babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)
January 29, 2016 - 12:18am
;
The last thread got closed due to Babbler bickering. So, I figured I'd open a new thread on the topic.
The Liberal Party made some very good promises (along with some potentially good but, alas, frustratingly vague promises) during the campaign. A website was set up to keep track of how many of these promises the Liberals kept or broke: https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/
The site is not perfect but it's a pretty good effort at government accountability. Keeping government accountable for its promises seems a very good thing to discuss, I feel.
I don't. I think it's biased to run a site like that. Over time there will be promises that nobody wants him to keep anyway. Already the pro-war rats are screaming for his neck if he brings the 6 bombers home. What's a boy Prime Minister to do? Ask Rex Murphy!
If a situation changes drastically and a promise made in a different circumstance becomes ridiculous to keep in a current circumstance, then of course that's something that should be taken into consideration. But, to simply disregard the mandate that a government was given (based on their campaign promises) from the people is reckless, in my opinion. Governments should be accountable to the people for the promises they've made. They got their mandate to govern from the people from these promises that they made to the people. If the government breaks a promise, the government better have a good explanation for that.
Even though I think changed plans can be justified I still think it is very useful to have a simplified way of evaluating how his actions compare to his platform by the end of his mandate.
If he fails to keep a promise but that is what Canadians want then they will dismiss criticism. Rex Murphy is wrong. People want politicians that can adjust plans if the situation changes or is not what was expected.
Only partisans expect 100% of a platform to be fulfilled to the letter but we should still examine which ones he fails to keep to decide if he is justified.
For example, today it was announced that there will be no gap in Canada's contribution to the war effort. That means the bombers only come home when we replace them with something else. Coalition partners have made requests some of which Canada will agree to and others not. I'm not happy with this outcome but I can see that it is an international diplomacy issue so realistically this is how these things are handled.
That site will make it much easier to keep track of the small but important promises. I want to know which ones he doesn't keep so I can decide how significant they are.
Good news! Liberals promised to repeal Bill C-36! Bill C-36 is the Conservative anti-sex-worker law.
https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/promise/7206
https://nowtoronto.com/news/the-now-guide-to-the-2015/ndp-liberals-green...
Mind you, it was something that we hardly heard about during the campaign. But, the commitment was made. So, trudeaumetre did add this as a promise that was made. We'll see if they live up to it.
From the article:
Interesting. It was not a platform item and it was not made by Trudeau. Trudeau has named prostitution violence against women. I don't believe he will decriminalize or legalize prostitution. It isn't something he would want to be known for or have as part of his legacy.
You think Morneau was just telling a lie to the people at Buddies in Bad Times Theatre that night?
I think he was saying what he believes and supports but he became minister of Finance not Justice.
It isn't included in the mandate letter to Jody Wilson-Raybould. I very much doubt that she would preside over the legitimization of prostitution given it's impact on indigenous women as an extension of colonialization.
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-justice-and-attorney-general-canada-mandate...
She has promised to listen to sex workers, not do their bidding.
She will see through false arguments such as this one:
"They're putting women directly in harm's way … Robert Pickton preyed on the women knowing they wouldn't go to the police. Decriminalization is the only answer."
How could they go to police, they were dead. Pickton happened under the old laws. The women are no longer criminalized so they can go to police. Having longer to "size up Pickton" wouldn't have helped his victims as they willingly went to his farm to party.
Nobody is going to legalize or decriminalize prostitution in Canada because it would be electoral suicide. There are many more people strongly opposed than strongly in favor. Those that are okay with it cite red light districts in industrial areas with legally mandated health checks to protect the customers not New Zealands decriminalization model.
No politician in Canada is going to want to be responsible for or remembered for the spread of brothels and that includes the NDP.
C-36 will survive. The part that criminalizes sex workers based on location might be repealed. I think it's more likely that additional measures will be put in place to help women avoid or leave prostitution.
Morneau answered yes to whether they would repeal or revise it, so I was mistaken to say they've promised to repeal it (though he did say they'd get rid of it). We'll see if they live up their promises.
ETA:
No, it was a definite commitment rather than an I dunno what my party's gonna do, but I think that...
I get that. He isn't the one with the authority to do it and it wasn't in his mandate letter. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has control over that file and I doubt she will consult the finance minister on it.
Trudeau has said that he won't fight the Supreme Court decisions and he is cancelling Harper's challenges of Supreme Court rulings. Sex workers claim C 36 is the same as the old laws but it isn't. It is substancially different and there has been no court challenge on C 36.
Other ministers have also made comments that don't mesh with official positions.
Here was the question:
Recently, Bill C-36, which was ostensibly created to protect sex workers, passed through our last government. However, sex-worker advocacy groups have criticized the bill as unduly endangering the lives and livelihoods of sex workers. Will your party look at revising or repealing this bill?
and here is the answer:
Well, on this there’s no disagreement. We would want to get rid of this bill just as the NDP would, and think that — now, I know there’s no Conservative here — but think that this is a continuing approach that the Conservatives seem to be doing, which is dismissing our courts and dismissing the judgments of our Supreme Court on issues that really matter to Canadians. So this is completely unacceptable. It’s a bill that puts people in danger, and we would not stand for it.
This is what the NDP said in the same interview:
So absolutely you’ll see an NDP government making sure that we figure out what to do with the Supreme Court judgment that does not involve keeping this legislation.
That is not a commitment to decriminalize or legalize and the same goes for Monreau's comment. Notice Monreau said "we would not stand for it" not "we will not stand for it". Monreau's focus was on Supreme Court challenges, the Liberals won't contest the court's rulings.
I think Monreau tossed it in with all the other cases in which Harper has challenged the Court but it is not clear in this case that he did. The court was very specific that parliament had the right to fashion another law against prostitution and acknowledged that Canadians would not be comfortable with an immediate suspension of the old law. C 36 has not been legally challenged.
