CFN – So with Justin Trudeau winning the Liberal leadership non-race we now know who our next three candidates will be in the next Federal election barring any tragedy or scandal.
Stephen Harper clearly has shown his style and policies. You pretty much know what you get with our PM.
Thomas Mulcair, responsible for the mete
oric rise of the NDP in spite of hard core Dippers kicking and screaming.
And now we have at the helm of the Liberal party Mr. Justin Trudeau who will be competing with the Ghost of his own father, one of Canada’s most successful Prime Ministers as well as the more established leaders.
Mr. Trudeau also leads the party known more for eating their own over the last two decades than in good police and leadership which could be why he now finds himself opportunistically behind the wheel.
Over the next year or so until the next election political machines will be gaming the public seeking which issues resonate the most.
After all, do people vote for a cause or against a politician? Could Mr. Trudeau or Mulcair benefit from the majority of Canadians who simply do not support Mr. Harper’s policies; especially as more of them find out about them?
Is there any real difference between any of the three main parties at the end of the day? Could that be why voters tend to be so apathetic?
So CFN has decided to ask you to VOTE in our poll about which issues are important enough that you’d actually vote for them? It’s not which issue you support the most; but which you vote for one way or another especially if you could.
Have fun and of course you can vote for more than one selection.
@
PJ,
Apologies, I have stated many times my eyesight is very poor, and I tend to misspell and make errors. Thank you for the correction.
In any event, trudeau’s Canada was not the envy of the world. his trudeau mania mantra faded very fast and he was not as well a respected leader say as Thatcher, Reagan and the like. But as previously noted was indeed loved by the dictator and communist ,Castro.
BTW: it is my understanding that Bank of Canada regulations , are on going , depending of current world economic times.
The president of the Bank of Canada, must report to the minister of Finance, however, his reports are formulated by a panel of economic experts from all across the land.
From there a strategy is mapped out with the minister of finance and the P. M. and finance committees.
During Paul Martin and Jean Chretien’s tenure the times ( 1993-1995) were ripe for cuts to take place. So, again to their credit they adopted policies of cutting spending. However, they cut in the wrong places, health, education and delivery were so bad, that in the long run this hurt Canada.
When the 2008-09 global crisis hit, Harper and Mark Carney, directly went into a QE phase, and made money readily available to banks to ensure that the banks would be able to conduct business as usual , because they ensured financing . This allowed banks to then lend to businesses that were severely affected by the global recession. They went steps further to also ensure jobs would be protected and large companies such as the ones in the auto sector would be also protected.
They also made sure income trust funds would be subjected to the same capital gains taxes, that all equities are subjected to as well. This allowed a steady stream of revenue to flow in top capital coffers.
As well, today ,times are different and as costs have risen, particularly in light of 9/11, as evidenced by the events of Boston.
the conservatives are ahead of the game in that the decisions in 2008-09 have served them well to be able to meet these challenges head on.
Yes, there is a deficit, again, this was fallout from 08-09, however, the cuts are NOT to health and education or defense. they are focused on ares, as I previously mentioned , that do the least amount of damage to Canadians.
Gracious of you, peter.
“[Pierre Trudeau] was not as well a respected leader say as Thatcher, Reagan and the like.”
Mmmmm seriously debatable. For what it’s worth, highly respected Nobel laureate in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz, traces the economic troubles and deep divisions in society today to Reaganism, and by implication to Thatcherism (see The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, Norton, 2012). Reagan and Thatcher are of course idols of Stephen Harper, whose Conservatives credit Thatcher with “saving Canadian conservatism.” Go figure what conservatism is doing for the widening gap between have and have-not in Canada today, not to mention child poverty and the marginalized such as Aboriginal youth.
As to your less-than-kind take on Justin Trudeau’s credentials as leader, specifically on his having been a camp counsellor, check out the link below:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/why-being-a-camp-counsellor-is-great-training-for-becoming-a-prime-minister/article11428334/
Consider also, peter, for the record: One of Pierre Trudeau’s most respected fellow leaders, Peter Lougheed, had significant cause to denigrate Trudeau, yet beyond their differences respected him greatly. How’s that for a tribute to both men, by common consent (nitpickers excepted) two great Canadians.
@ PJ
Without a doubt trudeau is one of the most intelligent men of his time. He was also surrounded by “extremely experienced and very savvy politicians”, one, I knew personally, Bryce Mackassey. However, being a P.M. is not just about being intellingent.
His total lack of respect for Alberta and the oil industry illustrates that. Peter Lougheed was a gracious and extremely able western leader. He, as well, recognized that trudeau was no fool. However, nor was Lougheed. Peter Lougheed was also an economic master for Albertans. the management of the Alberta oil industry, the Heritage fund to name but two examples.
He knew the value of economic stability and growth. He as well , knew that financial and economic health of any province ,and by extension, country was paramount to success. Motivation to succeed breeds success and is tatamount to good economic health.
trudeau, never, shared this view. regardless of what Mr. Stiglitz believes. Mr. Stinglitz never ran a country. That is the problem with academics, they operate in theory, but the real world operates in reality, something that is very foreign to academics.
I was ower an part owner of three different businesses and a full owner of another business. I know from personal experience, that there is a world of diffeence betweem theory and practicality
As for the downtrodden, I came from Point Saint Charles in Montreal. After my dad died , my mother brought me up on $96.00 per month. I achieved three degrees including a master’s.
I also was successful in business. Of the 28 grade 7 students that
graduated with me, almost all were successful. All were from poverty. there was NO UNEMPLOYMENT, NO WELFARE, NO JOB FAIRS NO PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT.
Government was NOT OUR MOTHER AND FATHER
Today, governments take the hits when people fall on economic hard times. How about people taking some responsibility , instead of yelling at the top of their lungs for more rights.
Today, there are more speciality schools than ever before. Today there are community colleges that never existed in my day. today, welfare and employment ,act as supposded safety nets, but many people choose to use these social assistance venues for dependance of income for a lifetime. We never had these in my day .Today have more services, more access to social assistance and more availablility to a variety of educational and training institutions, that at any time in our history. There are simply no excuses.
Middle class Canadians, mainly because of very liberal tax laws and economic incompetence, are footing an enormous bill for these services. We pay for nonsense like wind mills . In Ontario they generate a mere 4% of Ontario’s power.Yet cost billions and billions to support and operate. We support and fund power plants in Mississauga and oakville, to the tune of 1.4 billion and are now deemed unuseable. we engaged in an e health boondoggle that sucked up another 2 billion in waste.
Tell me, PJ how many MRI’S could we have purchased? How many hospital waiting times could have been reduced if this money was made available to our health system ?
These are but a very few examples. Why there are currently 4 million Ontarion old red and white health cards still floating around and BEING USED BY PEOPLE. These have NO PHOTO ID’S
What is cost there. people using health cards and we have no way of knowing if they are even entilted to use these cards. How much is this costing ?? Millions if not billions.
So, PJ maybe this wastful spending could be rechannelled into people who actually need the money. When Mike Harris tried to address these issues, he was chastised, and berated for trying to put our finances in order. He addressed the hard issues that needed addressing. liberals and socialists crusified him.
As for youung turdeau, he is surrounded by the likes of Bob Rae, a failed politician, Gereard Kennedy, another failed politician and the like. At, least his father, had intelligance, and a little experience as well as surrounding himself with one of the most successful and respected tems in politics.
