gdp's Comments

Macleans.ca : How to go about this

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:15:52 +0000

Point 2.A deals with the power of the Executive as well, just by a different route. If the GG were elected, then the Executive power that only theoretically lies with that office could actually be exercised by it, greatly diminishing the PM, but this is probably too big a change for Canada, I'm not even sure that I support it. From what I understand Brit backbenchers are much more likely to dissent for a few reasons: 1. Longer standing sense of tradition and the way things once were 2. There are way more of them - so many of them know they are never going to get to Cabinet or the plum patronage posts, so dissenting against their party doesn't hurt them as much; in some ways it helps because it raises their profile 3? I don't know if the British party leaders have the same control over candidate nominations that Canadian party leaders do? If they don't that's another reason.

Macleans.ca : How to go about this

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:00:57 +0000

1. We could take away the power of appointing/approving candidates from the parties and their leaders - in each riding run real candidate primaries like in the U.S (gasp!, I know). 2. Break up the power of the Executive over its regular party members. The way the Westminster system is supposed to work, is that the Cabinet, led by the PM, is the defacto executive with it role of providing advice to the Crown. Everyone else, including members who happen to be of the same "party" as the members of the Cabinet, should be free to vote as they like. The problem is that over the years, back bench MPs of the governing party have become beholden to PM and essentially voting machines, and hence the opposition MPs have also become beholden to their party leader, because no one wants to give up their advantage. 2.A - Alternative to limiting the PMs power is to elect the GG.

Macleans.ca : How to go about this

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:00:50 +0000

I'm totally in agreement with your stance on parties, but getting rid of them is not possible - they will always form whether explicitly acknowledged or not. The ancient Greeks (who used the rep. by lotter system you advance above), were also extremely concerned about the formation of parties. They went so far as to constantly rotate the seats in the Boule so that the same people did not sit next to each other all the time in an attempt to prevent like-minded voting blocs from forming. The Westminster system did not specifically envision parties, nor specifically envision not having parties, they developed organaically, like most things in our system. Court/country; conservatives/whigs; Conservatives/Liberals; Coservatives/(New)Labour, not necessarily in a straight intellectual lineage of course. Having 308 individual MPs is a great thought but ultimately not possible, as is obvious from history, parties will form. What we do have more control over however is to break up some of the power of parties and break-up the power of the de facto Exectuvie branch (the PM). (continued)

Macleans.ca : Hey look: jihadist, jihadist, pants on fire

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:05:09 +0000

So the U.S stops supporting Israel and everything is fine... Until the terrorists move the goal posts, because that's how terrorism works. Anyone who writes about a compelling case "why Canada sucks" can go ahead and leave the country.

Macleans.ca : Confict-of-interest absurdity cries out for change to the law

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:12:49 +0000

Looks like we've got a 21st century Person's Case on our hands. Years from now, we'll be erecting a representation of the Conservative Party on the lawn of Parliament.

Macleans.ca : It takes effort to miss the trend here

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:58:20 +0000

In theory perhaps. But try pointing to a wealthy AND anarchic country. Anarchy breads poverty because wealth creation requires rules, authority, a social contract of some kind (even an authoritarian one, ie. China). There are poor tyranies and there are poor anarchies. But there are no wealthy anarchies because in an anarchy there is no incentive or means to create and maintain wealth.

Macleans.ca : Hey look: jihadist, jihadist, pants on fire

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:43:12 +0000

Haven't read the article yet, but given the promo here, if it doesn't upset me, I'm going to be really upset.

Macleans.ca : Manitoba can’t get any respect

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:32:48 +0000

I've never been to Manitoba in the summer (insert joke about the weather here), but I find it hard to believe the best beach in Canada is anywhere on the prairies.

Macleans.ca : The Commons: ‘Canadians are not as cynical as he thought’

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:12:40 +0000

Wow, this is a serious contender for most rambling mixed-metaphor filled comment this year; and the year's only nine days old.

Macleans.ca : How many government MPs does it take to host the Olympics?

Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:29:52 +0000

If attending the Olympics is so important for MPs (all MPs even, not necessarily just Cabinet members or Conservatives) why aren't they all taking a break for the Paralympic Games from March 12-21?

Macleans.ca : Makes sense

Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:30:53 +0000

"Mr. Schellenberger admitted he may try to take two or three weeks off during the Winter Olympic Games and may try to get to Vancouver" Two or *three* weeks? The games only last two weeks. How much time does he need to watch them?

