Discussion:
Can you guess which federal institution is among least trusted?
(too old to reply)
"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
2014-05-31 01:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Wednesday, 05/28/2014 - http://www.hilltimes.com


Hilltimes.com:

PARLIAMENT HILL—The Prime Minister’s Office is one of the least trusted
branches of the federal government, a new poll has found.

The Forum Research survey of the trust Canadians have in federal
institutions found only one place that rivals the level of distrust
Canadians have toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s PMO—the Senate.

And, in the battle over public opinion during the recent dispute between
Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and Supreme Court of
Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, it appears the Supreme Court
came out on top—with a public trust level four times higher than that of
the PMO.
______________________

By: Chantal Hébert National Affairs, Published on Fri May 30 2014


When historians look back on Stephen Harper’s (first?) decade in power,
what will they make of the trail of institutional wreckage that his
government is leaving in its wake?

Will they conclude that a mastermind determined to change the course of
the ship of state at all costs was in charge, or just a bunch of drunken
sailors?

The Conservatives came to power in 2006 as institutional reformers. But
three mandates later, one would look in vain for a method to the
self-destructive madness that they are presiding over.
The Senate: Earlier this week, Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire announced
that he is leaving the upper house, the better to pursue his
humanitarian work. Tory Hugh Segal has also moved on this spring to
became the new master of the University of Toronto’s Massey College.

Think of those two as canaries in an increasingly toxic mine shaft.

Not only have Harper’s reform plans for the Senate wilted on the
constitutional vine, but some of his appointees have inflicted damage on
its reputation, on par with the partisan benefits the prime minister was
hoping to reap from milking their high profiles.

In the future, it may take uncommon persuasive skills to convince
candidates of the calibre of Segal and Dallaire to join a discredited
institution, or even to convince some of those who are still in the
Senate to stick around until retirement.

~ The Supreme Court: The Conservatives promised to make its appointment
process more transparent. Instead, they used the measure of opacity that
it offered to toy with the eligibility rules, as part of a
judge-shopping spree. When they were called out on it, the best they
could do was to engage in a lose-lose unseemly shootout with the chief
justice.

~ Statistics Canada: The agency that collects the essential basic
information that used to inform public policy in this country was an
early target of the Conservative wrecking ball. The elimination of the
long-form census — a move for which no coherent policy rationale was
ever offered — turned out to be only the first step in the gutting of
what was once was an institution of international repute. It would take
years to restore it and its data to its former status.

~ CBC/Radio-Canada: The Conservatives believe that Canada does not need
a public broadcaster or at least not one that plays as central a role as
CBC has in the country’s conversation. Fair enough. But instead of
launching a national discussion on the way forward, the government is
leaving the corporation to die the death of a thousand cuts.

In every instance, the logic, if there is any, is hard to fathom. For in
failing to at least do no harm to these institutions, the prime minister
is doing harm to himself and to his government.

The diminishment of CBC/Radio-Canada’s role is helping to ensure that
Canada’s broadcasting environment — in particular in French — is
increasingly dominated by a media empire owned by an ambitious
sovereigntist politician.

The government is pursuing policies on structural fronts such as
immigration and labour force management based on data whose quality
falls well short of the material it had at its disposal before it tore
off Statistics Canada’s wings.

For obvious reasons of poor political optics, Harper has not filled a
Senate vacancy since the spending scandal broke. The expectation is that
the upper house will continue to empty out at least until next year’s
federal election.

At the same time, he is trying to farm out part of the responsibility
for a now urgent Supreme Court appointment to Quebec’s relatively
untarnished Liberal government.

But as to what process Harper will be guided by for future Senate and
Supreme Court appointments, your guess is as good as mine.

A Forum Research survey revealed this week that the PMO has become one
of Canada’s least trusted political institutions, almost on par with the
maligned Senate.