Congratulations, peter, on your three degrees, your business achievements, and 33 years in teaching. After all that learning and all that success, arrival at a pantheon consisting of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Mike Harris and the Saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper! While the likes of Joseph Stigliz, Nobel laureate, both “trudeaus” (sic), Bob Rae (a distinguished life in public service) are dismissed or consigned to outer darkness. Amazing, peter! Truly amazing.
Good morning, peter. Three questions to leave with you:
1) Why such hostility towards the politics of fairness?
2) Why the persistent discourtesy in misspelling the name “trudeau” thus, when you have no problem spelling the names of others correctly?
3) What is a university education for if not to open one’s mind?
So long and good luck.
When a man, any man, uses the system to promote an agenda, that effectivly discriminates against the majority, and does it in a sneaky and vile manner, he looses my respect.
During trudeau’s years, we were fed a diet that consisted of fairness to all and to give the french the respect they deserved.
However, in REALITY, it was to gain control of the country by the francophones. The transition, from “wherever numbers warrent ” to french, only, English need not apply has been with us for years.
To enshrine the charter and the notwithstanding clause into our constitution was the beginning of the end. It afforded minorities , majority status. it virtually allowed provinces to legally pass discriminatory laws ( Bill 101 and possibly bill 14)
IN a free and democrastic society , it is the will of the majority that rules, not the other way around.
It is only now, that the English in this country are starting to realize they have been HAD? A full 65% of federal positions are francophone, There are only 25% francophones in Canada , and of that number 96% are from quebec.
AS for the aformentioned personalities, Mr. Stiglitz, to the best of my knowledge has never been in public life. His background and achievements , impresive. However, I simply cannot accept his word as being the last word on the subject. Especially, when he has no direct experience in being in governement.
Bob Rae to you, might have had a distinguised life in politics, but my understanding, is that politicians ,are to be first and foremost servants of the people. They are not there to distinguish themselves to me, you or anyone else. Bob Rae, failed as a primiers of Ontario, and failed miserably. How that transaltes into soneone being distinguised is beyond me. Certainly he is to be respected, and I am sure he , in other areas of his life has beeen successful. But he is not someone I would compare to Gerard Pellitier, Jean Marchard , Senator Keith Davy and the like , that trudeau surrounded himself with. These were seasoned and successful men of politics that trudeau was comfortable with and heavily relied on, they were also not only distinguised, but extremely successful. There is simply no comparsion to them and Bob Rae.
My references to Thatcher, Reagen and Mike harris, are only to illustrate that these people werer successful and dealt with economic issues that needed attention and very strong personalities in order to make extremely tough decisions, when these decisions had to BE MADE. By no means are they gods, or the be all and end all, however, they were not afraid to do what was necessary for the greater good, during their times in office.
I also , applauded Chretien and Martin for taking the initiatives thay did in 1993-95. However, It is my contention, that generally, liberal governments, are far more loose and irresponsible with waste and taxpayers `money than are conservatives. Not always , but generally. Theyb have a far more respect for people who work day in and day out to keep this country afloat.
I cam from poverty, I know what it is like to be poor. I am not anything special, by any means, but I also know , that when governments promote social policies that are failures from day one, the incentives to succeed and work , in many people are lost.
Yes, people need help. yes, they need a leg up, we all do. but help, shpuld not be in the form of permenant handouts, unless justified. WE should also hold governments to account for how our money is spent. Wind, mills, e-health and the like are wastes we cannot afford. Yet they continue unchecked.
It is my take that overall, the conservatives are more responsible, not perfect , but to me more responsible. I am also not happy with ignoring the plight of 1 million anglophones in quebec that have lost their right to freedom of expression,. Parties of all political stripes ignored and continue to ignore this, Canada`s dirty little secret.
@ PJ
PJ’ , MY son`s nickname by the way.
In my last post I know if I answered your question concerning trudeau, but not questions 1 and 3. Apologies.
Your question concerns hostility. I am not hostile, I may come across as such to you, but I am not.
However, when as I previously stated when 1 million anglophones in quebec are shunned, this upsets me. When language laws in Canada are permitted such as bill 101 and possibly 14, I get upset. Both of these laws are discriminatory and racist.
BTW: these laws could only have come about by trudeau doing what he did in 1982. When monies are spent that incur waste and abuse, I get upset. All Canadians should.Please name the politicians of fairness you refer to, I would really want to hear who they are. Please define fairness as well.
question 3
it is your opinion that I don`t have an open mind. Fair enough. However, I was once a liberal supporter. I believed in trudeau`s vision. I believed in fairness. In short I was dupped. All he siad was , to be kind, I`ll say,inaccurate, to be truthful, a lie.
Look at history, here.
What other western nation has the LEGALLY discriminatory laws on its books
What other western nation has language cops
What other western nations encourages its people to squeal on honest hard working citizens that use English in business
I can go on for eons about this, but i think you get my point.
I have listened and evaluated both sides of arguments for decades, perhaps it is YOU that should take an honest look at where I am comming from, and be as open minded as I am.
Fighting for my rights and being honest, is not the definition of a closed mind. I beleive I have suppoted my arguments with fact and an opinion based on fact.
BYW: I am not politically correct and do not believe in fudging issues. I am not afraid to call it as I see it. NO BS, if you will, but don`t confuse this for hositility, but rather take it for what it is: HONESTY
Before I inject my “hopeful to learn” 2 cents worth (and that very well MAY BE – ALL – it’s worth) post, i begin by saying, “great posts to both you PJ and you Peter.”
————–
@PJ Robertson
I am on a quest…
My quest stems from being a natural born and raised Liberal but now faced with having to learn how to deal with my present day dilemma.
You mention the following people.
— Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Mike Harris and the “Saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper” (though I realize you were being facetious, I would like to put on record that — I — WOULD NOT label him as Savior of Canada either)
For the most part, I believe we are on the same page.
Thatcher – basically threw the burden of England’s woes on the poor as they were made to pay for the restructuring.
Reagan – A menace with his “trickle down economics” (which we all know DOES NOT WORK and has been proven to NOT WORK) yet, there are still many — mainly the rich of course — who point to this as THEEE answer.
Harris – who basically gutted the province and was responsible for more problems (both socially and economically) than we can add up, even to this day..
Harper – who treats Canada’s legislature with little respect (proroguing, handing investigators redacted documents or worse yet, refusing to hand over documents at all). VERY American style which bothers Canadians.
It seems to me that even though, for the most part, one side can indeed be dismissed in the manor you elude to, this DOES NOT automatically present the opposite side as being laden with multitudes of personalities that are deemed to hold the high ground of so called,
“politics of fairness”
“Nobel laureates”
and or, of having had “a distinguished life in public service.”
Speaking of fairness, A leader who glibly laughs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suZSmbMah5k&hd=1
at the notion that the majority 5 out of 6 Canadians in this country who are actually being held back from holding highly sought after public positions within their own government for the insane reason that is given DOES NOT seem like the type of person that is deserving of “distinguished life in public service” attached to him.
If he were being asked something regarding the French people or the French culture and he laughed glibly like this YOU CAN BE SURE the French would have filled the airwaves and your “distinguished life in public service” label would be attacked to no end.
You mention Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as being, “a great Canadian.”
A Great Canadian?
When I was 12, I believed this but, then again, I was 12.
Like many Canadians at that time, I was caught up in the Trudeau mania as well. But again, like I said, in my case, my excuse was — I was 12.
