I can't offer a detailed response, but I know that there's a lot of sponsorship of families or groups spread across our province. So for example, my town of six thousand has received approval to sponsor a family of seven. It's being coordinated through the town hall as well as with various local religious leaders, and seems to involve both raising money as well as acquiring donations of household items, clothing, etc. Here's a writeup from our charmingly dippy, small-town independent paper about it.
I'm making the St Mary's independent (advertising to fit ANY budget) my official source for new from now on.
Could anyone walk us through what its like in the refugee program? Do provinces or the feds run the program? Do new families get winter-ized housing for a few years? Job opportunities? Language and culture education? Access to health-care and dentistry? Weekly social gatherings with their neighbours so they feel socially accepted? Do we just dump them all in the same poor neighbourhood to keep costs down or do they end up spread out into all our communities?
I can only speak to the ESL portion on one specific program (the outreach program run by Calgary in partnership with Grant McEwan college):
It's parts messy & gruelling, both for the community taking in immigrants & for the immigrants themselves. There's both an actual language barrier to overcome (and this barrier only increases in thickness with a given immigrant's age) and a communication barrier that's kind of difficult to describe; not a cultural barrier per se (though there is that as well), but simply the gap between people who have been living in a stable country their entire lives vs those that have lived in failed states.
Social cues & social expectations can be way different, even from places with ostensibly similar cultural norms, and getting through this secondary communication barrier can feel outright impossible.
Despite that, though, I've seen the program work absolute miracles and produce many happy endings (at least as far as overcoming communication barriers goes, anyway, which is admittedly just the tip of the iceberg). There were quite a few teachers I saw in my brief time with the program that were immigrants themselves who had previously worked their way through it.
— Alberta will phase out all pollution created by burning coal by 2030, and transition to more renewable energy and natural-gas generation. The province promises the plan will provide reasonable electricity prices for consumers and businesses.
— Within the next months, the government will set up a facilitator and negotiator to work with coal-plant operators to figure out how best to move forward, since the province’s 18 coal-fired electricity plants currently create 55 per cent of the province’s electricity.
— Two-thirds of coal-generated electricity will be replaced by renewables, mostly wind power.
— Renewable-energy sources will comprise up to 30 per cent of Alberta’s electricity production by 2030.
— A carbon tax will be introduced on all emitters, including regular citizens driving cars and heating their homes. A $20-per-tonne, economy-wide levy will start in January 2017, then increase to $30-per-tonne in January 2018, growing over time based on inflation and based on competitive jurisdictions. For the average household, that means about $320 extra in 2017 for gas, natural gas and electricity, and $470 in 2018.
— But the carbon plan, which will bring in an estimated $3 billion, aims to be revenue neutral, with the government offering rebates through various programs to approximately 60 per cent of people with Alberta’s lowest income. For those not afforded the rebates, the government will create efficiency programs to help people reduce their energy use.
— A legislated emissions cap of 100 megatonnes will be introduced on oilsands operations, which currently emit roughly 70 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year. The legislation is expected to be introduced in the spring. Previous forecasts have suggested Alberta’s oil and gas sector will hit 100 megatonnes in emissions by 2030. The cap will not cover any new upgrading and cogeneration facilities, which will allow another 10 megatonnes.
People don't understand how delicious it is going to be for me when Alberta's green energy sector starts generating so much revenue that people turn-up their noses at the oil sands project; that little pittance of an enterprise that got the province knee deep into dead technology.
Eh, I'll be real glad if we rely less on oil/gas sector. But I can't see anyone just abandoning the oil sands, too much oil up there.
What really needs to happen is something like the Norway Oil fund, where a heavier tax, somewhere above 60% is put on profits from the production of oil and stored away in a trust fund to be used when oil prices drop.
Eh, I'll be real glad if we rely less on oil/gas sector. But I can't see anyone just abandoning the oil sands, too much oil up there.
What really needs to happen is something like the Norway Oil fund, where a heavier tax, somewhere above 60% is put on profits from the production of oil and stored away in a trust fund to be used when oil prices drop.
No point throwing it into a fund to be raided the next time some Regressives manage to get voted in, put all of that into subsidies for green sector / nuclear.
