Thanks Paul for this very depressing information. Until the ethics commissioner has some real authority this will continue to happen. I wonder if this will be reported by the mainstream media and if Mr. Trudeau will shuffle his cabinet anytime soon. If the conservatives hope to make any advances they should start using these ethical lapses to their advantage but I fear once they start the liberals will bring up abortion rights to frighten people. Truly a depressing situation for someone who has been around for close to 7 decades.
Um. Paul was writing about something he saw in "the mainstream media" -- that'd be our team at Global News. Most watched national newscast this month a few times (more than CTV or CBC). And only cbc.ca has a bigger audience than globalnews.ca -- We're also on Amazon Prime, Roiku and Apple TV! Check us out! :)
In my case it causes me to repeat my view that, not only is this country broken (thank you, PP, for the image although others have said it also), it is broken irreparably.
The problem is quite simple. Our political "elite" [how dare they use that word!!] simply govern (hah! govern! hah!) from the perspective that their hobby horses are all that matter. Other than, of course, being perfectly willing to loot the country.
So, again, the country is broken and I eagerly await the inevitable (please!) breakup of said political arrangement.
Many many years (OK, "decades") ago, CBC Radio ran a contest for its listeners ... asking them to complete/finish a simile that began with " ... as Canadian as ... ".
I suspect that they were hopeful to get something wittier (or slyer) than the standard "maple syrup" or "fucking in a canoe" stuff. I cannot remember any of them, much less the winner.
HOWEVER, several years ago Margaret Atwood was being interviewed by the CBC and, somehow, that contest was mentioned ... probably (drily) by Ms Atwood.
But she, unlike me, could remember at least one ... and it was her favourite ... "as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances."
Canada will muddle through until the POCS (the Pendulum of Common Sense) eventually swings back to normalcy. We'll both likely be dead by then, and what is left of what was The Good Canada might be a very dark place.
Cap'n Ron, thank you for your thoughtful and witty response.
I must say that your recounting of Maggie Atwood's comment rang a bell with me but I cannot say why.
As for "decades" that word is not simply a multiple of 10 years but for you and I - and many others - it is an expression of lived experience. For some (terrifically lucky) folks it is all sweetness and song. For the rest of us, it is a mixed bag of very, very good experiences combined with other experiences. Of course, some of those other experiences were something that we truly don't wish to remember [but we do] but they did shape us to whom we are now.
Okay, now for the political aspect. For some of us, those other experiences were very negative and were negative due to the specific action of YOUR [sorry about personalizing but they sure as hell are not mine) government. I understand the idea of muddling through and I completely accept that Canada has done that for somewhere about 150 years and change. I am not at all so sure that muddling through a) is sufficient this time; and b) many there are of us who are willing to only muddle through because we see a dismal future for a country that simply muddles through and does not truly strive to do better.
I have not guessed in what part of Canada you live and I have not stated in what part of Canada I live; I suspect strongly that you can guess.
"For some of us, those other experiences were very negative and were negative due to the specific action of YOUR [sorry about personalizing but they sure as hell are not mine) government."
I am pretty sure that your guess (about my preferred governments and acceptable governments) is totally without merit.
But, thank you for chiming-in, anyways. :)
Federally, there is only one least-shitty option.
Provincially ... I wish our two decent nose-to-nose parties ... both with honest/imperfect/acceptable leaders ... could fight the upcoming-election with an informal agreement to support each-others' reasonable "election plank".
Was it Sun Tzu who wrote, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Until Canadians decide they are tired of being made fools off, this will continue to happen. They have found the golden calf, or the pot at the end of the rainbow, the taxpayers of Canada.
Permit me a hockey analogy from the old days. In the early 1970s, the Philadelphia Flyers earned the nickname "the Broad Street bullies," because of the location of their arena and their rough play within its confines (as well as wherever they went on the road). Led by the likes of Dave "The Hammer" Schultz and Bobby Clarke, they terrorized the newly expanded league. They committed so many infractions, the referees were left hapless and helpless; they couldn't keep Flyers in the penalty box all game long. So, they looked the other way and called only the worst stuff. You can see where I'm going here....
The problem with your analogy, Doug, is that a) there are no referees, b) there are no penalties handed out - whatsoever - and, c) not even the "worst stuff" is called.