Since then, I have come to learn a great many things and yes, I can now contend that Trudeau was indeed a brilliant strategist. Of this, I will give him full credit, as this is of little doubt especially given the legacy we see spreading across this country today but…
Here we have a man who persistently spent much of his political life planning against, and WORKING in opposition to the BETTER INTERESTS OF THE 80% MAJORITY ANGLOPHONES IN THIS COUNTRY while pretending he was doing things to benefit ALL Canadians.
Just as Marois claims to be working for the benefit of ALL Quebecers you can be sure there is NOT MUCH concern by either individual for anyone that IS NOT French.
With Trudeau SR., I can discern a ghostly extension of a transcended general from the battle on the plains of Abraham who’s concept was to re-write the historical Anglophone victory (fact) and turn it into a French victory but only 2 hundred and some odd years later. Finally enabling the switch from “Je me souviens” to “See, we told you we would never forget and eventually TAKE IT BACK.” A phenomena that is happening in this country AS WE SPEAK.
Trudeau…
Yup, a “great thinker, strategist and planner” this is certain, but NOT a great Canadian unless of course, the Canada you envision is the Canada which was envisioned by Trudeau Sr. as a totally French dominant Canada
Don’t get me wrong. I (and I believe MOST Anglophones in this country) truly believed there was and could have been a legitimate place in this country for the French, “a collaborative union”, shall we call it? But, the Anglophones have now come to resent “the overstretch” and having things (language and culture) forced down their throats in the way we see happening today.
Thus, I considering myself to be but — only one — of the multitude of Anglophone majority of this country who prefer to think of Trudeau Sr. snubly as perhaps a “great Quebecer”, or maybe “a great — French — Canadian” who’s only care regarding English Canadians was limited to him being the instrument of their demise and ultimately seeing to it (granted, posthumously) that, by setting the stage which he had indeed set, they (the English) would ultimately end up subservient to “HIS KIND”… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-v_m7h5kts&hd=1
And this, my fellow Anglophone Canadians is VERY likely how Trudeau Jr. feels about this as well…
Which was clearly demonstrated recently when he was sure to address “his kind” – THE FRENCH – viewing audience in FRENCH FIRST in order to send the CLEAR message that he is indeed an extension of his father AND thus, IS indeed — ONE OF THEM —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q9OT-OkjKM&hd=1
Now, being 50% Anglo and 50% French myself, I am aware of (shall we call them) the “sentiments” on both sides of this.
And, I can honestly say, with much certainty, that things like this are more often than not somewhat inconsequential to the Anglophone side.
But, to the French…
These types of “FIRSTS” are MONUMENTALLY important. And are very much viewed as a STRONG and IMPORTANT MESSAGES, both to them introspectively, as a community, and also “FROM THEM” as a projection outwards and ONTO the people of the country as a whole as well…
And thus, the absolute reason WHY this was NO DOUBT purposefully orchestrated in EXACTLY the way THAT IT WAS.
What’s even more of a slap in the face is that the Canadian media used trickery on the English Liberal voters in this country in order to save face as they “erroneously” presented —
the new Liberal savior leader (or should I refer to him as “Nobel laureate”)
— while uttering his so called, “FIRSTS” in the house of commons as if they were actually in ENGLISH FIRST when in FACT — THEY WERE NOT — They were actually in FRENCH FIRST (as you can clearly see in the clip)
IMPORTANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE to the French base, don’t_cha_know..
So PJ, aside from some hope that — A completely NEW — Liberal minded party comes along with those Liberal values that many Anglophone Canadians cherish so much, but IS also A LIBERAL PARTY that is NOT hell bent on (like Trudeau Jr.) catering to, and “holding to higher value” the minority French culture and language in this country
what are these Liberal minded people like myself, those who dislike the American style Stephen Harper path, but at the same time are COMPLETELY fed up with seeing the English culture and English language MORE AND MORE placed in second class status each and every time the Liberal party (that’s Liberal with the French accent on the “e” Liberal) https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-ER99jxZtgjY/UVm5BU_bQRI/AAAAAAAAAeI/99gdr9W31mY/s620/Liberal+-+accent.jpg
that we have now gets it’s grips on power in this country?
That “coy placement” of the flag in place of the accent is another thing that is insulting to the Anglophones BTW.
SO, THE QUESTION IS…
WHAT are the Anglophone Liberal minded people TO DO ?
Keep voting against our best interests and keep allowing our majority tax dollars to go towards this “dream” till the day finally comes that we are ALL working in the government and in ALL private employment services from coast to coast of Canada while happily speaking French yet knowing we kept the American style Conservatives like Harpers away and at bay?
NOTE:
If this “dream” were to have happened without force, — MAYBE — (don’t get excited… I said “MAYBE”) but… Considering the the deceptive outrageous manor this has been attained till now, I’m definitely — OUT —
And, I believe i speak for MANY Canadians when i say, they are — OUT — also.
_____\||/
_____(o o)
—-ooO-(_)-Ooo——-
@ edudyorlik
It seems to me, when one responds to PJ and his views, if it does not correspond to his beliefs and his way of thinking, I, anyway, am branded as hostile.
PJ, I notice, made no reference at all to the injustices I brought up, particularly when it concerns 1 million anglos and the racist and discriminatory laws of bill 101 and possibly bill 14 I wonder why that is ?
He also has no comment of the fact that trudeau had a major role in this in 1982, when he incorporated the charter into the constitution. This in effect gave all minorities the power of the majority and underminded the very fundmentals of democracy. Again, PJ ducked and refrained from answering, instead referring to DR. J. Stiglitz.
I also pointed out the WHY I lost respect for trudeau. again, he did not respond, only to say my mind is closed.
Again, why are there no answers to straight forward concerns that exist today.
Everyone DUCKS the language inequalities in this country except us. WHY??? If anything, if these people are truly in the camp of fairness, they would be bending over backwards to rights these wrongs. But, on the contrary, they run in the opposite direction, and accuse me of being hostile and close mindedness.
@ edudyorlik
It never ceases to amaze me, how people like Mr. P.J, Robertson claim to stand up for fairness, yet can simply ignore the plight and abusive treatment of the Anglo quebeckers, and the victims of forced bilingualim, code for french only.
I am accused of being hostile, when all I am saying is the truth. People who do not get upset with the above isses either do not care or are just palin ignorant of the current laws and status of the English in Canada.
trudeau was responsible for much of this. the charter, the notwithstanding clause, have all had a detrimental impact and negative consequences on English Canadians, as you well know.
He gets upset when I choose not capitalize trudeau’s name. well, I am upset that Mr. trudeau lied to us all from the time he got elected in 1968 to the time he left office in 1982. respect is earned not freely given, nor should it be.
PJ , has ignored my concerns for the English. He has ignored my responses to hostility, mistaking hostilty for jusfifiable honesty.
He seems to think that Bob Rae, is in the same league of advisors as Keith davy, Jean Marchand, Pelliter, and the like. He also, fails to remember, that it was Lester B. Pearson who was pushing for trudeau. JT is being pushed by Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy.
There is simply no comparsions to be made.
As for Dr. Stigliz, well, as brilliant as his, he is first and foremost an academic, not a political leader, not a politician and certainly not in a position to dismiss all that was in favor of untested and questionable theories. In short he is an ecomonic advisor.
@edudyorlick
Thank you for your kind words.