It may not yet have dawned on its occupants that what Canadians think of
the PMO is usually not divorced from their opinion of the leader who
runs it.
Dhu on Gate
2014-05-31 01:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by "{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
PARLIAMENT HILL—The Prime Minister’s Office is one of the least trusted
branches of the federal government, a new poll has found.
The Forum Research survey of the trust Canadians have in federal
institutions found only one place that rivals the level of distrust
Canadians have toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s PMO—the Senate.
In both cases you have politicians whose power greatly outweighs any
electoral oversight. The consent of the Governed requires ongoing
affirmation, and neither of these bodies much of that.

Dhu
--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.
Greg Carr
2014-05-31 02:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by "{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
Wednesday, 05/28/2014 - http://www.hilltimes.com
PARLIAMENT HILL—The Prime Minister’s Office is one of the least trusted
branches of the federal government, a new poll has found.
The Forum Research survey of the trust Canadians have in federal
institutions found only one place that rivals the level of distrust
Canadians have toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s PMO—the Senate.
And, in the battle over public opinion during the recent dispute between
Prime Minister Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and Supreme Court of
Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, it appears the Supreme Court
came out on top—with a public trust level four times higher than that of
the PMO.
______________________
By: Chantal Hébert National Affairs, Published on Fri May 30 2014
When historians look back on Stephen Harper’s (first?) decade in power,
what will they make of the trail of institutional wreckage that his
government is leaving in its wake?
Will they conclude that a mastermind determined to change the course of
the ship of state at all costs was in charge, or just a bunch of drunken
sailors?
The Conservatives came to power in 2006 as institutional reformers. But
three mandates later, one would look in vain for a method to the
self-destructive madness that they are presiding over.
The Senate: Earlier this week, Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire announced
that he is leaving the upper house, the better to pursue his
humanitarian work. Tory Hugh Segal has also moved on this spring to
became the new master of the University of Toronto’s Massey College.
Think of those two as canaries in an increasingly toxic mine shaft.
Not only have Harper’s reform plans for the Senate wilted on the
constitutional vine, but some of his appointees have inflicted damage on
its reputation, on par with the partisan benefits the prime minister was
hoping to reap from milking their high profiles.
In the future, it may take uncommon persuasive skills to convince
candidates of the calibre of Segal and Dallaire to join a discredited
institution, or even to convince some of those who are still in the
Senate to stick around until retirement.
~ The Supreme Court: The Conservatives promised to make its appointment
process more transparent. Instead, they used the measure of opacity that
it offered to toy with the eligibility rules, as part of a
judge-shopping spree. When they were called out on it, the best they
could do was to engage in a lose-lose unseemly shootout with the chief
justice.
~ Statistics Canada: The agency that collects the essential basic
information that used to inform public policy in this country was an
early target of the Conservative wrecking ball. The elimination of the
long-form census — a move for which no coherent policy rationale was
ever offered — turned out to be only the first step in the gutting of
what was once was an institution of international repute. It would take
years to restore it and its data to its former status.
~ CBC/Radio-Canada: The Conservatives believe that Canada does not need
a public broadcaster or at least not one that plays as central a role as
CBC has in the country’s conversation. Fair enough. But instead of
launching a national discussion on the way forward, the government is
leaving the corporation to die the death of a thousand cuts.
Death of a thousand cuts what a joke. The CBC is bloated from a 1.3
billion dollar taxpayer subsidy and needs to be removed from the public
trough.
Post by "{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
In every instance, the logic, if there is any, is hard to fathom. For in
failing to at least do no harm to these institutions, the prime minister
is doing harm to himself and to his government.
The diminishment of CBC/Radio-Canada’s role is helping to ensure that
Canada’s broadcasting environment — in particular in French — is
increasingly dominated by a media empire owned by an ambitious
sovereigntist politician.
The government is pursuing policies on structural fronts such as
immigration and labour force management based on data whose quality
falls well short of the material it had at its disposal before it tore
off Statistics Canada’s wings.
For obvious reasons of poor political optics, Harper has not filled a
Senate vacancy since the spending scandal broke. The expectation is that
the upper house will continue to empty out at least until next year’s
federal election.
At the same time, he is trying to farm out part of the responsibility
for a now urgent Supreme Court appointment to Quebec’s relatively
untarnished Liberal government.
But as to what process Harper will be guided by for future Senate and
Supreme Court appointments, your guess is as good as mine.
A Forum Research survey revealed this week that the PMO has become one
of Canada’s least trusted political institutions, almost on par with the
maligned Senate.
It may not yet have dawned on its occupants that what Canadians think of
the PMO is usually not divorced from their opinion of the leader who
runs it.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
2014-05-31 22:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Death of a thousand cuts what a joke. The CBC is bloated from a 1.3
billion dollar taxpayer subsidy and needs to be removed from the public
trough.
Why do you care, schizo? It's not as if you're paying more taxes into
that trough than you're using in support programs and medication.
Leave it to someone who is actually a contributor to our taxes to
complain. You're sidelined for a hundred reasons . . . .
Greg Carr
2014-05-31 23:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Death of a thousand cuts what a joke. The CBC is bloated from a 1.3
billion dollar taxpayer subsidy and needs to be removed from the public
trough.
Why do you care, schizo? It's not as if you're paying more taxes into
that trough than you're using in support programs and medication.
Leave it to someone who is actually a contributor to our taxes to
complain. You're sidelined for a hundred reasons . . . .
I would rather the money spent on the archaic bloated CBC spent on
cancer or schizophrenia research or shelter for the homeless or even
better more money for welfare recipients who are disabled.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
"{>_<} Раиса" <"{>_
2014-05-31 23:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
I would rather the money spent on the archaic bloated CBC spent on
cancer or schizophrenia research or shelter for the homeless or even
better more money for welfare recipients who are disabled.
See, that's the problem . . . most of us would rather see our $24 a
year spent on CBC, which brings us good stuff.
YOU don't even bring good stuff to this newsgroup.