Macleans.ca : 'Our objective is to ensure parliamentarians have timely access to relevant analysis'

Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:56:16 +0000

The PBO is one of the few offices that report to Parliament that can continue to work while Parliament is prorogued. The others, like Auditor General, Privacy commish. etc. cannot. And this is probably only because the rules governing the PBO conduct were thrown together so hastily.

Macleans.ca : Snow days

Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:14:45 +0000

Jarrid, How many times does it need to be pointed out to you that proroguing Parliament in and of itself is not the issue. Every Parliament in the history of Canada has been prorogued 2-7 times. This is because it is an administrative function of running Parliament. What matters is the context and resons for which Parliament is being Prorogued. In this case it is because the Prime Ministers wants to avoid questions and accountability from elected MPs. Also, it is your memory that is selective about Mercer's criticism. Mercer regularly made of fun of and criticized Chretien, Martin and the Liberals for all kinds of things when he was on 22 Minutes in the '90s. If you payed any attention, you would also see him criticizing Ignatief fairly regularly also - but not for abuses of power, because, really, Iggy doesn't have any right now. It is actually you who only chooses to point out instances of criticism against Conservatives, which actually makes you the one with the biggest selection bias.

Macleans.ca : On perogies: Ignatieff speaks! (Or writes)

Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:43:05 +0000

I think the point was that they don't have much credibility right now, and they would have even less if they supported the throne/speech budget.

Macleans.ca : Held accountable in the House

Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:38:56 +0000

Dion hasn't really been muzzled he was just moved to the backbench, which is kind of the same thing I guess, cf. Coyne's most recent post.

Macleans.ca : Stop, or I'll tour!

Tue, 5 Jan 2010 22:33:41 +0000

Can you really not see the connection between these things? As people have less respect for the institution where are laws are made, they pay less attention to the laws that get made there. Its all bad for democracy and liberty.

Macleans.ca : Loving 'The Road' and the plastic fantastic 21st century 'Fox'

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:35:42 +0000

*Warning - slight spoiler of The Road if you haven't read the book* I haven't seen the movie 'The Road' but with regard to the book and its ending, I actually found the ending, and even the whole story in some ways hopeful and redemptive. Johnson is right that it is a story on two levels, at one level it is absolute horror, but on another level it is very hopeful, and in the book at least rises well above sentimentality. Ultimately the Boy and even his Father have not given up. I did not see the Father in the book as having lost all faith in humanity. The Boy helps to maintain his Father's faith, and in turn the Father sees that he has to teach his son to continue to have faith. Together they are keeping alive the dying embers of civilization in a horribly ruined world, at at the end, when it seems like there might be nothing left they find people like themselves. I could see in a hollywood movie how they might take this over the top, but as I say, even in the book I found this very redemptive. The Road is the literary antidote to Lord of the Flies and Blindness and the like. These books are underpinned by the belief that the social contract is very tenuously maintained and that given some type of breakdown or panic everyone will revert to a pre-Hobbesian state of nature. The Road argues that even in the worst anarchy and social collapse there will always be good people who will struggle against the worst of our impulses to maintain human decency and ultimately civilization. Fundamentally The Road is based on a strongly held belief in humanity.