Your question is welcome and timely, as it gets us back to the original question for this thread: “What issues would trigger a Canadian to actually vote?”
Your quandary as a “liberal-minded voter”–to vote or not to vote, for which party and for what reason–is very understandable, and I would guess shared by milions of Canadians, especially those who did not vote in 2011.
It sounds as if you have already rulled out the Harper Conservatives because of their American style of politics, as you diplomatically put it.
Which party then and for what reason? In an ideal world with an ideal electoral system. I’d say any one of the three opposition parties, with the clear one-time objective of defeating Harper—as Joyce Murray was advocating.
Since the system is imperfect, which party then and for what? Which of the three–Green, Liberal, NDP– has the best chance of ousting Harper? I think we can rule out the Greens. The don’t have the numbers. (I must add that I find Elizabeth May’s positions on the big issues of the day intelligent, balanced and very well articulated.)
That leaves the NDP and the Liberals. The NDP stand for social justice–very attractive to a liberal mind– and with Mulcair are trying to take over the ground left of centre traditionally held by the Liberals. Mulcair himself is impressive, experienced, and won’t take any nonsense from Harper. And the NDP did so well last time out, particularly in Quebec. However, there are already question marks around Mulcair’s attitude to the Clarity Act and cosying up to the Separatists; also about Mulcair’s short fuse. So, if next time there’s an NDP meltdown in Quebec, where would the votes go?
Another question mark: the NDP have never been tested in government in Ottawa.
The Liberals? A shadow of themselves with a new, untested leader. Where can they go but up? Unless they fumble the ball completely and disappear. What do they stand for? What reason to vote for them? No platform as yet. And yet, if one paid attention to their recent leadership campaign, two things in particular struck me as important: one was the message of inclusiveness the campaign itself represented, the other was and is the new leader’s emphasis on “community service.” I think both messages already resonate with Canadians. Community service is quintessentially Canadian, for many reasons not least because our climate compels us to pull together to get through long winters and make the most of short summers.
Inclusiveness and community service. When you think about it, both are very attractive alternatives to the relentless negativity and divisiveness of the Harper Conservatives, who therefore appear fundamentally out of touch with Canadian reality. (You will have noticed that news of the cyberbullying of Rehtaeh Parsons and its tragic outcome came out pretty much at the same time as the latest Conservative “attack ads” –in both cases images on a screen attacking a person. And Canadians have been connecting the dots and seeing that their government is led by a bully.)
Ah, but does Justin Trudeau have what it takes to deliver for the Liberals? Early days; we’ll see. Easy to underestimate his credentials as teacher and camp counsellor. Those who scoff at his having been a camp counsellor evidently haven’t given a thought to the challenges a camp counsellor faces 24/7 and the skills he/she needs to meet them. Likewise a teacher. (The Globe & Mail ran a piece on this a couple of days ago. Here’s the link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/why-being-a-camp-counsellor-is-great-training-for-becoming-prime-minister/article11428334/)
A final point: Which of the two parties–Liberal and NDP–has the greater bench strength? I would say the Liberals, and that Justin Trudeau has people around him who are seasoned and well tested in government such as, Ralph Goodale, Scott Bryson, Carolyn Bennett and John MacCallum.
That’s how I see things today. Helpful I hope.
Thanks for your question.
@ edudyorlik
What again, is JT going to do for the English in quebec and is he going to be onside with FORCED BILINGUALISM in Ontario ?
Answers: nothing and yes.
A wonderful flowery, don’t worry be happy assessment by PJ.
If P.J. knows anything, he should know that politics is a BLOOD SPORT. He talks of bullying, yet he conveniently omits trudeau sr.’s giving the finger to westerners on a train as the train was leaving the station. That’s a bully. How about trudeau’s “fuddle duddle” in the house of commons ? Was that not bullying PJ ?
Not ot mention disrespecting parliament and the people of Canada.
Harper, has not come close to that, not even in the same ball park . Yet, PJ refers to him as a bully. You know PJ , people like you, who do not live in the real world, you are appaled at political realtiy. Its a rough and tumble sport. Some say a blood sport.It always has been. Look at your hero trudeau sr. , most are like that. look at chretien and paul martin, talk about bullies, and you say Harper is in that league, gimmie a break .
edudyorlik, Mulcair, is a closet separatist. he advocated that bill 101 be extended to incude all federal offices in quebec regarding languiage laws. So that one MUST speak french ONLY at federal institutions, and advocted that English be dropped as an option ,in quebec altogether.
He is very, very dangerous, and sits among many separatists, very young and impressionable, they remind me of the academics that live in la -la land.
I don’t believe that Harper in engulfed in American style politics, particularly extreme right wing U.S. politics. That brand , even in the U.S. is rapidly faltering, as most extremists views do. The tea party is on the decline. Even Eric Cantor, one of its most formidiable proponents is easing up.
Harper is right of Mulroney, but not as far right as Harris. He has steadied the ship, economically, which we desparately needed.
Yes there is a deficit, but there was also 2008-09 and the world financial collapse, which we came out of in excellent shape thanks to Harper and Mark Carney. He has toughened up on crime, again this is what we needed. He is also tough on terrorists. We have made arrests and have prosecuted people trying to harm us. This was all under Harper. I shun to think how the Toronto 18 or the most recent terrorists the ones planning to blow up a via rail trian would be coddolded by JT.
He would want to know the cause of these poor people`s anguish that led them to try such a thing. While real real Canadians are under threat of death, he would be analyzing the theory behind it, instead of protecting the people these bombs could potentially kill. Bot that;s a comfort.
To compare the incident with the Parsons bullying fiasco is a disgrace. Harper, was the politican that got the N.S. primiers ,Brad Dexter, off his duff to actually pass legislation to address bullying To compare this to the JT arttack ads is below the belt and typical of liberal sneakiness and underhandedness.
In short ,a cheap shot PJ. but you guys play nice ,right.
Harper was also the P.M. that invited the Parsons family to Ottawa to talk directly to them and hear their plan and listen to suggestions as to how to deal with this horrible crime. PJ has taken a very somber and heart warming moment and politicized it. Shame. sir shame.
edudyorlik, as much as Harper is not perfect, he is the best ,as I said previously of a very bad lot. , I really don`t believe he is of the Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter fringe, there are too many soft conservatives for that to even happen.
To sum up ;
JT: Young , inexperienced, weak on terrorism,soft on crime lives in a dream world.
MulCair: Dangerous, hot tempered, separatist and very pro french and pro quebec . Won`t last another term as oppostiion leader.
Harper: Steady, willing to tackle tough decisions, economically sound, tough on crime, tough on terrorism extremely intelligent.
has a well rounded team of disiciplined ministers and is no nonsense when it comes to nonsense.
Food for thought edudyorlik.
@peter
Jeffrey Simpson’s column in today’s Globe and Mail:
“Our money for attack ads—how low can the Harper Conservatives go?”
In last Saturday’s Globe and Mail, April 20th, 2013, “Talking Point” featured a block of letters relating cyberbullying in the case of Rehtaeh Parsons to Mr. Harper’s bullying attitudes.
How low and silly can your posts get?
Well, thank you both Peter and PJ for that info.