The Official Opposition Conservatives were quick to respond to the numbers, asking the government why their updated figures don't mesh with the recently released Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report, which is forecasting a small $1.2-billion figure for the current fiscal year.
"Clearly some of the money has already been spent or the plans have been put in place behind closed doors, and we'd like to know what that money difference [is] between what the PBO said and what is being said today," Tory finance critic Lisa Raitt said.
Oh, that's simple Lisa:
The sacks of shit running your party said there was money that wasn't actually there. No, it wasn't 'spent' - you fuckmouths just lied about the account balance.
So, there's your difference: the amount of money actually available vs the amount of money you claimed was available when you lied to the public as part of your re-election campaign. See? Simple!
Scientists informing elected officials about what is happening in the world today? No way man, that's crazy talk. We don't need things like facts and logic getting in the way of policy.
— Alberta will phase out all pollution created by burning coal by 2030, and transition to more renewable energy and natural-gas generation. The province promises the plan will provide reasonable electricity prices for consumers and businesses.
— Within the next months, the government will set up a facilitator and negotiator to work with coal-plant operators to figure out how best to move forward, since the province’s 18 coal-fired electricity plants currently create 55 per cent of the province’s electricity.
— Two-thirds of coal-generated electricity will be replaced by renewables, mostly wind power.
— Renewable-energy sources will comprise up to 30 per cent of Alberta’s electricity production by 2030.
— A carbon tax will be introduced on all emitters, including regular citizens driving cars and heating their homes. A $20-per-tonne, economy-wide levy will start in January 2017, then increase to $30-per-tonne in January 2018, growing over time based on inflation and based on competitive jurisdictions. For the average household, that means about $320 extra in 2017 for gas, natural gas and electricity, and $470 in 2018.
— But the carbon plan, which will bring in an estimated $3 billion, aims to be revenue neutral, with the government offering rebates through various programs to approximately 60 per cent of people with Alberta’s lowest income. For those not afforded the rebates, the government will create efficiency programs to help people reduce their energy use.
— A legislated emissions cap of 100 megatonnes will be introduced on oilsands operations, which currently emit roughly 70 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year. The legislation is expected to be introduced in the spring. Previous forecasts have suggested Alberta’s oil and gas sector will hit 100 megatonnes in emissions by 2030. The cap will not cover any new upgrading and cogeneration facilities, which will allow another 10 megatonnes.
"Alberta will phase out all pollution created by burning coal by 2030"
Note that this is not the same as "phasing out burning coal by 2030" which would be the ideal scenario.
Build a nuclear plant. Alberta could be fine with like, one large one or two small ones and a shitload of renewables.
"Alberta will phase out all pollution created by burning coal by 2030"
Note that this is not the same as "phasing out burning coal by 2030" which would be the ideal scenario.
Build a nuclear plant. Alberta could be fine with like, one large one or two small ones and a shitload of renewables.
If coal is readily available and economically competitive, and they can stick enough filters and environmental protection equipment on the plant to catch all the CO2 and make it burn "clean" (from the POV of outside the plant), then I don't see what the problem is.
Right. Scrubbing is really important but that's not countering the outputs, just making sure the really bad ones aren't getting through. They still go out in forms that have impacts, especially the waste and not just the CO2.
So very many terrible things coming out of coal plants, like sulfur, mercury, nitrogen oxides, lead, cadmium and even uranium. Not to mention just plain ash. Current technology can capture much of the worst of it, but that still leaves coal plants are larger polluters than oil and gas plants, much less wind/solar/etc.
People don't understand how delicious it is going to be for me when Alberta's green energy sector starts generating so much revenue that people turn-up their noses at the oil sands project; that little pittance of an enterprise that got the province knee deep into dead technology.
Hydrocarbons are always going to be useful as industrial feedstocks - all these renewable technologies use a far bit of plastic and those oil sands will have value no matter what.
Burning them for power is dumb though.
+3
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
In the future, if humanity makes the leap to a future more like Star Trek and less like Fallout, history students will look back and say, "Wait, they burned hydrocarbons?
As fuel?
Even after they discovered plastics?
Was everyone on Earth just completely deficient until 2033?"
+2
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
In the future, if humanity makes the leap to a future more like Star Trek and less like Fallout, history students will look back and say, "Wait, they burned hydrocarbons?
