Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
This isn't a comment for or against what has gone on in the F-35 saga, but as a general comment about the so called appropriate costing protocal.
It doesn't make sense, to take it further, it seems that lumping all of the life cycle costs together with the capital cost seems like a very inefficient way to control/monitor spending.
By adding the full-cycle cost, decision-makers get a better idea of total cost for choosing one item over another. For instance, some items like the Apache H-64 helicopter are extremely high maintenance compared to another type, so by adding life-cycle cost, a decision-maker might decide to purchase fewer H-64s, because it will cost more down the road, after you drive it off the lot (to use MacKay's term). Other items might need more manpower to operate (a 2-man armoured vehicle vs a 4-man). Decision-makers like to see, not just the unit-cost on the lot, but how much each unit costs to operate, how cost-effective it is.
The F-35 is precisely one of those higher maintenance items compared to other planes. Which explains why some proponents of the F-35 would prefer not to compare using full-cycle costing.
In some circles, people are focusing on the unit-price issue. The other main important issue not to forget in this saga is the political decision to avoid transparency, accountability which is what parliamentarians are whining about. It's a 'gotcha' moment on a govt. elected on a promise not to behave that way (withholding information they had or declined to share). They've decided in advance what they want, exited from a bidding process and weren't sharing all the financial info with those questioning those decisions.
Auditor-General’s F-35 accounting complaints are déjà vu for Peter MacKay
Quote:
And once that claim is knocked down — that this was all just a dispute over accounting — there is no escape. The government knowingly misrepresented the true costs of the F-35 in its public statements. It knew how it was supposed to account for these, under Treasury Board rules, under the Auditor-General’s recommendation, and by its own publicly stated agreement with both. And it knew how it was doing so in its own internal documents, going back to 2010. It simply chose to tell a different story to Parliament and the public.
This isn’t some campaign slip of the lip, or the usual political weasel words, of a kind we have sadly learned to mistrust. This isn’t even a case of ministers misleading Parliament, which used to be a resigning offence. This is a government document, on a straightforward question of fact: the kind we expect we can believe. And not on some minor matter, but on an issue of the highest controversy, just before an election — an election that was in part triggered by the government’s refusal to provide documentation for these figures.
This isn’t about the planes, in other words, or costs, or accounting. This is about accountability. This is is about whether departments are answerable to their ministers, and whether ministers are answerable to Parliament — or whether billions of public dollars can be appropriated without the informed consent of either Parliament or the public. It is about whether ministers speak for their departments, or can disown them when it suits them. And it is about whether we, as citizens, are prepared to pay attention, and hold people in power to account when they lie to us.
Which is to say, it is about whether we live in a functioning Parliamentary democracy, or want to.
I get a kick out of people from Alberta telling me what's best for me - namely, ramming through this pipeline on environmentally-sensitive areas for Alberta's short-term gains while BC gets **** and all from it - it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant that province has become because they've got some non-renewable goo in their tar sands.
And as a result, they've mobilized me - the furthest thing from a tree-hugger - against their ridiculous plan. This pipeline is being built for the benefit of two places - China and Alberta - with all the risk going to a place that will receive no benefit - British Columbia - so why again should I support it? Enbridge's spotless safety record?
Tories may have broken 2011 election rules with US Republican campaigners in Ontario
In at least two Conservative-won ridings with reported election irregularities, Front Porch Strategies had US staff on the ground – possibly against Elections Canada rules barring foreign campaigning. In the wake of the “robocall” voter suppression scandal, the Republican-tied U.S. firm hired by 14 Conservative campaigns admitted on Friday to having had U.S. staff working "in the trenches" during the 2011 elections, in an apparent violation of the Canada Election Act which bars foreign political involvement.
Americans PJ Wenzel and Matthew Parker -- director and CEO of Front Porch Strategies, respectively – participated directly in at least two Canadian Conservative campaigns, according to social media updates and a photograph from the successful election campaigns of associate defence minister Julian Fantino and MP Rick Dykstra, immigration minister Jason Kenney's parliamentary secretary.