Here is my take on it…
My dilemma (and i believe this is also the dilemma of MANY “thinking” Canadians) still remains —
—-
(and by “thinking Canadians” I mean those other than the young (mostly female) voters who are going to vote for Trudeau JUST because he’s cute. Of course they will say that it’s more than that but, when pressed, their answers — if given serious consideration — will still come to show that “the cute” element is “IT” In the end)
—-
— such that the Liberals offer a social, moral and ethical frame work that is closer to what i believe in as a more Canadian ideal. IE: (a short example) i believe it is smarter and MUCH more ethical, moral, socially progressive, and also economically viable to deal with “petty crime” in ways that tackle the root cause (poverty, lack of hope, social and financial instability etc) than to simply build more prisons at enormous cost and throw all those terrible pot smokers and men (usually) who are simply behind on their support payments behind bars at 60 to 80 thousand dollars per year per “hardened criminal/person.”
I really don’t want to get to the “full fledged” nitty gritty of “the why” i believe the Liberal concept is better because that is “book writing material” and to be honest, i couldn’t be bothered arguing that side of things. Let’s just say there is a HUGE difference between how Liberals think and how Conservatives think and to me — and MANY Canadians — (and, I know this will sound odd but) the Liberals, in many ways, are MUCH MORE “progressive” and forward thinking 🙂
That doesn’t mean I am 100% for the Liberals but, it DOES MEAN that when I see stuff like this
“the world financial collapse, which we came out of in excellent shape thanks to Harper and Mark Carney.”
which attempts to discredit the Liberals and prop up the Conservatives, I am obliged to present the fact that it was ACTUALLY Liberal policies, for the most part, that were already in place well before the Conservatives came to power which were ACTUALLY MOSTLY responsible for the reason why “Canada came out of the world financial collapse in such excellent shape.
As a matter of fact, just before the financial collapse happened and before anyone knew it was coming the Conservatives tried to make changes to the banking laws to allow the banks to merge and be MORE LIKE the American banks in terms of buying up smaller banks having more lax rules and so on. This was kyboshed by the Liberals and thank goodness because had the conservatives gotten their way, Canada’s banks would have been MUCH MORE vulnerable when the world collapse did happen.
By the same token (to be fair to both sides) I am not 100% up for how the Liberals treated this situation.
now that the “black economic clouds” have cleared and Canada has came out in decent shape the Liberals are the first ones pointing the finger saying look at the debt we’re now in YET they are the VERY ONES that were yelling the loudest at the time for the government of the day (the Conservatives) to spend, spend, spend.
It’s just ridiculous. The fact is, the government of the day (as ANY government of the day would have had to) just HAD to use stimulus and go into debt because that was the THING that “just needed to be done” in THAT particular situation. EVERY economist would tell you that, and DID so.
For the Libs to be the loudest saying spend spend, spend, and then try to blame the conservatives after the fact for doing exactly that is well, you know.
As for the NDP… Don’t even get me going with the NDP and all those separatists among them (not to mention their former card carrying separatist leader.)
If this group were brought into power in this country it wouldn’t be very long before they realized that they no longer must to separate as they could simply just go ahead and USE ALL THE POWER of being IN POWER to hand over MUCH more of this countries POWER to the French.
Shesh.. that was a handful/mouthful… 🙂 if you think the Liberals are bad with doing that now. whoa…
So, to me (right now) the important issue THAT NEEDS IMMEDIATE ADDRESSING is this Frenchification of Canada and the fact that the “French fact” (however people wish to define that) is taking advantage of the Anglophone majority in this country through the use of the laws and other elements that were put in place by Pierre Elliot Trudeau over 35 years ago.
These laws and programs have evolved and have allowed the “French fact” to have an EXTREME amount of exponentially increasing power – both financially and legally — in this country to the point where we can NOW actually statistically prove how negative detrimental all of this is becoming to the Anglophone population in many areas.
I mean c’mon, all one has to do is honestly and realistically look at how insane it is that we have come to a point in this country where by (whether through attrition, stupidity or just a plain and simple out of this world level of complacency) the Anglophone MAJORITY has chosen to idly sit by and allow the Prime Minister and ALL other leaders and top MP’s (and MPP’s) of this country to — ONLY — be chosen from a select number consisting of ONLY the 17% minority group of so called bilingual citizens within this country, thus COMPLETELY eliminating and disenfranchising the majority 80% NON French and Non bilingual people from even considering that they could hold these positions of prestige and high importance without being FORCED to HAVE TO LEARN French as a requisite.
Just have a look at the yellow highlighted area. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-_FYWN22JNrk/UXw5jflPBrI/AAAAAAAAAfg/o7xTbuvA5x8/w765-h398/Population+-+Language+stats+2011.png
Were talking “a French ONLY” population with numbers below 1% in MOST areas of this country with most numbers in the 0.1 and 0.3 % range yet we spend billions on this? WHY?
And in some cases we can’t even trust the numbers
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-T3-iPKg_kxs/UU_yeHC0lmI/AAAAAAAAAd0/8ZVU4eVluwo/w897-h770/Macleans+-+reporting+about+Ottawa+citizen+article+re-+census.png
even if we wanted to TRY to use the – supposedly more fair – “where numbers warrant” concept.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with the French people, the French culture or the French language BUT, THAT DOES NOT mean we must sit by and allow the English people, the English language and English culture to be pushed aside and marginalized in this COMPLETELY inequitable manner just to prove the afore mentioned concept.
If you want examples of how the Anglophones are being marginalized just look at Vanier Ontario,
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-D7CTlGmpSJA/UXxE6qFqhAI/AAAAAAAAAf0/ySzXUFmQvKo/w205-h1047/Vanier+group+asks+for+bilingual+policing.jpg
Rockland https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-A8pHCX5u0Yc/UHhYlj7YskI/AAAAAAAAAJM/wKRRRHPuKvw/w603-h567/French+Rockland.jpg
and even the university of Ottawa where the code word is “bilingual” but everyone knows this means French DOMINANT OR ONLY https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4OmXO_ICwrw/UTYZJhZl_YI/AAAAAAAAAcw/rQe54ehLtu8/w247-h498/University+of+Ottawa+-French+dominant.bmp
Just as the French have done over the years in the province of Quebec, the English in the ROC have a right and they also HAVE A DUTY to stand up for their RIGHTS as well.
To wrap up, I would say, the best option for Canada right now would be a new “Liberals type party” that would do away with the financial burden and social divisiveness of official bilingualism while standing up for the English language and English culture with the same resolve that the French stand up for and protect the French language and culture in the “country/nation” of Quebec.
The 80 % Anglophone majority does NOT NEED a party (that is supposed to represent ALL Canadians) which uses the Canadian flag
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ER99jxZtgjY/UVm5BU_bQRI/AAAAAAAAAeI/99gdr9W31mY/w620-h349/Liberal+-+accent.jpg
as a disguise for the French accent on letter “e” in the word Liberal in order to fulfill the needs of the 17 % minority French to see such a thing there in order to make them feel warm and fuzzy about this party.
Although the accent on the “e” may very well be a minor detail, those kinds of things — mean a lot — to the French as it gives them a sense of authority or “one upness.” This is a French trait that the English just don’t understand and likely NEVER will but, to the French it things like this DO HAVE meaning and RESONANCE.
It is COMPLETELY WITHOUT LOGIC for the majority Anglophones in this “country” to allow the Francophone minority to rule things in such a way so as to declare such things like French to be the ONLY official language in the “nation of Quebec” while AT THE VERY SAME MOMENT IN TIME bowing to the idea that Francophones can demand that the rest of Canada be totally bilingual.