And right wing governments don't put money into social programs, like
you've listed. They take them away from those and put them into spy
agencies and F-35s and trips overseas for the PM and his financial
supporters. Got it?
Greg Carr
2014-06-01 16:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
I would rather the money spent on the archaic bloated CBC spent on
cancer or schizophrenia research or shelter for the homeless or even
better more money for welfare recipients who are disabled.
See, that's the problem . . . most of us would rather see our $24 a year
spent on CBC, which brings us good stuff.
YOU don't even bring good stuff to this newsgroup.
And right wing governments don't put money into social programs, like
you've listed. They take them away from those and put them into spy
agencies and F-35s and trips overseas for the PM and his financial
supporters. Got it?
Canada has spent a record amount on health care under the Tories and
billions have been spent to help maternal and natal health in the
developing world. More like $60 a year per tax payer to prop up the
failure that is the CBC.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
=_=
2014-06-02 00:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Canada has spent a record amount on health care under the Tories and
billions have been spent to help maternal and natal health in the
developing world. More like $60 a year per tax payer to prop up the
failure that is the CBC.
CBC is as far from "a failure" as you are from being a mentally sound
person.
And each taxpayer pays approximately $24 a year towards having a
national broadcaster. And a great one.
Greg Carr
2014-06-02 01:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by =_=
Post by Greg Carr
Canada has spent a record amount on health care under the Tories and
billions have been spent to help maternal and natal health in the
developing world. More like $60 a year per tax payer to prop up the
failure that is the CBC.
CBC is as far from "a failure" as you are from being a mentally sound
person.
And each taxpayer pays approximately $24 a year towards having a
national broadcaster. And a great one.
Lame one. 20,000,000 tax payers at $60 a year equals 1.2 billion dollars
which is still short of the bloated CBC's 1.3 billion dollar subsidy.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-02 01:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Lame one. 20,000,000 tax payers at $60 a year equals 1.2 billion dollars
which is still short of the bloated CBC's 1.3 billion dollar subsidy.
Not all of the money they get is "subsidy". A whole lot of it comes
from advertising.
You need to look these things up before you post your slagging.
Greg Carr
2014-06-02 16:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg Carr
Lame one. 20,000,000 tax payers at $60 a year equals 1.2 billion dollars
which is still short of the bloated CBC's 1.3 billion dollar subsidy.
Not all of the money they get is "subsidy". A whole lot of it comes from
advertising.
You need to look these things up before you post your slagging.
Among its revenue sources for the year ending March 31, 2006, the CBC
received $946 million in its annual funding from the federal government,
as well as $60 million in "one-time" supplementary funding for
programming. However, this supplementary funding has been repeated
annually for a number of years. This combined total is just over a
billion dollars annually and is a source of heated debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-02 01:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Why are WE spending money in developing countries for THEIR people? Don't they have governments? Why are we interfering in their AFFAIRS? I thought we elected Harper et al to govern OUR nation...well when is he going to fix our problems? So far he's done little but travel over-seas and spend tax-payers dollars else-where.
I wondered that many, many times over the years, but saw it explained
well in an article I read a few years back. The reasons why 'wealthier
countries' do it goes like this:

- When countries with huge populations are so impoverished that they
are NOT consumers for products through trade or imports, wealthier
governments 'give them a hand up'.

- The theory from those governments is this: If the people of those
countries (eg India, China, Bangladesh, Mexico) are able to earn enough
money to start becoming buyers/consumers, the wealthier countries have
found huge populations to which they can sell products.

- This is the kicker: the money which is used to 'develop' those
impoverished countries comes from the TAXPAYERS of developed countries,
via their governments' foreign aid programs.
Not from the corporations that will ultimately be making more and more
money as these huge populations become consumers of their goods.

In practice, developed countries use the monies they've taken from
taxpayers of their countries to open doors for their corporations to do
business in previously barren populations.

Now, in theory, this should work for the benefit of the country that is
sending foreign aid to countries that are potential buyers of goods and
services.
But in practice what has happened is that the corporations which now
have new customers for their goods, are not producing those goods in the
countries from which the money flowed.

They took their production plants and put them into the impoverished
countries - to save mega dollars on labour. And the huge savings they
achieved went into their own pockets - and those of shareholders, who
most often were not even citizens or residents of the country which sent
the foreign aid in the first place.

So, in summary, what has occurred is this: our governments have used us
taxpayers to open doors for corporations that in turn took their huge
profits and had very good lives for ever after.

And it could all have been so different if our governments were not just
corporate pawns and rightwing zealots. . . but governments which truly
cared about making lives better in other countries, but made sure the
corporations of our own countries employed our people - or paid a very
dear import fee for goods that were produced elsewhere.

That how I see it.
Greg Carr
2014-06-05 06:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Why are WE spending money in developing countries for THEIR people?
Don't they have governments? Why are we interfering in their AFFAIRS?
I thought we elected Harper et al to govern OUR nation...well when is
he going to fix our problems? So far he's done little but travel
over-seas and spend tax-payers dollars else-where.
I wondered that many, many times over the years, but saw it explained
well in an article I read a few years back. The reasons why 'wealthier
- When countries with huge populations are so impoverished that they are
NOT consumers for products through trade or imports, wealthier
governments 'give them a hand up'.
- The theory from those governments is this: If the people of those
countries (eg India, China, Bangladesh, Mexico) are able to earn enough
money to start becoming buyers/consumers, the wealthier countries have
found huge populations to which they can sell products.
- This is the kicker: the money which is used to 'develop' those
impoverished countries comes from the TAXPAYERS of developed countries,
via their governments' foreign aid programs.
Not from the corporations that will ultimately be making more and more
money as these huge populations become consumers of their goods.
In practice, developed countries use the monies they've taken from
taxpayers of their countries to open doors for their corporations to do
business in previously barren populations.
Now, in theory, this should work for the benefit of the country that is
sending foreign aid to countries that are potential buyers of goods and
services.
But in practice what has happened is that the corporations which now
have new customers for their goods, are not producing those goods in the
countries from which the money flowed.
They took their production plants and put them into the impoverished
countries - to save mega dollars on labour. And the huge savings they
achieved went into their own pockets - and those of shareholders, who
most often were not even citizens or residents of the country which sent
the foreign aid in the first place.
So, in summary, what has occurred is this: our governments have used us
taxpayers to open doors for corporations that in turn took their huge
profits and had very good lives for ever after.
And it could all have been so different if our governments were not just
corporate pawns and rightwing zealots. . . but governments which truly
cared about making lives better in other countries, but made sure the
corporations of our own countries employed our people - or paid a very
dear import fee for goods that were produced elsewhere.
That how I see it.
Then there is the NDP pro-foreign aid idea of foreign aid to help the
workers of Socialist International.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 19:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Sure it does. Most people in Ontario are smarter than you when it comes
to picking a Premier.
I guess they must think corruption works.
Sure it does. See Harper Cons and all Conservative Senators.
Like the NDP? Politics writ large on the taxpayers dollars?
Cons . . . scandals every week; sometimes every day of the week.
Liberals . . . scandals at least once a month; blown greatly out of
proportion by the Cons.
NDP . . . a scandal maybe once every two years; nothing more than small
issues blown out of proportion by both the Cons and the Liberals.