So, I ask you, Sir, why would any honest, hardworking individual be willing to get down in the much with this group so that you can "proudly" claim to be a Member of Parliament or, gasp!, a cabinet member. No honest, hardworking individual would.
Actually, there are referees. They are called voters. As long as voter turnout in all elections remains in the 60% range or lower, elected parties have free reign.
I respectfully disagree with you. A blind referee who refuses to "see" the penalties as they are incurred is the same as no referee. The voters (i.e. the referees in your metaphor) in the rest of the country were overridden by the "blind referees" from the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc.
I was one of the non-participants in the last federal election - for the first time in my life. Why should I participate when the system is so broken and so illegitimate that it is able to be captured by crooks, thieves and incompetents?
You can argue that the result of the last federal election it is my fault [I am purposely personalizing this!] but I reject that. The voters (referees in your metaphor) in the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. have deliberately chosen to ignore the theft and incompetence of the current junta and I repeat, the system is broken and illegitimate so why should I participate and "justify" the system?
Let me, let us, out. I don't want to leave Alberta I want to leave Canada.
I have followed politics for many years and don’t have to struggle to think of Liberal MPs who towered over their peers in Cabinet and Parliament. I’ll name drop four: Herb Gray. Allan MacEachen. Judy LaMarsh. Anne McLellan.
All four of those Liberal MPs came to Parliament as rookies, learned the ropes and became competent Cabinet ministers in many senior portfolios. Wily, partisan in nature but not obnoxious, certainly no worse than anyone else in Parliament at that time. And they GOT THINGS DONE.
I suspect that within todays large Liberal caucus there are some pretty smart backbenchers waiting for their turn in the sun and a summons to join Cabinet. I wish Justin Trudeau would get over using Cabinet as a big social justice experiment and pull some of the best prospects into a sphere of influence. The experiment isn’t working and frankly it’s an embarrassment. Mr. Wells Substack post is a stark reminder how we are being governed by a shallow talent pool that lacks ambition, employs shady ethical standards and are in over their heads.
Ministerial accountability, as we once knew it, simply doesn't seem to exist anymore - it's a casualty of the extreme tribalism of our day. I think the argument is less "rules are for bad people" than "the damage the bad people would do is much worse than the comparatively trivial damage we're doing". Per Paul's argument that Hussen and Ng aren't particularly notable, I'd argue that that's not unique to them; "cabinet ministers displaying discernible personalities" is also a thing of the past, and for similar reasons. I think all of this is a shame.
The age-old connection between Ministers' exempt staff and constituency communications contracts is the first thing young comms firm execs are taught. Get some of that sweet House of Commons money first, and the big government contracts will come in time, young Padawan.
Oh, they will, if they ever get to govern. The current government does NOT have the monopoly on favouritism/nepotism/ etc. Look at the actions of Ford. Were the Conservatives squeaky clean when they were in power and had the ability to apply favours to the faithful? Probably not. Not trying to engage in what-about-ism but really everyone's POV is seriously coloured by their political bent and no government is perfect because they are made up of imperfect people. There will always be something to criticize. These issues must be called out and people should resign when appropriate. This was a good article by Paul and entirely appropriate but, really, these things happen in all governments. They do.
You are quite correct that the current government is not at all the first to display these odious behaviors; I will allow the denizens of Ontario to discuss Ford as I am resident in Alberta and my knowledge of him, his family and his various actions is entirely filtered through news media and, quite frankly, he bores me silly.
You are quite correct that everyone not only has but is entitled to have their own individual point of view - a fact of which I so quickly take advantage!
Ultimately, my real rancor is oriented to the incredibly near-sighted (dare I call them blind) folk who inhabit those constituencies that keep returning Liberal MP's and give no thought to punishing them for the favoritism/nepotism/etc. [such a much kinder and gentler descriptor than I offered!].
Until those voters in those constituencies wake up and change, then I repeat that the country is broken and this is simply the most recent exhibit of that decline. I am absolutely not hopeful of such a change - and that is, by my standards, incredibly hyperbolic about the possibility of positive change actually occurring
Bob, I mean you no offense but I must argue your brief point.
You have just shown YOU are a large part of the problem. You are not coming down on the Liberals but you are instead deflecting by criticizing the alternatives. I, like many folks, have my own choice but the point here is not who I like but that it is clear that the ones that the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. have put in power are corrupt and too many people are arguing, "But those other guys ...." Give the other guys a chance! Make sure that they don't get corrupt like the Liberals but stop deflecting and wringing your hands and saying, "But those other guys...."