As fuel?
Even after they discovered plastics?
Was everyone on Earth just completely deficient until 2033?"
What does plastics have to do with energy production?
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
This makes me exceedingly mad.
I would find a way to fire all of them.
If I couldn't, I would find a way to fire at all of them.
It's not really the appointees' faults that the conservatives offered them contracts stretching out to (and/or beginning in) a time long after they'd left office. Agreed though, I'd just get rid of them for whatever settlement that entails, because that was clearly the conservatives acting in bad faith.
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
This makes me exceedingly mad.
I would find a way to fire all of them.
If I couldn't, I would find a way to fire at all of them.
Many of the future appointments could be hard to undo without risking litigation. Of the 49 early renewals and future appointments, 24 are conditional on “good behaviour,” meaning appointees can only be stripped of their positions for bad conduct.
that shouldn't be too tough. I bet most of them eat with their elbows on the table.
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
This makes me exceedingly mad.
I'd like to find the articles that I read on this before, but I could have sworn I have read that is a page torn straight from the US Republican play book, to stay in power by making the bureaucracy of government loyal to your policies and party that resist your opponents policy directives from within, born out of some bizarre notion that the best way to show that "Big" government doesn't work is by making it incompetent and if you fire your saboteurs, they get to claim you are politically purging.
Its insane and something I was concerned the Harper's Cons have been working on pretty much since they formed minority government as bits and pieces of their scandals started to come to light, of how obstructionist they were even in parliamentary committees.
Its why I think we have to give Trudeau and his cabinet a really long "grace" period, they have to go through everything to repair the damage Harper and their Cons have been up to in making the public servants' livelihood's a horror show for the last decade. I hope one of their first moves that I haven't heard anything about yet is replacing the CBC Board of Directors and preventing the sale of their assets.
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
This makes me exceedingly mad.
I'd like to find the articles that I read on this before, but I could have sworn I have read that is a page torn straight from the US Republican play book, to stay in power by making the bureaucracy of government loyal to your policies and party that resist your opponents policy directives from within, born out of some bizarre notion that the best way to show that "Big" government doesn't work is by making it incompetent and if you fire your saboteurs, they get to claim you are politically purging.
Its insane and something I was concerned the Harper's Cons have been working on pretty much since they formed minority government as bits and pieces of their scandals started to come to light, of how obstructionist they were even in parliamentary committees.
Its why I think we have to give Trudeau and his cabinet a really long "grace" period, they have to go through everything to repair the damage Harper and their Cons have been up to in making the public servants' livelihood's a horror show for the last decade. I hope one of their first moves that I haven't heard anything about yet is replacing the CBC Board of Directors and preventing the sale of their assets.
Except that in the US, such appointments cannot be renewed prior to the current appointment ending - you can only fill a vacancy. Burrowing in the US instead takes the form of converting appointees (who serve at the President's pleasure) to civil service positions (which are strongly protected.)
Conservatives very helpfully did some future planning just before leaving office.
This makes me exceedingly mad.
I would find a way to fire all of them.
If I couldn't, I would find a way to fire at all of them.
It's not really the appointees' faults that the conservatives offered them contracts stretching out to (and/or beginning in) a time long after they'd left office. Agreed though, I'd just get rid of them for whatever settlement that entails, because that was clearly the conservatives acting in bad faith.
Allow me to break out the world's smallest violin and lead the chorus in a special rendition of 'Fuck 'em, they backed the wrong horse,'
Do we even have to pay them settlements? That smells like a load of bullshit to me, as the costs could add up real quick.
I'd like to find the articles that I read on this before, but I could have sworn I have read that is a page torn straight from the US Republican play book, to stay in power by making the bureaucracy of government loyal to your policies and party that resist your opponents policy directives from within, born out of some bizarre notion that the best way to show that "Big" government doesn't work is by making it incompetent and if you fire your saboteurs, they get to claim you are politically purging.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
I'd like to find the articles that I read on this before, but I could have sworn I have read that is a page torn straight from the US Republican play book, to stay in power by making the bureaucracy of government loyal to your policies and party that resist your opponents policy directives from within, born out of some bizarre notion that the best way to show that "Big" government doesn't work is by making it incompetent and if you fire your saboteurs, they get to claim you are politically purging.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
Exactly. It's the Canadian people who purged the government of Conservatives. This is the Conservatives saying "fuck you and your democracy, we're staying".