-snip-
Under the Canada Elections Act section 331 (Non-interference by Foreigners), it is illegal for a non-resident to directly participate in election campaigns in Canada:
“No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is (a) a Canadian citizen; or (b) a permanent resident.”
If the violation was intentional, the offence carries a summary conviction, according to the Act.
Dykstra, Fantino, or Parker did not reply to phone calls and emails from The Vancouver Observer. But the company's Canadian liaison responded that Wenzel and Parker's involvement was limited to campaign volunteering on only two days during the election.
“They were in Ontario for a day and a half (in April), for the purpose of acquiring new clients,” political consultant Jim Ross told the Vancouver Observer. “They knocked on doors for roughly an hour with Rick, traditional canvassing to identify support. While waiting for a delayed meeting they made roughly 30 minutes worth of phone calls for Minister Fantino, again to identify support.
“Other than teleforums, brief incidental volunteerism as described above over the course of a day and a half that was mostly spent trying to acquire new clients. There was no other involvement.”
Social media announcements from Front Porch Strategies suggest otherwise, however.
U.S. strategists "on the front lines" during Canada's election day
“Front Porch is on the front lines as Conservatives are taking over Canadian Parliament!” Front Porch's Twitter feed stated on election day, May 2.
The Suzuki Foundation, which had revenues of $8.7-million last year, is one of a number of green groups that have been targeted by supporters of the oil industry and the proposal to build a pipeline called the Northern Gateway to bring oil sands bitumen to the West Coast. Mr. Robinson said the group has not taken a position on the proposal and remains well within the law, with its work primarily focused on scientific research.
Dr. Suzuki said he had to leave the board and distance himself from the organization because the foundation was being targeted because of his personal views and actions. The 76-year-old environmentalist said he had felt he needed more freedom to speak his mind.
“Every time I shot off my mouth, the foundation got blamed for my remarks as an individual and I thought, ‘I can’t stand being a liability,’ ” Dr. Suzuki said. “I’m at an age now where … I can say things without, I think, being accused of having an ulterior agenda or a desire for money or fame or whatever.”
In the March 30 budget, Ottawa declared that non-profit groups will have to provide the government with more information “on their political activities, including the extent to which these are funded by foreign sources.” The government also signalled a compliance crackdown to ensure charities follow the rule that no more than 10 per cent of funds can be spent on advocacy.
I still don't like it. I'd rather we build some refineries here as opposed to selling off our natural resources for a fraction of what they're worth to China.
I'm fairly new to following politics (only really started following it closely over the past year and a half), but these election problems seem to be piling up.
Lately there has also been the problem in Borys Wrzesnewskyj's riding with the double vote counting and we all know about the Robocall issue. Have electoral problems been this prevalent in Canadian politics before?
I think I may have said this before, but I used to think Harper was the Canadian Nixon, a bit of a nut who would do anything to win but in a sick way, meant well. He looks more like a Cheney now, pure evil.
I think I may have said this before, but I used to think Harper was the Canadian Nixon, a bit of a nut who would do anything to win but in a sick way, meant well. He looks more like a Cheney now, pure evil.
I keep wanting the Harper of 2005 or 2006 to come back. They are always more trustworthy in opposition.
Tories may have broken 2011 election rules with US Republican campaigners in Ontario
...
Let me guess...."No comment"?
The plot thickens.
Oh No! This does not sound like the Conservative Party of Canada at all!
I can't believe how much fishy stuff keeps coming out from the last election. I understand and respect due process, but I'm baffled someone as pragmatic as Harper would allow so much nonsense to go on.
I still don't like it. I'd rather we build some refineries here as opposed to selling off our natural resources for a fraction of what they're worth to China.
