Munk debate 2015/09/28

[ToadBrother]

This made me laugh. In the last three elections, I voted Cons once, Green once, and not at all once. But I admit, I'm more emotionally vested in this election than I have ever been in my life. I really do feel quite strongly that Harper is doing serious damage to our society as a whole, reducing us from what we were - confident, open and welcoming to frightened and mean. I don't want to be a nation that drops bombs on other countries, refuses refugees, tells fellow Canadians they can't vote, or can't stay or can't wear what they want. I don't want to hear news stories about how the government has lost yet again in court, trying to do an end-run around the law or the charter. I don't want to be the laughingstock of the world for re-electing a government that has been convicted of election fraud. So while I don't actually think Harper can ruin the country entirely if he gets another four years, I don't want to give him the chance to do any more damage.

But governments will always lose in court. Harper is hardly the first PM to have a government policy tossed out. It was going on even before the Charter came into effect. Some PMs have lost huge cases. PET tried to move towards unilaterally patriating the Constitution, only to have the Supreme Court put its foot down and insist that the Provinces must be involved, which lead to the Constitution Act 1982. I'd have a hard time remembering a bigger slap down.

I think Harper's time has come; nine years is long enough. Beyond that, I think he has by and large in his majority term shown an astonishing mediocrity. For the most part, this has been an amazingly unproductive government.

But in the end, even if Harper wins, the world will go on. And if he loses, you can be sure the Government will continue losing Supreme Court challenges, and Ministers and government back benchers will still get very cranky and make rude noises, and the Opposition will still use every misstep to declare "If they win another election, IT'S ALL OVER!!!!!"

Other than being a pretty odd election because of a three way split (though that may be fading), honestly I don't see any significant domestic or international issue that is so dire that picking one party is going to make it all better, and picking another is going to make it worse.

[dialamah]

You just can't stand that Canada is well respected and well admired.

You have the wrong user-name. The polls that rate Canada "best place to live" aren't wrong; but they're also the opinions of civilians who know little more about a country than what they see on prime-time TV. Where Canada has lost reputation and influence is in relation to other governments, not among people who might come here for a vacation.

[Shady]

Well let's see, we have no permanent position at the UN, Harper never shows up there anyways, we are criticized for being so far behind on climate change, Harper won't be attending in France either, and our relationship with our largest trading partner is about as frosty as it ever has been, ad that's just a start. So it's clear he has, but perhaps not seen by the blinkered eyes of his supporters.

Permanent position on what at the UN? I'm glad we haven't pledged to destroy our economy over meaningless decreases in the increase of carbon emissions. Our relationship with our largest trading partner has diminished because of the current commander in chief. He's also diminished relationships with almost every other ally. It's not on us. I think 7 years is more than enough time to let him drag his feet on a keystone decision. It's absurd.

[Shady]

You have the wrong user-name. The polls that rate Canada "best place to live" aren't wrong; but they're also the opinions of civilians who know little more about a country than what they see on prime-time TV. Where Canada has lost reputation and influence is in relation to other governments, not among people who might come here for a vacation.

I don't see the loss of reputation with other governments.

[dialamah]

I don't see the loss of reputation with other governments.

Maybe because you aren't looking very hard. I can help ....

http://www.newstalk1010.com/news/2015/09/28/report-canadas-influence-on-world-stage-has-declined

.... access to an internal Foreign Affairs briefing document stamped "Secret" which warns that "despite Canada's reputation as an active player on the world stage, by many measures, its relative influence has declined or is under threat

From http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/has-canadas-reputation-dimmed-and-does-it-matter This is a good article, because it presents both sides. To read the "other" side, you'll have to click on the link.

.... There are three key areas, however — climate change, foreign policy and foreign aid — on which it’s clear the Harper government’s actions have damaged our standing and had a negative effect, Jodoin said, particularly among the small but influential world of diplomats, scientists and non-governmental organizations.

“There is no doubt we have a really bad reputation with that segment of the world,” Jodoin said, due to the country’s “complete inaction” on the global warming file and unfulfilled promises to put regulations on the oil and gas industry.