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
This is always fun to say up until you're on the other side. You open that particular Pandora's Ballot Box, you're not going to like what you find inside. The actual problem is that positions can be refilled prior to being vacated. That's what you need to fix.
Local Calgary provincial conservative MLA dies helping a motorist that spun off the road. Met him a few times and while I did not agree on some of his party's ideas, he was a really intelligent, engaged and kind man.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
This is always fun to say up until you're on the other side. You open that particular Pandora's Ballot Box, you're not going to like what you find inside. The actual problem is that positions can be refilled prior to being vacated. That's what you need to fix.
I've been on the other side for 10 Goddamn years. What, you think the PCs hung onto any appointments they didn't like? Of course they didn't.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
This is always fun to say up until you're on the other side. You open that particular Pandora's Ballot Box, you're not going to like what you find inside. The actual problem is that positions can be refilled prior to being vacated. That's what you need to fix.
I've been on the other side for 10 Goddamn years. What, you think the PCs hung onto any appointments they didn't like? Of course they didn't.
Time for a change.
So, what happens when (yes, when, not if) the pendulum swings the other way, and the Conservatives come to power? Because if you set this precedent, they will happily use it against you.
You shouldn't be so eager to slice your nose off to spite your face.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
This is always fun to say up until you're on the other side. You open that particular Pandora's Ballot Box, you're not going to like what you find inside. The actual problem is that positions can be refilled prior to being vacated. That's what you need to fix.
I've been on the other side for 10 Goddamn years. What, you think the PCs hung onto any appointments they didn't like? Of course they didn't.
Time for a change.
So, what happens when (yes, when, not if) the pendulum swings the other way, and the Conservatives come to power? Because if you set this precedent, they will happily use it against you.
You shouldn't be so eager to slice your nose off to spite your face.
They will shift out appointees in their favor, just as they did last time.
Like, oh well, that's politics. Since they're going to do it anyway, I see no reason to decide that we have to walk on eggshells when it's our turn and effectively extend Conservative mandates (in some appointment positions) indefinitely.
There are a couple parts of that article that could have led to some interesting information. What happened to the appointments Turner made in 1984 other than Mulroney winning in a landslide?
In the 1984 election campaign, former Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney politically eviscerated former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner for making dozens of appointments that went into effect just before he called the election. The controversy over the appointments contributed to Mulroney winning the election in a landslide.
Also, according to Mr. Downe this is highly unusual. I don't know if it is true or not. I don't even know where one would look to find this kind of information.
Liberal Senator Percy Downe, who handled appointments for three years for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien before then becoming his chief of staff, says making appointments that run into the next government’s mandate is “unbelievable” and unprecedented.
“The longstanding tradition has been that a current government can’t bind a future government….You don’t make appointments that are two years ahead of time on the eve of an election.”
Downe said reappointments would normally only be done two or three months ahead of time and was surprised to learn that some reappointments done by Harper’s cabinet only take effect more than a year later.
As for just purging them and eff the consequences we shouldn't have to pay settlements, the law typically doesn't work like that. I don't understand what the term "good behaviour" means in this context. Anyone have insight? Google brings me to a lot of stuff about behaviour contracts with children.
There are a couple parts of that article that could have led to some interesting information. What happened to the appointments Turner made in 1984 other than Mulroney winning in a landslide?
In the 1984 election campaign, former Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney politically eviscerated former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner for making dozens of appointments that went into effect just before he called the election. The controversy over the appointments contributed to Mulroney winning the election in a landslide.
Also, according to Mr. Downe this is highly unusual. I don't know if it is true or not. I don't even know where one would look to find this kind of information.
Liberal Senator Percy Downe, who handled appointments for three years for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien before then becoming his chief of staff, says making appointments that run into the next government’s mandate is “unbelievable” and unprecedented.
“The longstanding tradition has been that a current government can’t bind a future government….You don’t make appointments that are two years ahead of time on the eve of an election.”
Downe said reappointments would normally only be done two or three months ahead of time and was surprised to learn that some reappointments done by Harper’s cabinet only take effect more than a year later.