I totally agree that we need to do way more value added stuff in-province, but there would be a lot of opposition to having more refinery capacity in BC. I think it would be worth it personally though.
"In terms of this as an anniversary, I think it's an interesting and important step, but I would point out that the charter remains inextricably linked to the patriation of the Constitution and the divisions around that matter, which as you know are still very real in some parts of the country."
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper, speaking to reporters in Chile on Monday afternoon.
Quote:
"The prime minister is wrong. It's true there's some debate about it, but its divisiveness I think has greatly disipated, and I think he's on the wrong side of history. Thirty years now has a new generation of Canadians who are imbued with the principles and the values in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are proud in the Act of patriation, because it was our last act to achieve independence... I'm saddened a bit that the prime minister would not recognize it as an important contribution to Canada's nation-building, an articulation of our values and our responsibilities. However, he's entitled to his view."
- former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, speaking to Power & Politics Tuesday
Quote:
"I was in the Department of Justice at the time when the charter came into effect in 1982. We did not expect it to have the impact it did... the [Supreme Court] was extremely concerned that that Diefenbaker Bill of Rights had proven such a failure. I think they were determined that given the second opportunity, they would make the rights meaningful."
- Retired Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie, speaking to CBC News Network on Tuesday morning.
I couldn't care less about what Harper thinks about the Charter. He can't do anything to change it, and there is no way he uses the notwithstanding clause. He'd be crucified for it.
I totally agree that we need to do way more value added stuff in-province, but there would be a lot of opposition to having more refinery capacity in BC. I think it would be worth it personally though.
If having more refineries means having fewer pipelines to the sea, that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny LaRue
I couldn't care less about what Harper thinks about the Charter. He can't do anything to change it, and there is no way he uses the notwithstanding clause. He'd be crucified for it.
Wait a minute, are you saying Stephen Harper is Jesus?
I was in second year law when the Charter came into force.
It was great experience as I had the benefit of a number of law professors who were involved in drafting the Charter and negotiating the patriation of the Constitution as well as advising the various federal and provincial governments.
One of my professors was a former BC Court of Appeal justice and another was a former Attorney General of BC - they were both concerned whether or not the judiciary would embrace their new role and powers to be able to void federal and provincial legislation and actions.
Many people do not understand that prior to the Charter under the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy the judiciary's role in determining the constitutionality of a law or government action was whether or not it was within the legislative competence of the federal or provincial government.
Now the courts can hold Parliament, provincial legislatures and a whole range of government officials and their actions to account.
I was in second year law when the Charter came into force.
It was great experience as I had the benefit of a number of law professors who were involved in drafting the Charter and negotiating the patriation of the Constitution as well as advising the various federal and provincial governments.
One of my professors was a former BC Court of Appeal justice and another was a former Attorney General of BC - they were both concerned whether or not the judiciary would embrace their new role and powers to be able to void federal and provincial legislation and actions.
Many people do not understand that prior to the Charter under the doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy the judiciary's role in determining the constitutionality of a law or government action was whether or not it was within the legislative competence of the federal or provincial government.
Now the courts can hold Parliament, provincial legislatures and a whole range of government officials and their actions to account.
What's the story with Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights? The conservatives don't waste any opportunity to praise it, while the third quote in the article, from a former SSC judge, is less congratulatory .
What's the story with Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights? The conservatives don't waste any opportunity to praise it, while the third quote in the article, from a former SSC judge, is less congratulatory .
My understanding is that the Bill of Rights didn't cover much except for federal laws and organizations directly under the purview of the feds. For one thing provincial laws and organizations were not subject to the Bill of Rights and by extension neither were municipalities.
The Charter is important because most of the provinces signed on.
Diefenbaker's Bill of Rights was a law that was in the mix with other laws and didn't have the 'force' of being in the Constitution impacting on all existing laws. Just like traffic regulations in Quebec (or Harper's set-date election law), they were guidelines rather than forcible strict limits.