Ken, you can’t argue with Bob’s statement because you chose not to vote for anyone in the last election. YOU are part of the problem. You could not find one other “guy” to park your vote. And do you honestly think any of the feds are going ruin Alberta when you’ve replaced Kenney with Smith?
Many people live in the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc, and they get to vote too and your assumption that they put in corrupt people is just sad. They may not agree with you and your wanting to tear everything down as a solution but that does not mean they are wrong.
Actually, Lou, I can and absolutely DO argue Bob's point.
My thesis was that to simply say, "But those other guys...." ignores the issues of the current guys. And those current guys are bad. Really, really, really bad. Crooks and incompetents. You may say, "But not all are crooks and incompetents ..." and my response is, "Oh, and tell me which ones are innocent of the charge and whether they are in cabinet." I expect that the number of "innocents" will be shamefully small and none of them are in cabinet. I refer you to Mr. Wells' column for his take on this matter.
As to why I didn't vote in the last federal election, well, ALL the party leaders campaigned against my province - Alberta, although you undoubtedly know that. Because ALL the party leaders campaigned against my province I refused to vote for any of them, knowing that the victor would inevitably claim, "The people have spoken" when it was clear that they really were campaigning against us here. and I wanted no part of "admitting" that I supported someone - anyone - who campaigned against us.
Am I part of the problem? I think not whatsoever. In fact, I submit that politics in this wretched country is not simply broken and is getting fewer and fewer participants - other than the self-serving folk, of course - simply because the process has no, sorry, I mean NO, legitimacy. If it's not legitimate, why should I participate given that the process doesn't work?
Yeah, many people live in GTA, etc., etc. and they keep voting in crooks, thieves and incompetents who habitually campaign against Alberta, in the name of a "just transition" and various other meaningless and lying pronouncements.
I refused to vote in the last federal election for the reasons specified. I continue to vote provincially and municipally. I am not at all in favor of the winner of my last municipal election but that is the process and I am accepting of it. In the upcoming provincial election to be held this spring, there are two main proponents and, while I have my favorite, if the other should win, then again, that is the process.
My point is, that the federal process has no legitimacy as it is, as noted, weighted to the participation of crooks, thieves and incompetents. Fix that - or at least, convince me that there is an honest attempt at fixing it - and I will reconsider my participation federally.
Ken, you disagree with Bob because he doesn’t come down wholeheartedly against JT and the Liberals. You have decided that they are all crooks, thieves, and incompetents, always have been and always will be, and nothing will change your mind. And in the last federal election, you decided there was no one worth voting for. So you are calling Bob out for thinking exactly what you actively did. And I’m glad you don’t want to offend Bob. That’s kind of you.
I am not saying that there are no crooks, thieves, and incompetents in our collective electoral systems. But neither do I think they are all as bad as you make them out to be.
I do know that you have little respect for many of our institutions, especially federally, and you’ve often said you would like to see them torn down and maybe rebuilt to some standard you have yet to share. Is that why you didn’t vote? The big cities predetermined the outcome? Of course, the federal elections are not illegitimate. Are there other ways to determine a leader, MPs, yes? But just because you don’t like the results does not make them any less valid.
In the meantime, I am curious as to what you hope for in the spring election.
Lou, you write, "... you disagree with Bob because he doesn’t come down wholeheartedly against JT and the Liberals."
Well, I do think that JT and the Libs (a boy band, no?) are crooks, thieves and incompetents. As you might imagine, I think I could insert here a list of their "greatest" hits, so to speak, but I will avoid that and simply refer you to Paul's column.
You seem to think that I don't like big cities; in fact, I personally live in a big city. I am so, terribly, terribly disappointed that the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal and other fellow travelers continue to support the crooks, thieves and incompetents in Ottawa. There are other options, flawed to be sure but there are other options who have not - to this point - shown themselves to be crooks, thieves and incompetents. I certainly expect that some of those alternatives would show themselves to be incompetent were they given a chance but, then, that is my expectation and, notwithstanding expectation, they are innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion (e.g. see Paul's column).
