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

Politics in 2017

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Métis" is mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982 as separate and distinct from the other groups that make up the “aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#h-52
2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

While there is no further definition of Métis in the Constitution, this was clarified by the Supreme Court in R. v. Powley.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do
The term “Métis” in s. 35  of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears.  A Métis community is a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life.
  Much more at link
 
Blackadder1916 said:
"Métis" is mentioned in the Constitution Act 1982 as separate and distinct from the other groups that make up the “aboriginal peoples of Canada”.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html#h-52
While there is no further definition of Métis in the Constitution, this was clarified by the Supreme Court in R. v. Powley.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2076/index.do 
The term “Métis” in s. 35  of the Constitution Act, 1982 does not encompass all individuals with mixed Indian and European heritage; rather, it refers to distinctive peoples who, in addition to their mixed ancestry, developed their own customs, and recognizable group identity separate from their Indian or Inuit and European forebears.  A Métis community is a group of Métis with a distinctive collective identity, living together in the same geographical area and sharing a common way of life.
Much more at link

Right, so their distinctive culture is not "native" to Canada; it was created upon the arrival and subsequent intermixing with Europeans... so why are they considered a distinct group alongside Inuits and First Nations? Shouldn't they be treated akin to les Habitants or the Acadians?
 
Rick Goebel said:
Sorry, I got carried away.  It is indeed 15 and 15.  My apologies.

I don't think it ever counted Trudeau.  It always was 31 total (as far as I know, anyway - could be wrong.).  INAC was split in half, but the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is also the Small Business and Tourism Minister - they were split before.
 
Good2Golf said:
No, don't double-think yourself, you were right the first time.  PM is also a Minister, of the Privy Council, so 1+15(16) + 15 - total 31 now, (30 before).

It was 31 at the beginning, I think.  It was less than that lately, due to some resignations and double duties.  Now, with INAC split in half, it's back to 11.
 
jmt18325 said:
It was 31 at the beginning, I think.  It was less than that lately, due to some resignations and double duties.  Now, with INAC split in half, it's back to 11.

...or you could do some research, follow the link I provided a few posts earlier, and count both the current cabinet and that immediately prior, and see the prior cabinet was 30, consisting of the PM (Minister of the Privy Council) + 14 other male Ministers and 15 female Ministers.  The current: 31 (1+15, + 15). 

Worry yourself not, jmt, for it is not fake news...'tis the Government's own official site specifically related to Canadian Parliamentary Cabinets over the years.  Of course you are entitled to argue even with them - perhaps the Clerk of the Privy Council (who conveniently also happens to be the Secretary of the Cabinet) might pay you some heed if you can convince him that everyone else than you is wrong.

Regards,
G2G

 
The second I got married was the day I realized I would never be right again.

 
Altair said:
The second I got married was the day I realized I would never be right again.

Whenever you're wrong, admit it; and whenever you're right, shut up.  :)
 
Good2Golf said:
...or you could do some research, follow the link I provided a few posts earlier, and count both the current cabinet and that immediately prior, and see the prior cabinet was 30, consisting of the PM (Minister of the Privy Council) + 14 other male Ministers and 15 female Ministers.  The current: 31 (1+15, + 15). 

Worry yourself not, jmt, for it is not fake news...'tis the Government's own official site specifically related to Canadian Parliamentary Cabinets over the years.  Of course you are entitled to argue even with them - perhaps the Clerk of the Privy Council (who conveniently also happens to be the Secretary of the Cabinet) might pay you some heed if you can convince him that everyone else than you is wrong.

Regards,
G2G

Just to play devil's advocate, the number 31 is odd so doesn't lend itself to having an equal number of anything (unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet). Perhaps they way they see it is 15 + 15 and the PM? That's about as "balanced" as its going to be outside of said transgender member. So, couldn't you both be right on a theoretical/practical level?

That to say- While I agree with some Liberal policy and disagree with others, I think the need to balance the cabinet is a poor one that will lead the PM into poor places as he potentially promotes weaker personnel into higher positions and they gaffe.
 
mariomike said:
Whenever you're wrong, admit it; and whenever you're right, shut up.  :)

Having been in two marriages now, one where "you're never right", and one where "you're right when you're right and you're wrong when you're wrong", the latter is mind-blowingly invigorating.
 
