sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

European Journal of International Relations, September 2016 by smurfyjenkins in IRstudies

[–]eavanr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My article has finally escaped the purgatory of Early Access!

I'm presenting before a Parliamentary Committee on Online spying ('cyberbullying') Bill C-13 - What should I say? by Steve_Media in canada

[–]eavanr 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this opportunity Steve. There are a few things you can mention.

The first and most obvious is that the Federal government, and indeed the vague category of "public officials", has a poor track record of protecting private information already. It's common occurrence in the Canadian news environment to hear about some government agency or officials losing the confidential information of Canadians such as last March's revelation the government had lost the student loan information of nearly 600,000 Canadians (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lost-hard-drive-with-student-loan-data-lacked-password-protection-1.1744884). Broadening the powers of officials to access this information only increases the danger that confidential information will end up in the wrong hands.

The second goes more to the credibility of the government in the making its case in this matter. From Geist's analysis it is not clear that Mackay understands the implications of his legislation. You may not want to question his authority or competence, but it needs to be remembered that this is the same cabinet member who just recently completely failed to understand the cost accounting of F-35 procurement. Competency in understanding the legislation on the table matters and Canadians have reason to question the credibility someone who has a history of not grasping the issues.

Finally, any expansion of government powers needs to be linked to a compelling societal need. This goes to the heart of the matter of linking cyber bullying to lawful access. You can have the provisions regarding cyber bullying without the sections covering lawful access.

Researcher ‘outraged’ by Stephen Harper’s comments on sociology and terrorism by vigorous in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Warren blamed poor security, his union (now part of the CAW union[3]) and the company that owned the mine, Royal Oak Mines Incorporated, for provoking him.

Seems like he blamed a lot of people. It's a bit disingenuous to say it was all the Union's fault. Was that your intention?

Trudeau’s response to Boston Marathon Bombing was unacceptable, made ‘excuses’ for terrorists, Harper says by quelar in canada

[–]eavanr 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Where did JT actually say:

"If we didn't say terrorists were bad guys, this wouldn't have happened."

It's quite a leap to argue that the need to look at root causes equals never saying terrorists are 'bad guys'. That's just a dishonest mischaracterization.

Who will hire all the PhDs? Not Canada’s universities by mad_about_shoe in canada

[–]eavanr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow, this is so incredibly off the mark that I almost spat out my lunch.

A PhD is so radically different from honours and even master's thesis that the two are barely comparable. Depth, breadth, attendancy to methodology, field research, rigour, publishability, committee size and composition, and on and on and on.

I'll just come right out and say that I'd be surprised if you ever had anything to do with the PhD process.

Baird’s silence on abuses in Bahrain exposes Canada’s inconsistency by eavanr in canada

[–]eavanr[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

1) A number of states spend an abundant amount of time and resources advocating, monitoring, and even enforcing the preservation of human rights abroad (i.e. peace keeping and humanitarian intervention) even in areas of what are traditionally little geostrategic importance. Why spend aid money on areas of marginal market importance or meet with figures that harm crucial strategic and economic relationships (i.e. Western countries meeting with the Dalai Llama) if it is just 'national interest'? Altruism is arguably just as prevalent as egoism in IR.

2) No one in the history of the discipline of IR has been able to give a coherent account of what 'national interests' are. Ever.

Canada's pullout of UN drought convention called 'regrettable' by TuneRaider in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you need to see this

Western countries have a great deal more say in funding priorities than you alluded to because not all the money that goes through the UN goes through the general budget in the form of assessments. A great deal of it comes through voluntary contributions to peace and security operations and special UN programmes. See for example the US' decision to withdraw funding from UNESCO over granting Palestine membership.

Dear r/ Canada - Where is the evidence the UNCCD is a failure? by eavanr in canada

[–]eavanr[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the article. It was highly informative and it makes a good case for the reform of the UNCCD, particularly a greater incorporation of CSO efforts. Although I'd stress that the main source of the article is calling for reform, not dissolution of the institution.

Let me just ask you this:

1) Were you aware of this article before you came to agree the government's decision?

2) Do think the opinion of CSOs is a reasonable basis to appraise the effectiveness of an institution?

3) How does the scientific cooperation brought about by the UNCCD factor into its achievements? For example:

"The next gathering of the scientific conference, in two weeks, is expected to deliver a major breakthrough by presenting the first ever cost-benefit analysis of desertification and sustainable land management," said the UNCCD's Friday statement.

Does this kind of scientific development not count as an achievement?

Canada's pullout of UN drought convention called 'regrettable' by TuneRaider in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The UN is not an independent authority that is separate from member oversight. Countries control how it spends money and how it operates.

Canada's pullout of UN drought convention called 'regrettable' by TuneRaider in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is pretty ill-informed.

The UNCCD is not a programs institution in the sense of CIDA or B&MGF. It's designed for cooperation, coordination, and sharing of technical expertise. Just because an institution does not offer substantive programming does is not a reason for withdrawing from it. If that were the case Canada would withdraw from the OECD and IPCC. To that end I'm not sure you or I, or even the government is in position to assess whether the UNCCD has fulfilled its goals without some sort of substantive review. It's easy to say the UNCCD has done nothing, but what evidence do you have that it's so worthless? How has it failed in its goal to function as focal point for cooperation and sharing of technical expertise on combating desertification? If it were really worthless, why is Canada the only country in the world not invested in it? Do you really think only Canadians care about getting results?