Oh, such a difficult decision . . . . who to vote for . . . . who to
vote for . . . . ?
The Doctor
2014-06-03 21:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Sure it does. Most people in Ontario are smarter than you when it comes
to picking a Premier.
I guess they must think corruption works.
Sure it does. See Harper Cons and all Conservative Senators.
Like the NDP? Politics writ large on the taxpayers dollars?
Cons . . . scandals every week; sometimes every day of the week.
Liberals . . . scandals at least once a month; blown greatly out of
proportion by the Cons.
NDP . . . a scandal maybe once every two years; nothing more than small
issues blown out of proportion by both the Cons and the Liberals.
Oh, such a difficult decision . . . . who to vote for . . . . who to
vote for . . . . ?
The NDP, always bleeding red ink!
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Ontario: Stop Tim Hudak the Stephen Harper of Ontario!
{~_~}Раиса
2014-06-03 21:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
The NDP, always bleeding red ink!
Like the Cons and the Liberals, 'doctor'? Or not quite so much?
The Doctor
2014-06-03 21:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by The Doctor
The NDP, always bleeding red ink!
Like the Cons and the Liberals, 'doctor'? Or not quite so much?
Cons and NDPs are known for their massive deficits.
--
Member - Liberal International This is ***@nl2k.ab.ca Ici ***@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Ontario: Stop Tim Hudak the Stephen Harper of Ontario!
Greg Carr
2014-06-05 06:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Doctor
Post by {~_~}Раиса
Post by The Doctor
The NDP, always bleeding red ink!
Like the Cons and the Liberals, 'doctor'? Or not quite so much?
Cons and NDPs are known for their massive deficits.
Trudeau is planning to run a deficit and says the deficit will take
care of itself. The Tories under pressure and complaints from the NDP &
Liberals to do more ran deficits to combat the Great Recession and have
plans to have a balanced budget next year despite cutting corporate
taxes and the GST and boutique tax cuts for working ppl.
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
M.I.Wakefield
2014-06-03 22:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by {~_~}Раиса
NDP . . . a scandal maybe once every two years; nothing more than small
issues blown out of proportion by both the Cons and the Liberals.
And how much is it going to cost them? Millions?

Any betting on how the "satellite offices" issue turns out?
Greg Carr
2014-06-05 06:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Sure it does. Most people in Ontario are smarter than you when it
comes
to picking a Premier.
I guess they must think corruption works.
Sure it does. See Harper Cons and all Conservative Senators.
Like the NDP? Politics writ large on the taxpayers dollars?
Cons . . . scandals every week; sometimes every day of the week.
The Senate scandal only cost around 500k and half of it was attributable
to a Liberal Senator.
Liberals . . . scandals at least once a month; blown greatly out of
proportion by the Cons.
Sponsorgate cost around 250 million dollars and some of the individuals
involved remain in the Liberal party.
NDP . . . a scandal maybe once every two years; nothing more than small
issues blown out of proportion by both the Cons and the Liberals.
Skeena Cellulose 125 million, Fast Cats half a billion, Bingogate
millions. The recent NDP federal mail kerfuffle which should cost out to
around a million.
Oh, such a difficult decision . . . . who to vote for . . . . who to
vote for . . . . ?
--
*Read and obey the Bible*
Loading...