[quote author=Bird_Gunner45](unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet).
[/quote]

I was thinking of that. I'm surprised we don't have 10 MPs that are transgender. 5 MtF and 5 FtM.
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Just to play devil's advocate, the number 31 is odd so doesn't lend itself to having an equal number of anything (unless there's a transgender MP in the cabinet). Perhaps they way they see it is 15 + 15 and the PM? That's about as "balanced" as its going to be outside of said transgender member. So, couldn't you both be right on a theoretical/practical level?

That to say- While I agree with some Liberal policy and disagree with others, I think the need to balance the cabinet is a poor one that will lead the PM into poor places as he potentially promotes weaker personnel into higher positions and they gaffe.

Doesn't Trudeau count as both since he is a feminist?  ;)

And quite frankly, BG, I don't see the policy of balancing the cabinet in itself as potentially problematic. Being in politics and being a good minister of the state are not necessarily the same thing. Regardless of your personal qualifications, some people will be good ministers and some wont, and past qualifications and achievements outside of ministerial duties are no indicators of quality as political head of department. So, no matter who you pick in your party, you never know ahead of time how well they will perform or how much/little they will gaffe.

Where I do have a problem is in the insistence in their policy (at the behest of allegedly "modern" feminism) on equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunities - the later one being what equality under the law ought to be and nothing else - such as insisting on 25% of women in STEM in universities or else and the same 25% of women in the CAF, etc. One should wonder why, under such view, they do not also insist on 25% of men in secretarial posts (or office assistant - whatever they are called these days), nursing, cosmetics sales or elementary school teachers positions, to name a few.

Even many of the mid-twentieth century and early twenty-first feminists who battled on equality are now criticizing this approach to equality and believe that, at least in places like the Western democracies (as we define them), equality as they conceived of it has been achieved, that is a women can chose to do whatever she wants to do, so long as she otherwise meets the true requirements for the job, but that women are free to chose to do what they want. These older feminist do not recognize any basis for women to take an equal part of any trade or profession, so long as they have the choice. 
 
I doubt that any feminists - older or younger - truly intend women to take an equal part of any trade or profession; for the younger, I assume that when they say "parity" what they really mean is "parity in attractive/powerful jobs".  Disproportionate representation of women in any particular endeavour generally exists for the same reason it exists in the specific endeavour of septic tank pumping: not many women want to do it.
 
Brad Sallows said:
I doubt that any feminists - older or younger - truly intend women to take an equal part of any trade or profession; for the younger, I assume that when they say "parity" what they really mean is "parity in attractive/powerful jobs".  Disproportionate representation of women in any particular endeavour generally exists for the same reason it exists in the specific endeavour of septic tank pumping: not many women want to do it.

When I started on the job / trade / profession / endeavour, our department ( Operations and Communications ) was 100% white / male. You had to be over 5'8" and 160 lbs.

Times change, however. They started with Communications.

It was thought that women's voices would have a more soothing and calming effect over the radios than men's.

Operations was dirty, outside work with heavy lifting.

But, women did well there also. I had a female partner, and we got along just fine.

Good thing too, because I eventually ended up working for her!  :)
 
I'm sure this has been posted before (maybe by me) but it's worth the 2 minutes or so: http://video.dailymail.co.uk/video/mol/2016/05/24/2364977485694089444/640x360_2364977485694089444.mp4
 
Well I note a large increase of women getting into the Landscaping trade, I did it for a bit, back in the 80's there were no women in that trade.
 
From the "Sometimes parody goes so far that it's true" department, "Trudeau Liberals decry Caroline Mulroney’s attempt to ride father’s coattails"

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2017/09/trudeau-liberals-decry-caroline-mulroneys-attempt-ride-fathers-coattails/
 
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-for-trudeau-governing-is-entirely-about-sweet-words-not-action

Rex Murphy: For Trudeau, governing is entirely about sweet words, not action

If sweet declarations were not so tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect

Rex Murphy
September 15, 2017
2:52 PM EDT

Within the literati there’s a quite famous exchange between two of the last century’s prominent American novelists. Scott Fitzgerald is reported as offering Ernest Hemingway the following proposition: “Ernest, the rich are very different from you and me.” To which Hemingway retorted: “Yes, Scott, they deviously take advantage of various tax loopholes, and thereby increase the burdens on middle class Canadians. Tax ‘em more, I say.”