Jodoin argues that Canada’s reputation on climate and oil has had a detrimental effect on the proposed Keystone pipeline project to transport Albertan oil to the U.S., a top priority of the Harper administration. Had Canada made moves to tackle climate change, U.S. President Barack Obama would have had an easier time getting the pipeline approved, Jodoin said. Instead, Keystone has become a symbol of climate inaction and a major target for environmentalists.

Canada’s reputation has also led to a European backlash against Canada’s oilsands that is out of proportion to their actual greenhouse gas effects, Jodoin said. Meanwhile, countries such as the U.S. and Norway, which have active oil drilling economies, face less pressure because they’re seen as being proactive on climate change.

[ ]

Canada’s reputation in foreign-aid development circles has waned significantly, while its strident support of Israel’s current policies, a move away from Canada’s traditionally more even-handed, multilateral approach, led directly to Canada’s losing its seat on the UN’s security council and its ability to influence international security, Jodoin said.

[ ]

Canada’s unwillingness to engage with certain world leaders is a major failing, argues retired Canadian diplomat Jeremy Kinsman, who served as both the Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Canadian Ambassador to the European Union in a 40-year career with Canada’s foreign service. He also served as an adviser to Joe Clark and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and counsels Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

[ ]

Foreign governments, however, are aware of changes in Canada and do not see them as positive. And there are consequences.

“Canada once filled a role in the world of a conciliator — we chaired everything, because we weren’t seen to have skin in the game, we weren’t ideological and we had a tremendous reach of contacts because of the Commonwealth and the Francophonie and our Asian population,” Kinsman said. “And we were North America, but not the United States. … The secretary-general of the UN could always come to Canada for a solution. Canada’s not there anymore.”

Recent comments by Harper or his cabinet ministers that they have “doubts” about hard-fought international agreements on Ukraine or Iran’s nuclear agreement, expressed to curry favour with political constituencies at home, serve only to hurt Canada’s interests, Kinsman said.

And, now that we're preventing ex-pats from voting, stripping citizens of their citizenship and some of us want to force Muslim women to take off their niqab, this will soon no longer be true:

The global public still envies Canada, “generally because we manage to do what everyone else has a problem with, which is manage a pluralistic society inclusively without all of this ethnic bullshit that is going on elsewhere,” Kinsman said.

From an ex-pat living in China:

Although generally speaking, Canada still has a reputation as being friendly, there have been some noticeable changes, and mostly not for the better.

My fellow expat neighbours (from the United Kingdom, South Africa, Namibia, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Germany) have noted that we seem to be more and more just a lapdog for whatever the Americans want us to do.

People don’t tend to have great details about what is going on in Canada, unless they have Canadian friends. Having said that, there were a few things others knew about before I did.

1. The fact that we abandoned peacekeeping, and reduced ourselves to being an army.
2. Apparently we tightened our immigration laws, and made it more difficult for people to emigrate to Canada.
3. Leaving the Kyoto Protocol.

Canada used to be a leader, and a moral compass for other countries in the world. We stood up for what was right, defended it. We were welcoming of other cultures and accepted differences. Now, I see that it is no longer the case. Maybe it’s because I’m not living in Canada anymore, but what I’m seeing is a far different Canada than the one I thought I knew. My recent visits to Canada have shown me that consumerism, and the “it’s about me” mentality is really high.

From an ex-pat living in England:

Canada used to be associated with making the world a better place: peacekeeping, humanitarianism, action on climate change, and the like. Not so much over the last decade. In recent months and years, Canada’s name has been popping up negatively in conversations around military intervention, its democratic deficit in relation to citizenship and voting rights, failures on environmental issues, and human rights catastrophes both within and outside of its borders, from missing Indigenous women, to the Syrian and North African refugee crisis. It’s a politically disappointing time to be a Canadian in the wider world.

For more reviews, including positive/neutral ones: http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/how-is-canada-perceived-around-the-world-we-asked-some-expats

Edited September 29, 2015 by dialamah

[cybercoma]

You just can't stand that Canada is well respected and well admired.

You just can't stand understanding where Harper's so-called "facts" come from? What do you have against learning and knowing what people are talking about? Why do you take the Reputation Institute report at face value without knowing anything about how those figures were derived? How come you can't stand having an intelligent opinion?

[ToadBrother]

You just can't stand understanding where Harper's so-called "facts" come from? What do you have against learning and knowing what people are talking about? Why do you take the Reputation Institute report at face value without knowing anything about how those figures were derived? How come you can't stand having an intelligent opinion?