Macleans.ca : It's that time of the month again

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:52:23 +0000

On editing the comment - I thought those last two sentence were added later, you say they weren't, that's fine, perhaps I'm wrong there. Your original comment that I took issue with was this, and again I quote: "there seems to be this attempt to make it seem like Canada was actually founded sometime around 1967. Anything that occurred before then has been expunged from official record and PET is the father of 'modern' Canada." This is what I was referring to as an assertion - because it is an argument made with no factual evidence to back it up. My intent was not to label your entire opinion an assertion, nor did I ever claim that my argument was "fact". You then say: "It is not difficult to find people talking about Canadian values being exactly the same as liberal values. Health care and peace keeping are Canadian 'values' now even though they are rather ephemeral and have not been around long in big scheme of things." I agree that is true to some degree, health care has become something that Canadians value, but this is at least in part because it has been supported by both Liberal and Conservative parties at federal and provincial levels. As for Peace Keeping, I'm not sure it holds quite the same place as Health Care, especially post-9-11 and with our fight in Afghanistan. "People born since 1970 have not experienced free speech or property rights since Trudeau and the boomers decided property rights were bourgeois and policing people's thoughts was a good idea." This is simply laughable. I wont deny that you can probably point to examples of property rights and speech rights being contested and even threatened in particular instances (though of course you don't bother to) but the history of all free liberal societies, notably England and the Unites States are not immune from similar examples. The blanket claim that Canadians do not have speech or property rights however is ridiculous. I think Canada's response to the recent debate over Human Rights tribunals indicates that we are still very much capable of confronting threats to free speech. But the main point is this: "Canada was transformed when Trudeau was elected and to deny that reality is naive, to be generous." I was never denying that. I completely agree that the Trudeau government instituted a great deal of change in Canada - most significantly with the Charter of Rights. But this argument is significantly different from the way your original argument was stated, which I have already quoted numerous times, but will so again: "there seems to be this attempt to make it seem like Canada was actually founded sometime around 1967. Anything that occurred before then has been expunged from official record and PET is the father of 'modern' Canada." Your original argument seemed to be saying: 1. History before Trudeau is being erased (you have provided no evidence of an actual campaign amongst historians or anyone else to erase this history - you have provided some evidence that some people are forgetting this history, but this is not the same thing) 2. You seemed to be arguing that people were attempting to give Trudeau a more significant position than he deserved for altering the country. (now you seem to be arguing that Trudeau did infact alter the country a great deal, but that you do not like how he altered it - this is a much easier argument to make, and one much more easily justified by one's opinion). So if you want to stick with your new argument that Trudeau changed the country for the worse, that's fine. I don't completely agree, but there's not much point in carrying on that well worn national debate. However, if, as it originally seemed to be the case, your argument is that there is some kind of campaign to "expunge" pre-Trudeau history from Canada's history, I continue to challenge you to produce actual evidence of this attempted erasure, either by historian, politicians or someone else.

Macleans.ca : It's that time of the month again

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:07:42 +0000

Have you edited this comment since you first posted it? I think you added that last sentence sometime after my first reply - had those last two sentences been in your original post I certainly would have addressed them in my reply. Whose revising history now? So adopting an official flag and national anthem equates to re-writing the nation's history? The United States did not adopt the Star Spangled Banner as their official national anthem until 1931, fully 117 years after it was written. Further making official adoptions of flags and anthems was very much a later 19th and 20th century phenomenon, particularly amongst new world nations short on long standing official customs and traditions. The adoption of the flag and the anthem and other policies of the mid-20th century that emphasized greater Canadian independence represent change, but also continuity. Macdonald, Cartier, Darcy-McGee, Howe, Brown and all the fathers of confederation where very clear in their purpose. They were creating a NEW Canadian nation - not British-Canadian, French-Canadian, Irish-Canadain, but Canadian. "Patriotism rejects the prefix" as Darcy-McGee said. Similarly, Trudeau said, "There cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizens or group of citizens is other than Canadian. The policies of strengthening a Canadian identity of the mid-20th century are the continuity of establishing an independent political and diplomatic Canadian presence carved out with Confederation, The First World War, the Treaty of Versailles, The Balfour Agreement, the Statute of Westminster and The Second World War Further you say, "I am telling you, 1968 equals Year 0 for many, many people." This again is just an assertion, not backed up by anything. Who are these nefarious "people"? Historians, politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, business leaders? Surely you can point to some statements or publications by certain people that make this argument? Otherwise its just a "feeling" you have. Countries change and evolve. Canada was not the country it was in 1870 that it was in 1840. Nor was it the same country in 1939 as it was in 1911, nor that it would be in 1946, or again in 1969, 1982, and 1995. The issue that I suspect you have is with the recognition of this evolution - but it would be irresponsible for historians to ignore that the country has changed over time. But I challenge you to put forward evidence that people in positions of academic or political responsibility (not just ignorant "people") have "expunged" pre-Trudeau history, as you originally argued.

Macleans.ca : It's that time of the month again

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:12:47 +0000

Well, one can find similar statistics about American's knowledge of history in the United States: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/index.html Second, your stats hardly indicate that people are replacing their knowledge of pre-Trudeau history with post-Trudeau history, only that they aren't very knowledgeable. Third, it hardly makes the argument that there is some kind of campaign to "expunge" pre-Trudeau history, again only that many people are unable to identify two important facts.