As for just purging them and eff the consequences we shouldn't have to pay settlements, the law typically doesn't work like that. I don't understand what the term "good behaviour" means in this context. Anyone have insight? Google brings me to a lot of stuff about behaviour contracts with children.
I mean, if we have to pay them then I guess we have to pay them. I'm just saying I'd rather not if that's a possibility.
But I don't want those positions filled by CPC appointees; it's such a load of crap. We voted in a new government, we should get a new government; not some half-assed bullshit because the other guys found a loophole.
It means they have to be dismissed for cause, as opposed to serving at the PM's pleasure.
Again, the problem is that it's just "tradition" in Canada that a current Parliament does not bind a future one, as opposed to the US, where it is law that no Congress may bind a future Congress.
In the future, if humanity makes the leap to a future more like Star Trek and less like Fallout, history students will look back and say, "Wait, they burned hydrocarbons?
As fuel?
Even after they discovered plastics?
Was everyone on Earth just completely deficient until 2033?"
What does plastics have to do with energy production?
As Dis' pointed out, oil is used in (among other things) the production of plastic.
There are a couple parts of that article that could have led to some interesting information. What happened to the appointments Turner made in 1984 other than Mulroney winning in a landslide?
In the 1984 election campaign, former Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney politically eviscerated former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner for making dozens of appointments that went into effect just before he called the election. The controversy over the appointments contributed to Mulroney winning the election in a landslide.
Also, according to Mr. Downe this is highly unusual. I don't know if it is true or not. I don't even know where one would look to find this kind of information.
Liberal Senator Percy Downe, who handled appointments for three years for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien before then becoming his chief of staff, says making appointments that run into the next government’s mandate is “unbelievable” and unprecedented.
“The longstanding tradition has been that a current government can’t bind a future government….You don’t make appointments that are two years ahead of time on the eve of an election.”
Downe said reappointments would normally only be done two or three months ahead of time and was surprised to learn that some reappointments done by Harper’s cabinet only take effect more than a year later.
As for just purging them and eff the consequences we shouldn't have to pay settlements, the law typically doesn't work like that. I don't understand what the term "good behaviour" means in this context. Anyone have insight? Google brings me to a lot of stuff about behaviour contracts with children.
I mean, if we have to pay them then I guess we have to pay them. I'm just saying I'd rather not if that's a possibility.
But I don't want those positions filled by CPC appointees; it's such a load of crap. We voted in a new government, we should get a new government; not some half-assed bullshit because the other guys found a loophole.
Here's the thing - the reason that you have appointments that will run beyond the length of a given Parliament is to insulate the agency from politics to a degree. If you get rid of that, you will further politicize the bureaucracy. That is not healthy.
Again, the problem is that one Parliament can bind another, which is why your current government is bound to honor those reappointments. In the US, it is law that the current Congress may not bind a future Congress. It's time that Canada had a similar law.
There are a couple parts of that article that could have led to some interesting information. What happened to the appointments Turner made in 1984 other than Mulroney winning in a landslide?
In the 1984 election campaign, former Conservative Leader Brian Mulroney politically eviscerated former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner for making dozens of appointments that went into effect just before he called the election. The controversy over the appointments contributed to Mulroney winning the election in a landslide.
Also, according to Mr. Downe this is highly unusual. I don't know if it is true or not. I don't even know where one would look to find this kind of information.
Liberal Senator Percy Downe, who handled appointments for three years for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien before then becoming his chief of staff, says making appointments that run into the next government’s mandate is “unbelievable” and unprecedented.
“The longstanding tradition has been that a current government can’t bind a future government….You don’t make appointments that are two years ahead of time on the eve of an election.”
Downe said reappointments would normally only be done two or three months ahead of time and was surprised to learn that some reappointments done by Harper’s cabinet only take effect more than a year later.
As for just purging them and eff the consequences we shouldn't have to pay settlements, the law typically doesn't work like that. I don't understand what the term "good behaviour" means in this context. Anyone have insight? Google brings me to a lot of stuff about behaviour contracts with children.
I mean, if we have to pay them then I guess we have to pay them. I'm just saying I'd rather not if that's a possibility.