The Reputation Institute appears to be an organization for reputation managers. You know, the people you call when your brand of ketchup has just been found to cause warts, or when you're Mel Gibson and you want to convince everyone you're not a Nazi.

Edited September 29, 2015 by ToadBrother

[cybercoma]

Well let's see, we have no permanent position at the UN, Harper never shows up there anyways, we are criticized for being so far behind on climate change, Harper won't be attending in France either, and our relationship with our largest trading partner is about as frosty as it ever has been, ad that's just a start. So it's clear he has, but perhaps not seen by the blinkered eyes of his supporters.

Indeed, the Reputation Institute can say what it wants about the way people perceive Canada around the world. The problem is our political and social clout around the world has been completely trashed by the Harper Government. He can't get a damn thing done with the US. He hasn't been able to ram through the TPP like he said. He lost the seat on the UN Security Council, when the UN Peacekeeping was practically built by a Canadian prime minister.

It's great that people view Canada as a great place to live, but it's more than a little bit ironic that radical rightwingers who are vehemently opposed to immigration would give two shits what a bunch of foreigners think of our country. None of that means much to Canadians, when our political influence in the world means we can't get a damn thing done for people here at home.

[ToadBrother]

Indeed, the Reputation Institute can say what it wants about the way people perceive Canada around the world. The problem is our political and social clout around the world has been completely trashed by the Harper Government. He can't get a damn thing done with the US. He hasn't been able to ram through the TPP like he said. He lost the seat on the UN Security Council, when the UN Peacekeeping was practically built by a Canadian prime minister.

It's great that people view Canada as a great place to live, but it's more than a little bit ironic that radical rightwingers who are vehemently opposed to immigration would give two shits what a bunch of foreigners think of our country. None of that means much to Canadians, when our political influence in the world means we can't get a damn thing done for people here at home.

I question the notion that an organization made up of reputation managers is exactly the kind of people we should be asking about our international reputation. As I said, these are the guys likes of Jack-in-the-Box hire when they just poisoned a bunch of people.

[Argus]

Harper is just too angry for me. A Nixonian figure, he has poisoned debate in this country as this thread makes very clear.

And yet, the nickname of the opposition leader is "Mister Angry", however much he tries to put on a happy face during the election...

Nevertheless, I don't care if the PM is a nice guy. I care if he's competent. And so far, Harper has been reasonably competent. I may not like him, but then, as I said, I don't have to.

[Argus]

Your reply says it all. On every issue, he expresses anger and attempts to incite it. We saw that last night. Go after the foreigner. He appeals to the darker side of people's natures.

Harper is a pretty placid guy from what I've seen. And going after terrorists is fine with me. They might be your buddies, but they're not mine.

[Argus]

And as for brilliant economic management, my investments are tanking right now. The guy should know it's time to go.

I bet you're in health care and biotechs...

You can thank Hillary Clinton for them tanking.

Or if you're in oil and gas you can thank the Saudis.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Good, at least you admit it's time for a change. And I don't think it has anything to do with balls, Harper simply tries to use scare tactics to flog his bills, (C 51) to take away rights while appealing to the tin hat voter.

From my perspective it seems to be the tinfoil hat set who are hiding under their beds trembling with fear that Harper is going to come and get them.

C-51 is prudent. Even your beloved Justin voted for it!

[Argus]

PIK, do you know how scary it is that the Harper base supports him? It's like as long as he promises tax breaks and to keep you safe from the "bogeyman", he can do anything - cheat, lie, ignore laws, ignore the charter, create a police state. That's scary.

Run and hide! Run and hide! The evil Steveman is gonna get you! LOL

Edited September 30, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

This made me laugh. In the last three elections, I voted Cons once, Green once, and not at all once. But I admit, I'm more emotionally vested in this election than I have ever been in my life. I really do feel quite strongly that Harper is doing serious damage to our society as a whole

Because he's conservative, you mean?

reducing us from what we were - confident, open and welcoming

If you're frightened and lacking confidence, don't put that on Harper. That's on you, bud.

to frightened and mean. I don't want to be a nation that drops bombs on other countries, refuses refugees, tells fellow Canadians they can't vote, or can't stay or can't wear what they want.