And last but not least. Allowing the “province” of Quebec to act like it is a country with it’s own embassies (paid for by Canadian tax payers) around the world while ALSO accepting billions of Canadian tax payer transfer payments (in French only as was recently declared) AS IFD IT WERE JUST A PROVINCE.
Which one is it Quebec? Are you a province or An independent COUNTRY/ NATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_iPTIh-WI&hd=1
My hope is that some leader shows up REAL SOON that can and will bring together ALL of us Liberal minded people who are fed up with this Frenchification and unfair blatant in your face, “we will do away withy English language and culture while we force ALL CANADIANS to accept French everywhere else in Canada” kind of beyond reason insanity.
In absence of a new leader and a new “liberal like” party (which hopefully shall come soon)
the “hold your nose” and “just do it” only option is the Conservatives (RIGHT NOW).
PS:
PJ, If it’s “our money” (which i assume you mean Canadian tax payers money) you’re concerned about then ridding this country of official bilingualism and the tons of money WE ALL pay for French rights type groups that are forcing the “French fact” down our throats would be a MUCH better place to start.
@ PJ
Jeffrey Simpson is not the be all and end all in Canadian politics.
I guess his is to you. If he is your source for credible infoprmation, then that is sad,. sir.
AS for letters, they are disgusting as you trying to associate this girls’ death to these political ads, that are just not in the same ball park as that girls’ suicide. You sir should be ashamed.
Like your post, these letters are cheap shots. I haven’t seen you mention that it was Harper that pressured Brad Dexter to actually legislate action to address bullying. Why is that PJ??
I also haven’t seen Mr. Simpson allude to that fact either. Nor the letter writers.
What they have done, is to politicize this tragic event. So, please no more of your spin referencing Jeffrey Simpson, and a stack of letters and think for one moment we do not see through this sad deception and very weak attempt at political spin. Its sickening to even compare the two.
Harper, “met with the parents”, directly “influenced a premier to put in legislation to ADDRESS bullying”. His attack ads are within the realm of the political arena and they are legal. To compare them to the Parsons case is by anyone’s standards of decency vile and disgusting. I guess when one is out of ammunation, desparation sets in and anything goes.
It would be nice, instead of focusing on legal attack ads, you may want to give credit, where credit is due, and recognize that Harper, is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history, that is responsible for directly intervening in ensuring that cyberbulling is being dealt with through legislation. That he was also influencial in making this lagislation happen.
PJ ,I was born at night, but not LAST night. Sell this to someone who knows not the ways of the world and the ignorant, but don’t even think of trying to lay this on me.
As for the silliness of my posts, like Jeffery Simpson, I will defend to the death your right to be wrong and to be blinded by ignorance and the likes of jeffrey simpson and the exploitive letters that seem to grab all of you attention.
@edudyorlick
Very fairminded.
Re: the Liberals yelling “spend, spend, spend,” keep in mind this was after the Harper Conservatives had cut the GST twice as a blatant vote-getting ploy and frittered away the surplus they inherited from the Liberals …just as the recession kicked in! (Talk about Harper as economic genius!) So why did the Liberals urge spending? To kickstart an economy already depressed by the spendthrift Conservatives.
The eternal French question: complex and problematic, for sure. That said, I can’t see that Trudeau the younger with his Anglo-French heritage and his message of inclusiveness is going to exploit one side over the other. (The Conservative attack ad falsely attributes the statement “Quebecers are better” to him, when in fact it was made by his father.)
“Our money”–correct– means the taxpayers’ money. So the Harper Conservatives are using, and justifying using, our money to attack the new leader of another party. And we’re not even into an election! Hence Jeffrey Simpson’s point “How low can the Harper Conservatives go.”
On balance in an imperfect world, your choice of the Liberals, I agree, seems best.
@ edudyorlik
First of all, the chretien /martin cuts of the 1992-95 would have happened even if a conservative was at the helm. This is because Canada had NO CHOICE , it was cut or be bankrupt. This was also a CANADIAN BUDGETARY problem as opposed to a world financial crisis.
As well, economic times in the early 1990’s were improving , so it was easier to make these cuts, although many Canadians would disagree with that. The cuts were also made to health and education, where we could least afford it, instead of cutting in other areas, like the enviroment defense agriculture and the like.
As for liberal policies put in place during this time ( 1992-95),these had nothing whatever to do with how the conservatives handled 2008-09. Banking regualtions are formed from the Bank of Canada. They answer to the minister of finance. These regulations are flexible and adapt to the economic times and events of the day.
They have to be that way because no one truly knows when major change will happen. Wars, economic collaspe etc.
When Harper took over, in 2006, one of his priorities was to enable Canada, to stay the course on the economy.keep interst rates low, promote business and ensure monies available for both short and long terms loans. To that end, he and Mr. Carney looked at our system and formumlated measures that would control both personal and business debts, as well policies to give business incentives to succeed. Harper also has a master’s in economics to back up his policies and to be able to apply them in conjunction with Mark Carney. Another big plus.
When the financial crisis of 2008-09 took place, they had the funds and strategies in place to do the following:
1) keep interest rates low, for long periods
2) Through conservative policies , have monies available for loans to businesses in need and that were affected by the financial crisis.
3) Ensured that banks had enough capital on hand to prevent a run on the banks.
4) they supported GM and Chrysler, in conjunction with a QE policy to avoid job loss and collapse of the auto secor
5) They ( the conservatives) were instrumental in assuring the CAW that fair and equitable contacts be in place to further ensure ther would be no more job losses than necessary.
So. with martin and chretien, it was legislative cuts to budgets, with the conservatives it was long and short range POLICIES in conjunction with the Bank of Canada, that made possible the success we had in getting out of this crisis with the least damage.
Edudyorlik, I was a liberal. I believed in trudeau’s policies, until I discovered that his agenda was for the french to CONTROL Canada. AS the 80’s became the 90’s and then on into the 2000’s it became very clear to me I had been had. Especially when it came to bilingualim and the french . I also feel, that the last truly liberal government we had in Canada was Lester B.Pearson’s in 1967. It has been downhill ever since for me as far as the liberals are cconcerned.
I don’t agree with all conservative policy. I do agree with a very little of liberal policy. But as it stands now, there is not a hell of a lot of difference between the liberals and the NDP.
At least with the conservatives, they are a party I feel much more comfortable with. I do like their stance on crime and terror. Lester Pearson would too. I also believe they are far better able to manage the country’s finances than any other party, in spite of their deficit. Which BTW happened as a direct of world conditions, not specific conservative waste of spending.
In any event this is my take , but I whloeheartedly agree with you regarding the french and bilingualism, on that we are in 1000% agreement.
There was NO co-relation between the two events 1992-95 and 2008-09 . There were in fact , apples and oranges. the first a Canaadian budgetary issue, the second a world financial crisis issue.
Correction to my latest post:
“To kickstart an economy already depressed by the spendthrift Conservatives”.
It would be more accurate to say: To kickstart a depressed economy with the country already in deficit thanks to the spendthrift Conservatives.
@ PJ
Well if Jeffrey Simpson, says it, it must be true. After all, one reporter’s opinion right? Plus, a block of letters, supporting PJ ‘S views.
Fisrt off, the attack ads are in the political arena, and are LEGAL.
The Parsons case is not in the political arena, but a crime .