As for my expectation for the spring election, well, we have two flawed leaders, neither of whom I believe to be a crook or a thief. Incompetent? Well, the former premier demonstrated her abilities in that area when she was premier; the current premier is still demonstrating her abilities in that area. Time will tell whether my vote is a vote of holding my nose or one of enthusiasm.
I honestly don't think that anyone 'campaigns against Alberta'. They may criticize the decisions that Alberta's government makes or the direction they go in but no one is trying to destroy the energy industry, or the Alberta economy. I just hope it will see how to best move forward in a sustainable way and that Albertans will accept that. I believe that they will.
I grant you that I am unaware of any leader who campaigned on "Let's screw Alberta." I would point out, however, that all the party leaders did actively court the greenie vote, not with well thought out ways to move from here to there (wherever there might be), taking into account dislocations, problems, impacts in particular regions, etc. By all means, court the greenie vote but, please, please, please do it thoughtfully.
The effect of all the campaigns was terrifically anti-Alberta and anti-resource industry with no real commentary about the difficulties in achieving the nirvana to which the various leaders were trying to make us believe that they could each achieve best.
One exception to my comments about "all leaders" is the leader of the BQ, M. Yves-Francois Blanchet. I don't recall that he repeated the slur against Alberta oil by Premier Legault when he called our world leading most environmentally sound product, "dirty oil" but, truthfully, I may have missed has comment in that respect. Certainly his comments were so vitriolic about our situation that he may as well have said that.
So, am I over sensitive? Nope, I certainly don't think so and, if you think JT is not campaigning against Alberta right now, as they say, I have a bridge to sell you. "Just transition" indeed!!
I know that your point of view is held by many Albertans but I have not yet seen a good reason as to why politicians would want to campaign against Alberta. There does have to be a transition to more sustainable sources of energy and perhaps all the details are not clear at this time, but it will happen. Change is difficult.
Some of us have no problem deciding that a leader who genuinely cares for the wellbeing of the people rather than the elite is preferable to the self-serving leaders of the two biggest parties. For all his failings, Jagmeet presents a clear message that a government led by him would strengthen the economy by addressing the health, housing and work force needs of all Canadians.
I prefer to see him as a rarity in politics today: a responsible politician who is prepared to act as an adult to better the lives of all Canadians. He sees his role as being supportive of good legislation regardless of its source and to propose essential changes to existing issues. As a result, he has been able to support and enhance the pandemic financial supports for individuals and small businesses, drive the creation of a national daycare plan, initiate the foundations of a national dental care plan and demand a national pharmacare plan by the end of this year in return for his continuing support of the government. None of these progressive policies will generate much support for him or his party in the polls since the Liberals will receive the credit as the sitting government but I don't believe there is another parliamentarian of any party who has contributed more to this country in the past five years.
I think the federal NDP's values are laudable. The problem seems to be that Jagmeet keeps talking about issues in a way that suggests he does not have a good grasp of what it would mean to govern. The most referenced one being his laying the blame for inadequate healthcare at the door of the Federal government when healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction.
Bravo Paul. This government is neither serious nor ethical. They are a disgrace to the office they hold.
Jen, if only they were that good.
Thanks Paul for this very depressing information. Until the ethics commissioner has some real authority this will continue to happen. I wonder if this will be reported by the mainstream media and if Mr. Trudeau will shuffle his cabinet anytime soon. If the conservatives hope to make any advances they should start using these ethical lapses to their advantage but I fear once they start the liberals will bring up abortion rights to frighten people. Truly a depressing situation for someone who has been around for close to 7 decades.
Um. Paul was writing about something he saw in "the mainstream media" -- that'd be our team at Global News. Most watched national newscast this month a few times (more than CTV or CBC). And only cbc.ca has a bigger audience than globalnews.ca -- We're also on Amazon Prime, Roiku and Apple TV! Check us out! :)
Thanks David glad your reporting on this.
That Mary Ng news sure disappeared quickly.
(I'm sure the Hussen story will too. As did Trudeau's Kokanee adventure.)
I guess journalists had better things to do.
I'm old enough to remember when they (you) were brave enough to hound a previous Cabinet Minister from office for a $16 orange juice.
And you and your colleagues still have questions about how your profession, journalism, is held in such low esteem.
I am 73. It does not depress me. It provokes a deep and profound sense of pissedoffedness.
