Evening Star

Quite agree. The Liberals as they are have outlived their usefulness. In a three-party system, it actually makes sense for the centre party to be the third party.

Are you literally talking about dissolving the whole federation into 12 independent countries?

The latter figure sounds more likely to me. Baird's, Galipeau's, and Poilievre's ridings are all surely heavily populated by public servants, for starters?

Huh? Suburban Ottawa went pretty much entirely CPC.

You know that some entry-level clerical jobs pay that much, right? MP compensation should reflect the importance of the job, the fact that it is often not a permanent position, the fact that it requires a major move, and the fact that it should require quite a bit of research, public relations, and heavy media scrutiny. It could probably stand to be a little less generous than it is right now but the amount you suggest seems far too low to me. -- xposts Thanks, Scotty.

I thought it was totally excusable when it happened one time with Brosseau. If this is a recurring issue, though, that does suggest cause for concern. MPs don't require any formal credentials. However, I do value education a great deal and so should the NDP. If false academic credentials are being claimed for candidates, that could suggest a real problem with integrity. At least the candidates should be paying enough attention to their campaigns that they would notice if their promotional material is claiming credentials they don't actually have. They should also be honest enough to rectify the situation.

OK, that clarifies it, thanks.

No, and as the example of Baird shows, it's totally common for cabinet ministers not to have had "executive leadership experience" in the field. Pierre Poilievre is another example: He became an MP at 25. He has an undergrad degree but Paul Dewar has two fwiw. Jason Kenney dropped out of undergrad in order to go into politics. Nothing about Peter Kent's journalist background would seem to count as "executive leadership experience" in the area of the environment. Many ministers are lawyers who don't necessarily have special training or a leadership background in their field.

Completely agree, cybercoma.

Well, at least you're consistent, Derek. (I would have preferred Alexander too btw.) I was reacting to Moonbox's comment that "most of the other party MP's have these things called 'degrees' and 'credentials' that most NDP MP's seem to lack". My point was just that being some sort of scholar or expert in a particular field has never been an expectation for MPs and that this is not at all something particular to the NDP. As cybercoma notes, this is fundamental to the idea of representative democracy. Even as a teenager, I thought it was unfair when people made fun of the fact that John Snobelen, a high school dropout, became Minister of Education in Harris's PC cabinet.

Want to tell me what John Baird's credentials/qualifications are to be our new Foreign Affairs minister? He was my MPP when he was in his mid-20s so he must done a whole lot before that, right? And how have these credentials qualified him equally well to be Minister of the Environment; Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; and provincial Minister of Community and Social Services, Minister Responsible for Children, and Minister of Energy? All of these are positions he has held.

Yeah, the University Teaching Certificate here at U of Windsor does actually show that a faculty member has put quite a bit of effort into bettering his or her pedagogy even though it's not on par with a degree. It's certainly something that one could list on a CV.

Citation for "most NDP MPs"? And, yeah, until it's shown that Larose failed to get the certificates that were listed (as opposed to a degree), I have to assume that the Sun is fudging things.

Yeah, on P&P, it was stated yesterday that Harper is the first PM to do this since Sir John A.

I do think the NDP would govern to the left of the LPC/CPC on policy grounds though, if only because they'd need to satisfy their labour/activist base of support. Less far left than their current platform but something more like Doer or Dexter, whose governments have certainly been further left than the federal Liberal and Tory governments of the past 20 years imo. I have no illusions that they would be free of e.g. corruption or partisanship.

Of course. What do you think the context was in which Harper made all his legendary attacks on the Senate? Patronage appointments, including appointments to the Senate, were also part of what destroyed the Liberals in 1984. To be honest, though, I'm having trouble getting at all worked up over this. As PM, it is Harper's job to recommend Senate appointments. He can recommend anyone he wants. If there were some sort of tradition of PMs making non-partisan appointments of distinguished Canadians, this would be pretty appalling. However, the overriding tradition has been one of making partisan patronage appointments so this seems pretty ho-hum to me. Maybe the timing is a little tacky but I don't see it as more than that. I'm actually surprised by the outrage, even coming from people like Jamie Watt.

This thread is hilarious. I wouldn't always expect to agree with someone named "CPCFTW" but I gotta hand it to the guy.

Yes, those are fair points. Arts funding is not always contingent on profitability. And in my opinion, it should stay that way because art and artistic activity can have a value that is not always recognized by the marketplace. I'm perfectly fine with a peer-review process and don't think the amount we spend is enough to really be objectionable at all. However, I can see why someone would have a philosophical issue with this.

Actually, your grasp of democracy seems more questionable here. When you're part of a federation, you sometimes need to suck it up and accept that the federal government will use your taxes in ways that you, or even your whole region, do not agree with, if that's what the majority dictates. There is a Constitution that lays out federal and provincial jurisdictions. If Quebec feels that the federal govt is overstepping its Constitutional bounds, they would certainly have grounds for a court case. If you think those bounds should be changed or laid out more clearly, that's one thing. However, feeling that, because you don't like what the feds do some of the time, you should be able to opt out of federal programmes and get full federal compensation without federal oversight seems totally unjustified to me. As for the Millennium scholarship, that pretty much sums up how I see it. As for religious weapons in schools, I'm not even really opposed to your view at all. I just don't see how that issue is grounds for radical Constitutional reforms or separation. As others have noted, you could use the notwithstanding clause (as QC has already done to protect Bill 101).

They have not shown the desire to do so. I'm sure that if Nunavut voted to secede, we would not stand in their way.

Arts funding has always included those things. That's not an innovation of the NDP or anything. If anything, the lack of actual innovation is what the press was ridiculing about this press conference. Canada has generally been very good about supporting the arts and has done well by it. This sector has become quite strong for us. I hope that with this personnel, the NDP become effective advocates for culture. -- Derek, you do realize that there are plenty of public defenders/prosecutors? And plenty of government programmes to help small businesses?

WTF? The RCMP did plenty of shameful things in that time period but I've never heard this claim before and it's not supported by a quick online search. Cite? Besides, surely you're not blaming all of the FLQ's activities from 1963-1970 on the RCMP...?

OK, you did mention the place of religion and the Milennium Scholarship. I remember that now. I actually wasn't clear on what you meant about the place of religion. Could you explain it? I don't know that much about that Scholarship programme. I'll look it up. I'll go back and look at your posts to see if you mentioned other specific areas of contention.

Hm, well, we'll see. I'm still a little less cynical about Quebec voters.

The FLQ and 1980 referendum predate the 1982 Constitution Act...