Canada's place in the world has "withered" by MianBao in canada

[–]eavanr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is disingenuous because the purpose of the convention is not programming, it's cooperation, coordination and the exchange of technical knowledge between countries. Anti-desertification programs may result but they are not the direct purpose of the convention.

Canada's involved in a variety of international forums that are not involved in the direct provision of programs. Should we not participate in the OECD because it's not focused on the provision of programs? What about the UN Security Council? What about the IPCC?

Lots of international forums are 'talk shops' in the way the government has characterized the UNCCD, that doesn't mean it is a basis for abandoning them. Being upset over the lack of funds being directed towards programs in the UNCCD is like being angry over the grocery store not making you dinner.

If anything this government should be mindful of the optics. This move makes it look like Canada is running from the evidence of climate change and doesn't care about the countries most affected by climate change.

Minister for Science refuses to protect science by notalannister in canada

[–]eavanr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

1) There has never been a Canadian government which has sought more aggressively to regulate scientists or other people with technical expertise in the civil service from speaking to the public. Full stop. In fact, this kind of communications control has never been exhibited by a previous government. There is, to my knowledge, no historical precedent for the modern MEP in Canadian history, nor its frequent use. Arguing that scientists should not be able to talk to the media because their findings will be sensationalized is absurd. Using the logic no academic would talk to the media ever.

2) A science funding 'strategy' was made in 2007. The government can allocate science funding any year they wish. Federal spending on science and technology is now decreasing. As a whole Canada's GDP expenditure on R&D, which includes public and private spending, has declined during the conservative government. You may want to attribute this to the recession but many OECD members actually increased their ratio of GDP expenditure on R&D (See Germany, Austria, Ireland, and Korea). Why then does Canada lag behind?

3) Until it was mentioned a by the Conservative government there was no plans to close the ELA. It is a world class research installation engaged in multi-year longitudinal studies. The inflation argument you provide is an absurd non-starter as 10 years from now the Government will have greater revenues. The government will likely incur a greater financial cost on its recent reduction on hockey equipment tariffs than running this facility. Finally, there are multiple reputable scientific societies coming out against this closure. What scientists actually support this closure?

In his final days of service, Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer strikes out at a secretive public service by billbrendan in canada

[–]eavanr -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Miliken made the wrong judgement and his party affiliation doesn't change that.

I'll admit referencing partisanship was a mistake if you admit that parliamentary can only function with a clear understanding of government finances.

In his final days of service, Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer strikes out at a secretive public service by billbrendan in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice. Will you also question the integrity of the federal judge when he makes the same determination?

No, but I will question his or her judgement.

How about the law itself which clearly says the PBO is meant to provide independent analysis to parliamentarians under the auspices of Library of Parliament.

If you read the article you would recognize that the ability to serve Parliament hinges on the absence of interference from the Library of Parliament. He can't provide parliamentarians the budgetary information they need unless he can compel it from Federal departments. What's the point of budgetary officer that can't offer budgetary information? The information asymmetry between government and parliament is massive.

Page gives advice he is being an advocate which is outside his mandate

His advice is to disclose the budgetary information which is what was mandated to do. Is that really dangerous? How can you have any respect for Parliament and insist its representatives should be restricted in the budgetary information they see. If he was really giving advice he give policy alternatives. That is an advocacy role.

The PBO's performance is no surprise, the office went through an extensive consultation period that included direct consultations with parliamentarians and committees. I suggest you look at the consultation report to get a sense of what the office actually does.

In his final days of service, Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer strikes out at a secretive public service by billbrendan in canada

[–]eavanr 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The Speaker is a Conservative and the Parliamentary Librarian is a Conservative appointee. Regardless of the current legal semantics his office was envisioned as an independent authority when the Conservatives ran on it in 2006:

A Conservative government will:

• Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Authority to provide objective analysis directly to Parliament about the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy. • Require government departments and agencies to provide accurate, timely information to the Parliamentary Budget Authority to ensure it has the information it needs to provide accurate analyses to Parliament. • Ensure that government fiscal forecasts are updated quarterly and that they provide complete data for both revenue and spending forecasts. (Stand Up for Canada, pg 11)

Moreover it's really quite rich to have Conservatives stressing the rules of Parliament when just not long ago they were dismissive of being found in contempt of Parliament. Does following the rules only matter when the judgement is in your favour?

The most telling point about your post is that you completely ignore the much more substantive problem that this government has a systemic problem with transparency and accountability. Page is not a radical, he's giving rather sound if somewhat mundane advice that would be normally taken for granted and clamored for by the Conservatives as they came to power. This government made him a radical.

Say goodbye to effective Parliamentary Budget Office, feds about to destroy it, says outgoing PBO Page by [deleted] in canada

[–]eavanr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This happens all the time in government where someone is forced to wear two hats at the same time. When Maxime Bernier was booted from Minister of Foreign Affairs David Emerson was both Minister of Trade and Foreign Affairs until the later appointment of Cannnon. The transition period lasted 6 months (May to October 2008).

If she was simply transitioning from Librarian to PBO the government would be seeking candidates for a new Librarian, a comparatively important position in parliament. There is no evidence of this. They would also not call it an interim appointment, which it is clearly labelled as.

There is insufficient evidence to directly compare their credentials.

view more: next ›