Ron, I am just a young guy, a year your junior.
In my case it causes me to repeat my view that, not only is this country broken (thank you, PP, for the image although others have said it also), it is broken irreparably.
The problem is quite simple. Our political "elite" [how dare they use that word!!] simply govern (hah! govern! hah!) from the perspective that their hobby horses are all that matter. Other than, of course, being perfectly willing to loot the country.
So, again, the country is broken and I eagerly await the inevitable (please!) breakup of said political arrangement.
Many many years (OK, "decades") ago, CBC Radio ran a contest for its listeners ... asking them to complete/finish a simile that began with " ... as Canadian as ... ".
I suspect that they were hopeful to get something wittier (or slyer) than the standard "maple syrup" or "fucking in a canoe" stuff. I cannot remember any of them, much less the winner.
HOWEVER, several years ago Margaret Atwood was being interviewed by the CBC and, somehow, that contest was mentioned ... probably (drily) by Ms Atwood.
But she, unlike me, could remember at least one ... and it was her favourite ... "as Canadian as possible, under the circumstances."
Canada will muddle through until the POCS (the Pendulum of Common Sense) eventually swings back to normalcy. We'll both likely be dead by then, and what is left of what was The Good Canada might be a very dark place.
Cap'n Ron, thank you for your thoughtful and witty response.
I must say that your recounting of Maggie Atwood's comment rang a bell with me but I cannot say why.
As for "decades" that word is not simply a multiple of 10 years but for you and I - and many others - it is an expression of lived experience. For some (terrifically lucky) folks it is all sweetness and song. For the rest of us, it is a mixed bag of very, very good experiences combined with other experiences. Of course, some of those other experiences were something that we truly don't wish to remember [but we do] but they did shape us to whom we are now.
Okay, now for the political aspect. For some of us, those other experiences were very negative and were negative due to the specific action of YOUR [sorry about personalizing but they sure as hell are not mine) government. I understand the idea of muddling through and I completely accept that Canada has done that for somewhere about 150 years and change. I am not at all so sure that muddling through a) is sufficient this time; and b) many there are of us who are willing to only muddle through because we see a dismal future for a country that simply muddles through and does not truly strive to do better.
I have not guessed in what part of Canada you live and I have not stated in what part of Canada I live; I suspect strongly that you can guess.
Again, I thank you for your response.
"For some of us, those other experiences were very negative and were negative due to the specific action of YOUR [sorry about personalizing but they sure as hell are not mine) government."
I am pretty sure that your guess (about my preferred governments and acceptable governments) is totally without merit.
But, thank you for chiming-in, anyways. :)
Federally, there is only one least-shitty option.
Provincially ... I wish our two decent nose-to-nose parties ... both with honest/imperfect/acceptable leaders ... could fight the upcoming-election with an informal agreement to support each-others' reasonable "election plank".
Was it Sun Tzu who wrote, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Or maybe Machiavelli?
Or Thesaurus Rex?
The Atwood comment reminds me of one of Mordechai Richler's : ''yeah, world famous, world famous in Canada ''
“The only communications material a Liberal in York South-Weston needs is a billboard saying, ‘Michael Ignatieff Is No Longer the Liberal Leader.’”
I damn-near fell off my sofa laughing.
Great article. Little wonder that voting numbers continue to drop. Zero accountability. Totally shameless individuals that we continue to re-elect.
Keep it up Paul. Thanks
Screw the Ethics Commissioner, where is the RCMP... oh wait, the RCMP Commissioner is NOT independent of the PMO... We're so screwed.
They come this far without accountability. Why start now?
Good one!
Until Canadians decide they are tired of being made fools off, this will continue to happen. They have found the golden calf, or the pot at the end of the rainbow, the taxpayers of Canada.
Permit me a hockey analogy from the old days. In the early 1970s, the Philadelphia Flyers earned the nickname "the Broad Street bullies," because of the location of their arena and their rough play within its confines (as well as wherever they went on the road). Led by the likes of Dave "The Hammer" Schultz and Bobby Clarke, they terrorized the newly expanded league. They committed so many infractions, the referees were left hapless and helpless; they couldn't keep Flyers in the penalty box all game long. So, they looked the other way and called only the worst stuff. You can see where I'm going here....
The problem with your analogy, Doug, is that a) there are no referees, b) there are no penalties handed out - whatsoever - and, c) not even the "worst stuff" is called.