Regardless of what he said or meant to say it's not up to him. This is under the purview of the Justice Minister and it wasn't included in her mandate letter. Decriminalization of prostitution is not a fly under the radar issue.
You're doing that pretzel thing again. He promised they would get rid of it.
Morneau doesn't have the power to do it. I don't believe it will happen. If you want to count it as a broken promise when it doesn't happen go right ahead. It won't matter a bit. Conservatives were mocked for accusing Trudeau of wanting to legalize prostitution so I don't believe this is something Canadians are expecting.
Perhaps you're right. Still, if they've no intention of revising or repealing Bill C-36, then Morneau should not have lied about it to the people at Buddies that evening.
There I agree. I really don't like Morneau. I forget what else he said that I didn't like and was right wing but I do remember there was something. My feeling is that this is going to be a guy I like less and less. He was a really weird and a bad choice to send for that interview. Why send a suit to an LGBTQ meeting? Mind you he is also a terrible choice for finance minister. I'm guessing Trudeau put him in that position to better justify the deficit spending.
looks like Liberal men are speaking for the Justice Minister....they got Blair speaking for her re pot and now the Finance Minister re prostitution...
The "TrudeauMetre" site may have had its merits, but is this new thread really about tracking His promises?
Or is it just a bunch more "Trudeau said!!!/Tom said!!!"
If it's really all about what each of us believed that Justin or Tom was REALLY saying eight months ago, is there a more accurate thread title we could use?
The article is from September 27th, so there were no ministers at the time. Blair isn't speaking for her either. He has been placed at the head of the task force on that file because it is a major issue. We are so used to Harper centralizing everything we aren't used to delegation. Prior to his cabinet appointments there was talk about him having a wealth of talent that would not be satisfied as backbenchers. I think a lot more MPs that don't have portfolios will be given high profile tasks.
oh fair enough then on sept 27th tks for pointing it out.
i'm all for governments working as a team and sharing "tasks" with all members fully engaged. i hope this is where it's going. i doubt it. i see more as a nobody has to take ownership if things go south and "waste" happens.
I have read that this style of open government, allowing everyone to speak, can and does lead to contradictions. Short of criminal behavior that was deliberately hidden the buck stops at Trudeau's desk.
For example, I am very pleased with the choice of defence minister, Sajjan. I hope Trudeau takes all of his advice, but the final decisions are in Trudeau's hands, and he chose Sajjan, therefore he is responsible for outcomes good or bad. Certainly Sajjan would also deserve blame or praise but that doesn't let Trudeau off the hook.
If Morneau, as finance minister, makes cuts to the budget Trudeau remains responsible for that.
In thinking about this, I do feel that Morneau, as a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, made this announcement of either revising or repealing Bill C-36 (which frankly is a good thing to do, IMO). This was reported in the press during the campaign. The Liberal Party of Canada did not, to my knowledge, issue any sort of contradiction to his statement (IE, they never identified it as an error). So, as far as I'm concerned, that lack of action on part of the Liberal Party of Canada means it stands as a promise made during the campaign.
Here's the latest tally. They've been in office for 89 days. There's 214 promises that have been identified. Of these, 12 have been achieved, and 3 have been broken.
Trudeau Liberal government promises that have been achieved:
Trudeau Liberal government promises that have been broken:
Regarding the list from the previous post, the broken promise above is particularly disappointing.
Shouldn't the last item be off the list until March?
And the second to last one was only done at opposition party urging anyway.
And the third to last one, it's still possible that it will be revenue neutral.
Well, it appears that the folks at trudeaumetre struggled with this question, given what the site says,
Here's the actual promise:
I feel that the trudeaumetre site made the right call. In cases where there's a lack of clarity, it's important to look at how the promise was both presented by the LPC and how the public understood the promise. I feel both the presentation and the understanding of the promise by the public was that "we will end Canada's combat mission in Iraq" meant that it would end shortly after they took office, rather than being intensified and extended to March (or beyond, we still don't know from the government). So I feel the trudeaumetre site made the right call.
Revise maybe, repeal no. There is a huge difference. The mainstream press never reported it and Harper was mocked for saying Trudeau would legalize prostitution. The Conservatives did not double down on the accusation. So no, I don't think Canadians thought that Trudeau intended to legalize prostitution and I think if they had he would have lost the election.
You can believe he's going to do it, or believe it is a broken promise, all that really matters is if it is what Canadians want.
Just in general, regarding this idea, I tend to lean more toward principle than populism when it comes to government policy. For instance, if the population of Canada overall wants capital punishment returned, should that become government policy? No, because the population overall wants "peace, order, and good government", and (I assume) studies and experience show that capital punishment can lead to very harmful effects not in line with the desire for "peace, order, and good government". So this trumps the desire for capital punishment to be enacted. Likewise for protections of minorities and the disenfranchised. If a segment of Canada's minorities and/or its disenfranchised is seen to be unduly put in unsafe circumstances due to some of the laws of the land, then regardless of what the majority feels about the minority's plight, the government should, by principle, be obligated to act (rather than opting not to act via the populism of wishing to appease the majority).
I've never heard of a promise 60% broken. It's either broken or it's not. And as yoiu say, there's two months to go. Thank you for your civil reply!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian-new-years-airstrikes-1.3387459
Minister of Defence Harjit Sajjan confirmed that the planes would be home in "less than six months". Otherwise no time was given. That inspired the following analysis from the Terry Milewski (bolding added):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/real-change-comes-early-to-liberal-promi...
They haven't ended the bombing as they promised, and are even now talking about extending it beyond what the HarperCons had pledged. They have broken this promise in spades!!