And there, almost to the comma, in Hemingway’s prescient comment you have a nearly exact premonition of the position Justin Trudeau is taking at this very time. “Amazing,” you might think, but it’s just one of the many illustrations of how the study of literature and politics converge. (Just as an aside, the works of P.G. Wodehouse will offer the studious inquirer a nearly perfect overlay to the politics of Newfoundland and Labrador, right up to the present day. Wodehouse’s masterpiece is impressively revelatory on federal-provincial relations during the turbulent administration of Premier Brian Peckford. Somewhere in the compendious and collected works of our own great critical sage, Northrop Frye, you will find reflections that bear on this very subject — literature as political prophecy. Literature has many faces. But perhaps I digress.)

We see from the above that Mr. Trudeau takes a very dim view of the rich, notwithstanding his own enrolment in that shifty cohort. He sees the need to take them down a tax peg or two.    

Except, of course, for the rare occasions when he chooses to dine with Eastern billionaires and solicit their support for the good of his party. Or when he deems it therapeutic to vacation on a private Caribbean island owned by the illustrious Aga Khan. Or summits with rock stars and Hollywood royalty. Who’s to say but that he undertakes such distasteful (to him) connections under the prudential axiom of “Know your enemy.” 

Nor should we account this an hypocrisy. For it is becoming more and more clear that there is no discrepancy between what Mr. Trudeau says on any given topic, and what he actually chooses to do - or not do, as the case may be. This is because with Mr. Trudeau the intention, and the intention alone, is the term that counts.

There is no one more gifted in modern Canadian politics in the art of saying the right thing, of finding the most accommodating and winsome language on almost any topic, than our prime minister.  He declares very well. And when he declares himself on any issue, that’s frequently the end of it. The doing, which we normally expect to occur after the declaring, the act which normally flows from a statement of intention, these are yokes for other people.

His is a government built on the statement of good intentions. Canadians have become very familiar with some of his most famous and fulsome predications:

“Diversity is our strength,” tops the list. It’s almost a personal incantation.

But there are others, almost equally embraced:

“No relationship is more important to our government and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples.”

“This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.”

“The world needs more Canada.”

“The rich must pay their fair share.”

Call these the Trudeau Five. Each houses a worthy sentiment, in simple language, conveying a sense of urgent, moral commitment. In lesser politicians, these plain, declarative statements would almost certainly imply a determination to link them to policies, to actions, to give flesh to their sentiments. But in a government of good intentions, this is not necessarily the case.

Take, “This election will be the last under first-past-the-post.” Where is that now? Why, in the crowded scrapyard of brilliant rhetorical flashes; statements of intention that gave warmth to a campaign, but which chilled in government.

Who was more declarative on the need for an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women than Mr. Trudeau in opposition? And where is that sensitive, heart-aching matter now? In a great slough of imperfect administration, distrusted by those it sought to heal, and mired in red tape and grievous disappointment over its proceedings. Nonetheless, it would be unkind to say that the inquiry’s early failure should throw a shadow on the declaration of intention that begat it.

Internationally, Mr. Trudeau early and often declared that Canada could and should act as an example to the world, especially in its famous peacekeeping missions. That too stalled, and nearly two years in, remains an empty, open file. If - as another of his patented formulations has it - the world needs more Canada, well, the world is just going to have to wait for it.

As I say, there is no modern prime minister who has a more ready basket of soft thoughts and sweet words on almost any progressive concern, or who so impressively marshals the tone of sympathetic sincerity when declaring himself on the topics of the day, than Mr. Trudeau. If government were the business of declaring good intentions, and if declaring good intentions were not so damnably tied up with the need to act on them, this government would be perfect.

The same goes for his thoughts on the rich. We know from what he says what Mr. Trudeau thinks of them: they are a dark and devious bunch of free-riders. But tax policy or no tax policy, hard words or no hard words, he will stay friends with them when it is needful. When there are funds to raise, and a party to support, the calumnies heaped on them will evaporate, the dinners will recur, and their company will be sought as eagerly as before.

But no mind, whatever the subject, the prime minister’s heart is in the right place. He has many bright phrases and the Air Miles to prove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top