Politics, wheather PJ agrees or not is a blood sport, as all politicians know. They enter into politics fully aware of the tactics used by ALL political parties. Remember PJ, your hero, trudeau sr. and his giving the finger to ordinary people of the west at a train station? Or, how about trudeau and his fuddle -duddle episode in the House of Cammons ? This exhibited a total disrespect for parliament and the Canadian people. Are these incidents not prime examples of bullying PJ ?? Yes or No, sir ???
Comparing the Parsons case to the JT attack ads ,are nothing more than cheap shots, regardless of who does the comparing.
You, simpson and your deranged pens pals by making these comparsions, are cheap shot artists looking to politicize a very sad and horrible event . To do so, you all should be ashamed of yourselves, you have no compassion and no sense of moral integrity. You also have no heart for the victim and her family.
Why PJ, do you not give credit to Prime Minister Harper, for being the first Prime Minister in Canadian history to be directly influencial is getting Brad Dexter, the Premier of Nova Scotia to actually pass legislation to address and punish bullying ?
Why not give credit where credit is due ? Mr. harper, also invited the Parsons family to come to Ottawa , as parents, not for political gain but to hear and LISTEN to them. Why are you not addressing that PJ ????
Instead, you, Simpson and your pen pals concentrate on the negative ,tear down the man, who is trying his best to stop this crime, by having legislation enacted.
BYW: Where was JT in all of this, or MulCair ?? Not a word heard or sentence uttered, from either of them
@ Edudyorlik
I was a liberal supporter for years and years. When I found out that I had been taken for a ride by trudeau, I felt dupped and used. His plan for Canada to be controlled by the french is now clear. This I will never accept. His sneaky and vile manner in which he enshrined the charter into the constitution and his suckering in of all of us former liberals was the last straw.
You take on the chretien /martin budget of 1992–93 is not the same as the Harper policies , made in conjunction with Mark Carney and The Bank of Canada. these are apples and oranges.
In 1992-93 , wheather it was a liberal or conservative government in power, BUDGET CUTS had to be made, or Canada would have gone bankrupt. The cuts were legistlated into the Canadian budget. They were made as the economy of Canada was gradually getting healthier. However, the cuts they made, wre in health, education , which they cut to the bone. It would have made more sense to cut as well, more on the enviroment, defense and agriculture as well as foreign affairs. This at least would have put a cushion under Canadians that were suffering.
In 2008-09 , the crisis was a result of a global financial crisis. Harper worked to enact policies with Mark Carney to fend off the crisis. Keep in mind the Bank of Canada regualtions are made to be purposely flexible in order to meet chanage in world economic conditions. things like wars, depression and recession and the like.
The policies enacted by Harper, were the following and had NOTHING to do with 1992-93
1) Harper kept interest rates low
2) he provided short and long term business loans availabe by
ensuring banks were adaquetly capitalized
3) He instituted QE for all bank needs
4) he provided funding for the auto sector
5) he assured the CAW that job loss would be reduced as much as possible
6) He worked dilgently with the US to ensure the free flow of capital as per the NAFTA agreement.
7) He along with the bank of Canada ensured that enough money flowed through the Canadian banking system to ensure there would be no run on the banks.
So, I hope you see that what happened in 92-93 was a lot different from what happened in 2008-09,and Harper was instrumental in keeping Canada at the foefront and the envy of countries around the world, the way we addressed this crisis.
@PJ
PJ wrote, “On balance in an imperfect world, your choice of the Liberals, I agree, seems best”
I can see how you got confused with how I stated things PJ– MY BAD –
One thing I seem to have left out was that this new “Liberal like party” would NO LONGER cater to the French fact in this country. THAT WOULD BE A MUST.
And, if you look carefully you will NOTE that I said, “In the absence of a new leader and a new “liberal like” party (which hopefully shall come soon) the “hold your nose” and “just do it” only option is the Conservatives (RIGHT NOW).”
Yup, it clearly SAYS the choice as to what “seems best” right now would be … The big bad corporate buddy spending, jail building, jet plane buying CONSERVATIVES. Good ol big bad Harper
@Peter. I believe the cuts to health and education were based on one of the oldest political type tricks in the book. Purposely break something early on in order to be able to come along later and fix it just in time to look good for the upcoming election.
The concept was to cut the funds to these two areas and then just in time before the next election they would get “spend happy” and bring them back to health.
The problem however was that these two particular portfolios did not survive those initial cuts very well and have never (TO THIS DAY) been able return to health (pardon the not so pleasant pun). This is why we have been left with wait times upwards of 6 hours and an education system that is still trying to find it’s way.
Re: The Banking regulations. The ones I read about and had mentioned were the regulations and NOT the policies.
Regulations that govern whether banks can merge with each other and or take over one another etc etc.. These particular “regulations” ARE NOT policies, nor are they flexible.
@ peter
–“fuddle-duddle” and “giving the finger” = bullying?
So, profanity and bullying are one and the same? Gosh, peter, aren’t we all guilty of bullying, then…perhaps even you?
— Pierre Trudeau’s “disrespect for parliament and the Canadian people” [for saying fuddle-duddle and giving the finger]
And the Harper government as the first and only government in Canadian history to have been found by the Speaker to be in contempt of Parliament and by extension the Canadian people–no big deal?
–Mr. Harper commenting in Calgary on the Parsons case: “Bullying to me has a kind of connotation of kids misbehaving. What we are dealing with in some of these circumstances is is simply criminal activity. It is youth criminal activity.”
So according to our illustrious PM, bullying is what kids and youth do, and in some cases criminal–to be treated as a crime. And adults who intimidate and carry out personal attacks on others (such as opposition polticians, government scientists) aren’t bullying, aren’t criminal? Big disconnect, wouldn’t you say?
–“Mr harper also invited the Parsons family to come to Ottawa, as parents, not for political gain but to hear and LISTEN to them.” (sic)
I’d like to think so, peter. To listen and ACT, I would hope. Yet this is the same Mr. Harper who made a grand apology to First Nations Peoples some years ago for mistreating them in years past, who has pretty much ignored their appalling plight and concerns ever since, and snubbed Chief Spence earlier this year.
I’d like to think, too, peter, that Mr. Harper was/has been/is in some way connecting the dots between the cyberbullying of Ms Parsons and his own and his government’s aggressive behaviour towards others and its potential modelling effect on society at large.
–“you, simpson and your deranged pen pals … [are] cheap shot artists.”
Oh dear, peter, are you catching the attack-mode virus, too? Do you believe that assertion, excitable language and personal attack give you credibility? What’s happened to your better angel?
@ edudyorlik
I agree with you concerning your refererence to the oldest tricks in the book, regarding cutting in health and education. Again, a liberal tactic. You may also want to see that the increases in immigration from the 1970’s through to the late 1990’s , were directly propoortional to the increases in wait, times and health care costs. This dramatically increased our costs and service. remember trudeau opened up Canada to the world at Canadian taxpayers expense, a true socialist tactic. No wonder why castro loved him
While in business in Montreal from 1970-1989, there were many many immigrants who came to Canada ( many illegally as we are finding out today )and used one medicare card for a number of people, There were no photo ID`s then.This was also the case in most major Canadian metropolitian cities. It was common knowledge.
However, it was politicall INCORRECT to actually come out and question this, for fear of being labelled a racist. Please take that into account as well, when referring to wait time being upped to 6 hours. This was a HUGE contributing factor. It might well have cost us our health care syatem as we knew it. But, no one could say anything , or we were discouraged from talking about this topic.
