerous work environment must show it is a reasonable move.

The court ruled that a mandatory random alcohol testing policy imposed by Irving Pulp and Paper at a Saint John, N.B., kraft mill in 2006 was unreasonable and was properly rejected by a labour arbitration board.

In a 6-3 decision on Friday, the justices sided with the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, which brought a grievance against the Irving policy.

A New Brunswick court overturned the arbitration board's ruling against the company, but the Supreme Court restored it, saying the board was right to reject the tests because there was no evidence of an alcohol problem at the plant.

In 15 years before the policy was imposed, there were only eight instances in which a worker was found to be under the influence of alcohol and none involved an accident or injury.

In the 22 months the policy was in effect, no one tested positive.

The justices said the applicable standard for judging such matters is reasonableness.

"In the end, the expected safety gains to the employer in this case were found by the board to range 'from uncertain ... to minimal at best' while the impact on employee privacy was found to be much more severe," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote for the majority.

"Consequently, the board concluded that the employer had not demonstrated the requisite problems with dangerousness or increased safety concerns such as workplace alcohol use that would justify universal random testing.

"Random alcohol testing was therefore held to be an unreasonable exercise of management rights under the collective agreement. I agree."

She said there is a substantial body of arbitration jurisprudence built around the issue of management rights and safety, resulting in an approach that looks at proportionality and a balance of interests.

"An employer can impose a rule with disciplinary consequences only if the need for the rule outweighs the harmful impact on employees' privacy rights. The dangerousness of a workplace is clearly relevant, but this does not shut down the inquiry, it begins the proportionality exercise."

# ? Jun 14, 2013 16:57

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

everyone posted:

airplane prices

Well poo poo, guess I figured you'd get a bulk discount for 300 grand. (I'm bad, I know, it's been too long since I've even been able to afford looking at the cost of traveling)

# ? Jun 14, 2013 17:47

ARACHTION: Mar 10, 2012

Ceciltron posted:

Well poo poo, guess I figured you'd get a bulk discount for 300 grand. (I'm bad, I know, it's been too long since I've even been able to afford looking at the cost of traveling)

Is this 300 grand for one year's travel expenses? I don't understand how you could spend that much in one year for travel expenses? I guess she ain't flying coach!

# ? Jun 14, 2013 18:55

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

I guess I'm not voting for NDP next time :mad:

# ? Jun 14, 2013 18:58

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

I think it's funny how National Post and Globe & Mail comment posters, who were previously all in favour of banning religious headwear on the pitch, have decided they hate Quebec even more than they hate Muslims and Sikhs.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 19:49

Baronjutter: Dec 31, 2007; "Tiny Trains"

Nothing unites the rest of canada more than hating on Quebec. All petty regionalism goes out the window when there's a quebec to scoff at. Doesn't matter if you're a yaletown yuppie or an albertan oil worker, it's the one thing that can bring canadians together. Tim Hortons should use it in a disgustingly sentimental ad.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 19:53

Squibbles: Aug 24, 2000; Mwaha ha HA ha!

Baronjutter posted:

Nothing unites the rest of canada more than hating on Quebec. All petty regionalism goes out the window when there's a quebec to scoff at. Doesn't matter if you're a yaletown yuppie or an albertan oil worker, it's the one thing that can bring canadians together. Tim Hortons should use it in a disgustingly sentimental ad.

Someone should do a study of what unites Canadians more: hating on Quebec or hating on natives.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 19:59

Canuckistan: Jan 14, 2004; I'm the greatest thing since World War III.; Soiled Meat

Squibbles posted:

Someone should do a study of what unites Canadians more: hating on Quebec or hating on natives.

Feeling superior to the Yanks.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:03

Paper Jam Dipper: Jul 14, 2007; by XyloJW

Canuckistan posted:

Feeling superior to the Yanks.

This a thousand times.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:11

Blade_of_tyshalle: Jul 12, 2009; If you think that, along the way, you're not going to fail... you're blind.

There's no one I've ever met, no matter how successful they are, who hasn't said they had their failures along the way.

It's not exactly a feeling, though. More a fact.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:13

unlimited shrimp: Aug 30, 2008

Yeah, and it unites us about as much as agreeing "the sky is blue" unites us.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:21

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

I gotta say thats my least favorite bit of Canadian culture.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:24

Ceciltron: Jan 11, 2007; Text BEEP to 43527 for the dancing robot!; Pillbug

Baloogan posted:

I gotta say thats my least favorite bit of Canadian culture.