But I don't want those positions filled by CPC appointees; it's such a load of crap. We voted in a new government, we should get a new government; not some half-assed bullshit because the other guys found a loophole.
Here's the thing - the reason that you have appointments that will run beyond the length of a given Parliament is to insulate the agency from politics to a degree. If you get rid of that, you will further politicize the bureaucracy. That is not healthy.
Again, the problem is that one Parliament can bind another, which is why your current government is bound to honor those reappointments. In the US, it is law that the current Congress may not bind a future Congress. It's time that Canada had a similar law.
It's already quite heavily politicized; I'm skeptical of the claim that having the ruling government re-fill the positions will make it 'more' partisan (and even if it did, I honestly don't care). When the CPC win their next mandate (they shouldn't be able to in their current form anyway, given that this should be the last FPtP election we have here), so be it - it's their mandate.
I don't care for the American system which allows for extremely long-tenure appointments, putting people like Alito & Scalia in positions of incredible power for decades at a time. that doesn't strike me as particularly democratic (I suspect you'll disagree, and that's fine too). I do like the idea of term limits, but few people up here are on board with that idea.
Posts
I'm making the St Mary's independent (advertising to fit ANY budget) my official source for new from now on.
Are you implying they were classy prior to this event?
I can only speak to the ESL portion on one specific program (the outreach program run by Calgary in partnership with Grant McEwan college):
It's parts messy & gruelling, both for the community taking in immigrants & for the immigrants themselves. There's both an actual language barrier to overcome (and this barrier only increases in thickness with a given immigrant's age) and a communication barrier that's kind of difficult to describe; not a cultural barrier per se (though there is that as well), but simply the gap between people who have been living in a stable country their entire lives vs those that have lived in failed states.
Social cues & social expectations can be way different, even from places with ostensibly similar cultural norms, and getting through this secondary communication barrier can feel outright impossible.
Despite that, though, I've seen the program work absolute miracles and produce many happy endings (at least as far as overcoming communication barriers goes, anyway, which is admittedly just the tip of the iceberg). There were quite a few teachers I saw in my brief time with the program that were immigrants themselves who had previously worked their way through it.
What really needs to happen is something like the Norway Oil fund, where a heavier tax, somewhere above 60% is put on profits from the production of oil and stored away in a trust fund to be used when oil prices drop.
No point throwing it into a fund to be raided the next time some Regressives manage to get voted in, put all of that into subsidies for green sector / nuclear.
MWO: Adamski
Oh, that's simple Lisa:
The sacks of shit running your party said there was money that wasn't actually there. No, it wasn't 'spent' - you fuckmouths just lied about the account balance.
So, there's your difference: the amount of money actually available vs the amount of money you claimed was available when you lied to the public as part of your re-election campaign. See? Simple!
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
"Alberta will phase out all pollution created by burning coal by 2030"
Note that this is not the same as "phasing out burning coal by 2030" which would be the ideal scenario.
Build a nuclear plant. Alberta could be fine with like, one large one or two small ones and a shitload of renewables.
If coal is readily available and economically competitive, and they can stick enough filters and environmental protection equipment on the plant to catch all the CO2 and make it burn "clean" (from the POV of outside the plant), then I don't see what the problem is.
Coal plants also exhaust more than just CO2 although some species of pollutant are easier to "scrub" than others.
Coal plants are fucking horrible and incredibly dangerous due to the multitude of terrible things they release.
Hydrocarbons are always going to be useful as industrial feedstocks - all these renewable technologies use a far bit of plastic and those oil sands will have value no matter what.
Burning them for power is dumb though.
As fuel?
Even after they discovered plastics?
Was everyone on Earth just completely deficient until 2033?"
This makes me exceedingly mad.
What does plastics have to do with energy production?
I would find a way to fire all of them.
If I couldn't, I would find a way to fire at all of them.
It's not really the appointees' faults that the conservatives offered them contracts stretching out to (and/or beginning in) a time long after they'd left office. Agreed though, I'd just get rid of them for whatever settlement that entails, because that was clearly the conservatives acting in bad faith.