You mean you don't believe we should have any standards as a people? We should just let anyone come here who wants to? Dropping bombs..? So you're saying that no matter how horrific human rights abuses and slaughters and genocide are in some corner of the world, it's like, none of our business and we should ignore it?

[Argus]

No, I think he is pointing out he doesn't want Harper to undermine that respect/admiration any further.

What undermine? How has he undermined it if we're number one? You people just have to stick to the script despite all evidence, don't you?

[Argus]

Where Canada has lost reputation and influence is in relation to other governments, not among people who might come here for a vacation.

The only government's who think ill of Canada are the thugocracies of the Muslim world.

[On Guard for Thee]

Permanent position on what at the UN? I'm glad we haven't pledged to destroy our economy over meaningless decreases in the increase of carbon emissions. Our relationship with our largest trading partner has diminished because of the current commander in chief. He's also diminished relationships with almost every other ally. It's not on us. I think 7 years is more than enough time to let him drag his feet on a keystone decision. It's absurd.

Apparently you need a primer on how the UN works. Harper hides in the bushes, Obama shows his face, that's how you command a world stage. Harper has failed us.

[On Guard for Thee]

From my perspective it seems to be the tinfoil hat set who are hiding under their beds trembling with fear that Harper is going to come and get them.

C-51 is prudent. Even your beloved Justin voted for it!

It's not at all prudent, it's bound to run afoul of the charter, and JT has got his ass kicked for voting for it, but in fairness he promised to amend it.

[On Guard for Thee]

What undermine? How has he undermined it if we're number one? You people just have to stick to the script despite all evidence, don't you?

Apparently all you stick to is the script. Harper didn't make the country less beautiful or less friendly as a place to visit, he just took our influence on the world stage and shrunk it.

[Argus]

Maybe because you aren't looking very hard. I can help ....

All your cites are the whining of 'progressives' who hate Harper without regard to his foreign policy. Naturally, they hate his foreign policy, too, and would no matter what it is.

As for niqabs, that's Quebec driven, and it will be the Quebec Liberal government which bans them. Harper has made no move to do so, except that thing about showing your face when you want to swear an oath of citizenship. As for your 'ex pat' living in England, that's a country of race riots, where Jewish temples and schools need to have cops with machineguns outside. Spare me.

I've said before that 95% of the whining about our foreign policy comes from ex-foreign service types who resent that the palatial party life they used to love has been so deeply curtailed by Harper, and 'academics' who snivel about the fact we no longer abstain from all those "We hate Jews" resolutions the UN's Islamic bloc passes dozens of times a year. And I fully agree with Harper about about.

[ToadBrother]

From my perspective it seems to be the tinfoil hat set who are hiding under their beds trembling with fear that Harper is going to come and get them.

C-51 is prudent. Even your beloved Justin voted for it!

If it's so prudent, why wouldn't the Tories introduce Parliamentary oversight, you know like the UK and the US, our two most important allies have? I agree that better information sharing is needed, but do you have a problem with accountability to Parliament??

[Argus]

The Reputation Institute appears to be an organization for reputation managers. You know, the people you call when your brand of ketchup has just been found to cause warts, or when you're Mel Gibson and you want to convince everyone you're not a Nazi.

And you think a better insight into Canada's international image comes from progressive zealots who pour bile and rage onto anything Harper touches?

[Argus]

If it's so prudent, why wouldn't the Tories introduce Parliamentary oversight, you know like the UK and the US, our two most important allies have? I agree that better information sharing is needed, but do you have a problem with accountability to Parliament??

I have no problem with it. My understanding is they have had issues in the past with opposition people blabbing stuff they were told in confidence.

[Argus]

Apparently all you stick to is the script. Harper didn't make the country less beautiful or less friendly as a place to visit, he just took our influence on the world stage and shrunk it.

Bluster and drivel. What influence has Canada ever had except when it was eagerly volunteering its military to the UN for crossing guards, something which no longer makes sense in today's world, and for which we don't really have a military for thanks to both Chretien and Harper. Canada's so-called 'international influence' always was nothing but a figment of the imagination of the progressives, who assumed that since they knew how incredibly noble and wonderful they were, all the world must admire them desperately. Guess what, it didn't.