I'm in this boat. As great as "we" (And "we" is always a strange and nebulous term) are, at least they don't have kings or queens.

It's not really of any use, in general, to encourage a culture based on exclusion or superiority complexes.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:39

Political Whores: Feb 13, 2012

Ceciltron posted:

I'm in this boat. As great as "we" (And "we" is always a strange and nebulous term) are, at least they don't have kings or queens.

It's not really of any use, in general, to encourage a culture based on exclusion or superiority complexes.

Plus it's a great way to pretend we don't have huge systemic problems with racism too. "We Canadians are multicultural, unlike those racist Americans!"; well except for how we treat aboriginal peoples and our periodic bouts of xenophobic hatred for [insert minority here]. But whatever, at least we're not the US.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:42

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

Ceciltron posted:

at least they don't have kings or queens.

A ceremonial monarch, who enjoys no executive power whatsoever, is definitely preferable to an elected head of state with the ability to target citizens for assassination with zero accountability.

Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Jun 14, 2013

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:43

Paper Jam Dipper: Jul 14, 2007; by XyloJW

Baloogan posted:

I gotta say thats my least favorite bit of Canadian culture.

It leads to a lot of ugly poo poo like Canadians thinking just because a Canadian town is close to the American border, that must mean it also shares their crime rate.

Canadians are Niles, Americans are Fraiser.

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:43

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

Can you imagine the glorious united nation we'd be if Quebec became a part of the United States?

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 11:46

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Oh hey, here's the Star with some shoddy journalism again:

Bryan Tuckey Staff Reporter posted:

Government takes one-fifth of cost of new homes in greater GTA

More than $1 billion is estimated to have been paid in 2012 toward the construction of growth-related infrastructure like sewers, roads and transit in the GTA.

What would you say if I told you that more than one-fifth of the cost of a new home goes to the government through various fees and charges?

The issue of home affordability poses a significant challenge for new home buyers in the GTA. So we commissioned a study by Altus Group, and released this past week, to help make sense of the variety of fees and charges collected by municipal, provincial and federal governments � and the impact of those costs on the affordability of a new home in the region.

The study looks at a variety of fees and charges in six municipalities across the GTA � Town of Oakville, City of Brampton, City of Markham, Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury, Town of Ajax and the City of Toronto.

The rates can vary in each municipality, so the report lists the value of fees and charges like development charges, planning and building permit fees, parkland dedication, property and land transfer taxes, mortgage insurance, HST and more. To calculate fees and charges based on the land or home value, the average price of a new lowrise or a highrise home in that municipality was used.

On average, the total government charges and fees amount to one-fifth the cost of a new home. In one case, they represent 27 per cent of a new home�s cost.

In dollars, the average adds up to $118,400, or 23 per cent, on a new single-detached home. For a new highrise home, it�s 20 per cent or roughly $ $64,400.

Here�s why it matters: right now, municipalities across the GTA are looking at how they are going to pay for critical infrastructure like roads, bridges, sewers and public services that will be used by not only new residents, but existing residents as well.

Increasing development charges and other government fees is not the answer.

These facts show that new homebuyers across the GTA are already doing their fair share to support the development of essential public infrastructure.

It is estimated that in 2012 alone, the industry, new home buyers and businesses contributed more than $1 billion toward the construction of growth-related infrastructure like sewers, roads and transit in the GTA through development charges paid to municipalities.

Some more garbage about how taxpayers are unfairly shouldering the burden of ... paying... for... public infrastructure... what the gently caress, seriously? Who else is going to pay for public infrastructure in your lovely, poorly designed, low density suburbs encroaching on rich farmland and the Niagara escarpment?

At the end of the article is this gem:

quote:

Bryan Tuckey is President and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and can be found on Twitter (twitter.com/bildgta ), Facebook (facebook.com/bildgta ), Youtube (youtube.com/bildgta ) and BILD�s official online blog (bildblogs.ca).

Are you loving serious? Your "Staff Reporter" is literally the head of a developer lobby? Apparently he writes regular opinion pieces, including this one extolling the virtues of ... his own association. What is the Star trying to pull here?

# ? Jun 14, 2013 20:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Canadian Politics Megathread: That is simply not Trudeau

«‹›675 »