I'd like to find the articles that I read on this before, but I could have sworn I have read that is a page torn straight from the US Republican play book, to stay in power by making the bureaucracy of government loyal to your policies and party that resist your opponents policy directives from within, born out of some bizarre notion that the best way to show that "Big" government doesn't work is by making it incompetent and if you fire your saboteurs, they get to claim you are politically purging.
Its insane and something I was concerned the Harper's Cons have been working on pretty much since they formed minority government as bits and pieces of their scandals started to come to light, of how obstructionist they were even in parliamentary committees.
Its why I think we have to give Trudeau and his cabinet a really long "grace" period, they have to go through everything to repair the damage Harper and their Cons have been up to in making the public servants' livelihood's a horror show for the last decade. I hope one of their first moves that I haven't heard anything about yet is replacing the CBC Board of Directors and preventing the sale of their assets.
Except that in the US, such appointments cannot be renewed prior to the current appointment ending - you can only fill a vacancy. Burrowing in the US instead takes the form of converting appointees (who serve at the President's pleasure) to civil service positions (which are strongly protected.)
Also, what kind of crap are they trying to pull, putting somebody in a post through the entirety of the next government's guaranteed tenure?
Allow me to break out the world's smallest violin and lead the chorus in a special rendition of 'Fuck 'em, they backed the wrong horse,'
Do we even have to pay them settlements? That smells like a load of bullshit to me, as the costs could add up real quick.
Well, I'd say let them cry about 'purges' all they like. They got voted out.
Exactly. It's the Canadian people who purged the government of Conservatives. This is the Conservatives saying "fuck you and your democracy, we're staying".
This is always fun to say up until you're on the other side. You open that particular Pandora's Ballot Box, you're not going to like what you find inside. The actual problem is that positions can be refilled prior to being vacated. That's what you need to fix.
Local Calgary provincial conservative MLA dies helping a motorist that spun off the road. Met him a few times and while I did not agree on some of his party's ideas, he was a really intelligent, engaged and kind man.
I've been on the other side for 10 Goddamn years. What, you think the PCs hung onto any appointments they didn't like? Of course they didn't.
Time for a change.
So, what happens when (yes, when, not if) the pendulum swings the other way, and the Conservatives come to power? Because if you set this precedent, they will happily use it against you.
You shouldn't be so eager to slice your nose off to spite your face.
They will shift out appointees in their favor, just as they did last time.
Like, oh well, that's politics. Since they're going to do it anyway, I see no reason to decide that we have to walk on eggshells when it's our turn and effectively extend Conservative mandates (in some appointment positions) indefinitely.
Also, according to Mr. Downe this is highly unusual. I don't know if it is true or not. I don't even know where one would look to find this kind of information.
As for just purging them and eff the consequences we shouldn't have to pay settlements, the law typically doesn't work like that. I don't understand what the term "good behaviour" means in this context. Anyone have insight? Google brings me to a lot of stuff about behaviour contracts with children.
I mean, if we have to pay them then I guess we have to pay them. I'm just saying I'd rather not if that's a possibility.
But I don't want those positions filled by CPC appointees; it's such a load of crap. We voted in a new government, we should get a new government; not some half-assed bullshit because the other guys found a loophole.
Again, the problem is that it's just "tradition" in Canada that a current Parliament does not bind a future one, as opposed to the US, where it is law that no Congress may bind a future Congress.
As Dis' pointed out, oil is used in (among other things) the production of plastic.
Here's the thing - the reason that you have appointments that will run beyond the length of a given Parliament is to insulate the agency from politics to a degree. If you get rid of that, you will further politicize the bureaucracy. That is not healthy.
Again, the problem is that one Parliament can bind another, which is why your current government is bound to honor those reappointments. In the US, it is law that the current Congress may not bind a future Congress. It's time that Canada had a similar law.
It's already quite heavily politicized; I'm skeptical of the claim that having the ruling government re-fill the positions will make it 'more' partisan (and even if it did, I honestly don't care). When the CPC win their next mandate (they shouldn't be able to in their current form anyway, given that this should be the last FPtP election we have here), so be it - it's their mandate.
I don't care for the American system which allows for extremely long-tenure appointments, putting people like Alito & Scalia in positions of incredible power for decades at a time. that doesn't strike me as particularly democratic (I suspect you'll disagree, and that's fine too). I do like the idea of term limits, but few people up here are on board with that idea.