So, I ask you, Sir, why would any honest, hardworking individual be willing to get down in the much with this group so that you can "proudly" claim to be a Member of Parliament or, gasp!, a cabinet member. No honest, hardworking individual would.
Actually, there are referees. They are called voters. As long as voter turnout in all elections remains in the 60% range or lower, elected parties have free reign.
Mark, thank you for your comment.
I respectfully disagree with you. A blind referee who refuses to "see" the penalties as they are incurred is the same as no referee. The voters (i.e. the referees in your metaphor) in the rest of the country were overridden by the "blind referees" from the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc.
I was one of the non-participants in the last federal election - for the first time in my life. Why should I participate when the system is so broken and so illegitimate that it is able to be captured by crooks, thieves and incompetents?
You can argue that the result of the last federal election it is my fault [I am purposely personalizing this!] but I reject that. The voters (referees in your metaphor) in the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. have deliberately chosen to ignore the theft and incompetence of the current junta and I repeat, the system is broken and illegitimate so why should I participate and "justify" the system?
Let me, let us, out. I don't want to leave Alberta I want to leave Canada.
Ken, I get your frustration, but is leaving really the answer? Regardless of the issues in Canada, I believe we stack up well against the U.S.
I have followed politics for many years and don’t have to struggle to think of Liberal MPs who towered over their peers in Cabinet and Parliament. I’ll name drop four: Herb Gray. Allan MacEachen. Judy LaMarsh. Anne McLellan.
All four of those Liberal MPs came to Parliament as rookies, learned the ropes and became competent Cabinet ministers in many senior portfolios. Wily, partisan in nature but not obnoxious, certainly no worse than anyone else in Parliament at that time. And they GOT THINGS DONE.
I suspect that within todays large Liberal caucus there are some pretty smart backbenchers waiting for their turn in the sun and a summons to join Cabinet. I wish Justin Trudeau would get over using Cabinet as a big social justice experiment and pull some of the best prospects into a sphere of influence. The experiment isn’t working and frankly it’s an embarrassment. Mr. Wells Substack post is a stark reminder how we are being governed by a shallow talent pool that lacks ambition, employs shady ethical standards and are in over their heads.
Time to clear the deck with a Cabinet shuffle.
Any Cabinet is only as good, as moral, and as competent as the person who leads it, and appoints its members.
Better yet ... a cabinet flush ... ;)
The problem is at the top. Trudeau needs to be shuffled.
Ministerial accountability, as we once knew it, simply doesn't seem to exist anymore - it's a casualty of the extreme tribalism of our day. I think the argument is less "rules are for bad people" than "the damage the bad people would do is much worse than the comparatively trivial damage we're doing". Per Paul's argument that Hussen and Ng aren't particularly notable, I'd argue that that's not unique to them; "cabinet ministers displaying discernible personalities" is also a thing of the past, and for similar reasons. I think all of this is a shame.
Reports like this make me realise the bargain I am receiving from the (huge) investment in my subscription to your newsletter.
Oh man, enumerated paragraph #1 cracked me up.
Great piece.
The easiest thing for all of us to do is just shrug and say "meah".
The harder thing to do is demand more from all levels of government, and from all parties.
The age-old connection between Ministers' exempt staff and constituency communications contracts is the first thing young comms firm execs are taught. Get some of that sweet House of Commons money first, and the big government contracts will come in time, young Padawan.
the problem is - what is the alternative - Pierre? - Jagmeet? - Yves-Francois? - Elizabeth? - how about none of the above including Justin
At least none of the above does not need a communications budget.
Oh, they will, if they ever get to govern. The current government does NOT have the monopoly on favouritism/nepotism/ etc. Look at the actions of Ford. Were the Conservatives squeaky clean when they were in power and had the ability to apply favours to the faithful? Probably not. Not trying to engage in what-about-ism but really everyone's POV is seriously coloured by their political bent and no government is perfect because they are made up of imperfect people. There will always be something to criticize. These issues must be called out and people should resign when appropriate. This was a good article by Paul and entirely appropriate but, really, these things happen in all governments. They do.
Margaret, thank you for your response.
You are quite correct that the current government is not at all the first to display these odious behaviors; I will allow the denizens of Ontario to discuss Ford as I am resident in Alberta and my knowledge of him, his family and his various actions is entirely filtered through news media and, quite frankly, he bores me silly.
You are quite correct that everyone not only has but is entitled to have their own individual point of view - a fact of which I so quickly take advantage!
Ultimately, my real rancor is oriented to the incredibly near-sighted (dare I call them blind) folk who inhabit those constituencies that keep returning Liberal MP's and give no thought to punishing them for the favoritism/nepotism/etc. [such a much kinder and gentler descriptor than I offered!].
Until those voters in those constituencies wake up and change, then I repeat that the country is broken and this is simply the most recent exhibit of that decline. I am absolutely not hopeful of such a change - and that is, by my standards, incredibly hyperbolic about the possibility of positive change actually occurring
Good one!
Bob, I mean you no offense but I must argue your brief point.
You have just shown YOU are a large part of the problem. You are not coming down on the Liberals but you are instead deflecting by criticizing the alternatives. I, like many folks, have my own choice but the point here is not who I like but that it is clear that the ones that the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc. have put in power are corrupt and too many people are arguing, "But those other guys ...." Give the other guys a chance! Make sure that they don't get corrupt like the Liberals but stop deflecting and wringing your hands and saying, "But those other guys...."
Ken, you can’t argue with Bob’s statement because you chose not to vote for anyone in the last election. YOU are part of the problem. You could not find one other “guy” to park your vote. And do you honestly think any of the feds are going ruin Alberta when you’ve replaced Kenney with Smith?
Many people live in the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal, etc, and they get to vote too and your assumption that they put in corrupt people is just sad. They may not agree with you and your wanting to tear everything down as a solution but that does not mean they are wrong.
Actually, Lou, I can and absolutely DO argue Bob's point.
My thesis was that to simply say, "But those other guys...." ignores the issues of the current guys. And those current guys are bad. Really, really, really bad. Crooks and incompetents. You may say, "But not all are crooks and incompetents ..." and my response is, "Oh, and tell me which ones are innocent of the charge and whether they are in cabinet." I expect that the number of "innocents" will be shamefully small and none of them are in cabinet. I refer you to Mr. Wells' column for his take on this matter.
As to why I didn't vote in the last federal election, well, ALL the party leaders campaigned against my province - Alberta, although you undoubtedly know that. Because ALL the party leaders campaigned against my province I refused to vote for any of them, knowing that the victor would inevitably claim, "The people have spoken" when it was clear that they really were campaigning against us here. and I wanted no part of "admitting" that I supported someone - anyone - who campaigned against us.
Am I part of the problem? I think not whatsoever. In fact, I submit that politics in this wretched country is not simply broken and is getting fewer and fewer participants - other than the self-serving folk, of course - simply because the process has no, sorry, I mean NO, legitimacy. If it's not legitimate, why should I participate given that the process doesn't work?
Yeah, many people live in GTA, etc., etc. and they keep voting in crooks, thieves and incompetents who habitually campaign against Alberta, in the name of a "just transition" and various other meaningless and lying pronouncements.
I refused to vote in the last federal election for the reasons specified. I continue to vote provincially and municipally. I am not at all in favor of the winner of my last municipal election but that is the process and I am accepting of it. In the upcoming provincial election to be held this spring, there are two main proponents and, while I have my favorite, if the other should win, then again, that is the process.
My point is, that the federal process has no legitimacy as it is, as noted, weighted to the participation of crooks, thieves and incompetents. Fix that - or at least, convince me that there is an honest attempt at fixing it - and I will reconsider my participation federally.
Ken, you disagree with Bob because he doesn’t come down wholeheartedly against JT and the Liberals. You have decided that they are all crooks, thieves, and incompetents, always have been and always will be, and nothing will change your mind. And in the last federal election, you decided there was no one worth voting for. So you are calling Bob out for thinking exactly what you actively did. And I’m glad you don’t want to offend Bob. That’s kind of you.
I am not saying that there are no crooks, thieves, and incompetents in our collective electoral systems. But neither do I think they are all as bad as you make them out to be.
I do know that you have little respect for many of our institutions, especially federally, and you’ve often said you would like to see them torn down and maybe rebuilt to some standard you have yet to share. Is that why you didn’t vote? The big cities predetermined the outcome? Of course, the federal elections are not illegitimate. Are there other ways to determine a leader, MPs, yes? But just because you don’t like the results does not make them any less valid.
In the meantime, I am curious as to what you hope for in the spring election.
Lou, you write, "... you disagree with Bob because he doesn’t come down wholeheartedly against JT and the Liberals."
Well, I do think that JT and the Libs (a boy band, no?) are crooks, thieves and incompetents. As you might imagine, I think I could insert here a list of their "greatest" hits, so to speak, but I will avoid that and simply refer you to Paul's column.
You seem to think that I don't like big cities; in fact, I personally live in a big city. I am so, terribly, terribly disappointed that the GTA, Vancouver, Montreal and other fellow travelers continue to support the crooks, thieves and incompetents in Ottawa. There are other options, flawed to be sure but there are other options who have not - to this point - shown themselves to be crooks, thieves and incompetents. I certainly expect that some of those alternatives would show themselves to be incompetent were they given a chance but, then, that is my expectation and, notwithstanding expectation, they are innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion (e.g. see Paul's column).
As for my expectation for the spring election, well, we have two flawed leaders, neither of whom I believe to be a crook or a thief. Incompetent? Well, the former premier demonstrated her abilities in that area when she was premier; the current premier is still demonstrating her abilities in that area. Time will tell whether my vote is a vote of holding my nose or one of enthusiasm.
I honestly don't think that anyone 'campaigns against Alberta'. They may criticize the decisions that Alberta's government makes or the direction they go in but no one is trying to destroy the energy industry, or the Alberta economy. I just hope it will see how to best move forward in a sustainable way and that Albertans will accept that. I believe that they will.
Margaret, I respectfully disagree with you.
I grant you that I am unaware of any leader who campaigned on "Let's screw Alberta." I would point out, however, that all the party leaders did actively court the greenie vote, not with well thought out ways to move from here to there (wherever there might be), taking into account dislocations, problems, impacts in particular regions, etc. By all means, court the greenie vote but, please, please, please do it thoughtfully.
The effect of all the campaigns was terrifically anti-Alberta and anti-resource industry with no real commentary about the difficulties in achieving the nirvana to which the various leaders were trying to make us believe that they could each achieve best.
One exception to my comments about "all leaders" is the leader of the BQ, M. Yves-Francois Blanchet. I don't recall that he repeated the slur against Alberta oil by Premier Legault when he called our world leading most environmentally sound product, "dirty oil" but, truthfully, I may have missed has comment in that respect. Certainly his comments were so vitriolic about our situation that he may as well have said that.
So, am I over sensitive? Nope, I certainly don't think so and, if you think JT is not campaigning against Alberta right now, as they say, I have a bridge to sell you. "Just transition" indeed!!
I know that your point of view is held by many Albertans but I have not yet seen a good reason as to why politicians would want to campaign against Alberta. There does have to be a transition to more sustainable sources of energy and perhaps all the details are not clear at this time, but it will happen. Change is difficult.
Since when is the lesser of four evils NOT the default option?
It is pure Darwin.
Some of us have no problem deciding that a leader who genuinely cares for the wellbeing of the people rather than the elite is preferable to the self-serving leaders of the two biggest parties. For all his failings, Jagmeet presents a clear message that a government led by him would strengthen the economy by addressing the health, housing and work force needs of all Canadians.
Mr. Singh is enabling this Trudeau government. He keeps it in power, despite its ineptness and dishonesty. The politician who cries wolf.
I prefer to see him as a rarity in politics today: a responsible politician who is prepared to act as an adult to better the lives of all Canadians. He sees his role as being supportive of good legislation regardless of its source and to propose essential changes to existing issues. As a result, he has been able to support and enhance the pandemic financial supports for individuals and small businesses, drive the creation of a national daycare plan, initiate the foundations of a national dental care plan and demand a national pharmacare plan by the end of this year in return for his continuing support of the government. None of these progressive policies will generate much support for him or his party in the polls since the Liberals will receive the credit as the sitting government but I don't believe there is another parliamentarian of any party who has contributed more to this country in the past five years.
I think the federal NDP's values are laudable. The problem seems to be that Jagmeet keeps talking about issues in a way that suggests he does not have a good grasp of what it would mean to govern. The most referenced one being his laying the blame for inadequate healthcare at the door of the Federal government when healthcare is under provincial jurisdiction.