There was talk of merging banks. However, this was quickly dismissed, when the Bank of Canada advised the government to scrap this idea, it never, ever, went beyond the drawing board.
The Bank of Canada answers to the minister of finance, but its policies are in sync with the government of the day. Canadian governments work in conjunction with the Bank of Canada. However, the banks advisors and experts are the best in the country. For example, they pointed out to the Harper government that permitting no taxation on income trust would be determinantal to the Canadian revenue system and would actually increase our deficit. This is why the minister of finance reversed his position and now taxes incomes trusts at the same capital gains rate that Canadians pay on all equities.
This is similar to how the policies and regualtions were formulated between Harper government and the Bank of Canada to ensure , that in tmes of financial crisis that we would as insulated as possible from these global financial crisis Yes there is a deficit, but it is being addressed. As for building
new jails, etc, well, where else do you put criminals Crime
is on the increase in some areas, and our system is constantly releasing prisoners early and this in many cases results in more crime. Plus we have the added factor of terrorists now planning attacks on Canadians , home grown lunatics. Yes it costs money.Everything does. But it hasn`t cost near the amount that we spend on bilingualism or forced biplingualism in this country ,not even close.Harper is also not doing what needs to be done with bilingualism. But at least he has made one inilingual appointment and many of his top advisors are from the west.
No, edudyorlik, the only solution, as I see, is quebec separation, it is time, and or the evolution of another Canadain party to repreaent the English in Canada
There are only so many times the English are going to be slapped in the face, before they slap back.
@ PJ
Nice try but no cigar here. First off, lets put the WORD bullying into proper context ,it is intimidation. Profanity can be intimidating, and so can swearing, given the context that it is ued in, and particulatly when the P.M. of a country uses in the country`s own house. Itis also classlesss. Absolutely.
Were you ever taught by the Christan brothers in school PJ.
Was the speaker in contempt of parliament É
If he was maybe he deserved Harper`s action, but this was in parliament where the BIG BOYS PLAY. NOT CHILDREN on the internet, where they can hide and not be held to account. ( Apologies PJ my question mark key is for some reason not working)
What Harper was saying was that in this case A DEATH OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THIS FORM OF BULLYING ,INTIMIDATION Is this NOT CRIMINAL sir, É
Yes there is a large disconnect when you are dealing with children as opposed to adults. Believe I know, I taught in the toughest schools in Canada.
Last time I looked no one in the house of Commons ever died as a result of intimidating behavour, personal attacks or the like sir. If so who was he or she É
AS for the first nations, people are always referencing their plight, regarding the issues they face. the federal government spends millions of dollars , monies that are given to the chiefs of the various first nations. The first nations crave autonomy, yet when they receive millions in tax payer dollars we have no way of controlling how those monies are spent . Who receives these funds and we have no jurisdiction to police these nations, we only send funds to support them.
Have you ever done a budget for a business PJ É I have many times, there is only so much in the till to go around. Every one wants more, more and more, . In the case of governments its the same. My problem is government waste, waste and waste , bilingualims, enviroment , ( wind mills and the like) cost millions and millions and produce very little if anthing.
I also totaly disagree with you comparing the Parsons case with government tactics, personal attacks and the like. That is pure nonsense.
What happened in the Parsons case resulted in DEATH, it was teenagers that were the participants. In government , we are dealing with adults who KNOW THE RULES of the game. it is not, nice ,maybe even ugly, but Canadians, understand this, they may not like it but they understand it. That is the REALITY of the TIMES WE LIVE IN sir.
Same in business, there are very .very heated moments. Please don`t get me stared there. I could write a book. But we all know the rules and no one dies. WE are NOT TEENAGERS .
That is the difference.
As well, as an educator, you should be well aware that adutls ,generally are far more capable of handling personal attacks and intimidation better than teenagers, or should be, that is why they are classified as adults.
In addition, there are crimes for slander and death in the adult world as a result of one`s actions. However, in cyberworld, until now, no such punishments were even on the books.
Mr. Harper was inflencial in changing that because he pushed to have these cyberbullies punished.
»Remember PJ, like it or not in the “real world“ ,politics and business is very often a BLOOD SPORT like it or not, but there are consequences for deaths, and now there are consequences in he cyberworld as well, Thanks Mr. Harper, for this,
Now about that bilingualism issue …………….
Thank you, peter.
I now have a clearer understanding of what John Stuart Mill may have had in mind when he said:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
@ PJ
So much for personal attacks ,sir, its nice to see you practice what you preach, sir, I hope that made you feel good and ,to quote you ,credible . Its seems the attack mode virus is spreading to the carrier. What was that about your better angel PJ ??
Again, nothing postitve about Harper, the nation’s economy, the tragic death of a teen , if one does not agree with PJ then they are stupid. They seek out the academics, ,that did nothing in life other write theories that are either untested or flawed. because if they worked they would be used.right PJ ???
BYW: I was a liberal long beforwe that party raped the Canadain people, conservatives may not be perfect, but they at least have the compassion and straight forwardness to address issues with far most honesty than turdeau and his sneaky and vile manner of CONNING Canadians, like yourself. But then again, it looks very good on you sir,, and well desreved I may add.
Like I said ,you hang your hat on academics and the like because they like you, they have no idea what it is like TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD . Perhaps if you experienced WORK other than university professorship, you might actually appreciate what it is like to LIVE among real and at time destitute people.
Perhaps if you were in the world of business, you know, the people that makes it possible for you to collect your pension and gain tenure after what 2 years. They pay the freight, so you can buy the books of people using cliches that are , well meaningless. You are living proof of that. You are are a great example of ,a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Now about that bilingualism thing Mr. harper ………..
–“So much for personal attacks, sir”
Never said you were stupid, peter. But if the cap fits…
–“nothing positive about…the tragic death of a teen”
Sorry, peter, you really should pay attention.
“news of the cyberbullying of Rehtaeh Parsons and its tragic outcome” (my post April 24th, 11:58 am)
—“Perhaps if you were in the world of business. . . . Perhaps if you experienced WORK. . . you might actually appreciate what it’s like to LIVE among real. . . people.”
There you go again. I have been in the world of business for a total of 23 years and counting.
“A little learning is a dangerous thing”–Alexander Pope
………………………………………………………………………
That’s it, peter. J’en ai assez eu. No possibility of reasoned discussion with one who misrepresents and makes wild assumptions and accusations.
Goodbye
@ PJ
Again nice try, at spin, when somone responds to you head on.
No, you never “said I was stupid, you implied it. Just like your “If the cap fits” comment.. Hey no problem PJ, I have a very thick skin , but I expected more from somone such as you.
Well, I have yet to read, when I respond to this tradegy, anything close to any compassion, only comparsions to JT attack ads, other than it had a tragic outcome. is that it, a tragic outcome. WOW what a heart warming response that is, do you heart that beats inside of you sir ?
No giving credit to the first P.M. in History that actually has addressed this issue . Talk about downplaying a great piece of legislation. Please PJ, that is all you have to say, trudeau attacks ads.
What business, other than education ( which is not a business BTW )were you ever in ? please elaborate and we can compare notes.
you can quote till the cows come, I am not impressed by a name dropper.
Take the easy way out, and run, typical. I have responded in kind to all of your blogs, its a pity . You also NEED to pay attention.
Now about that bilingualism policy Mr. Harper.
@ peter
First, an olive branch: We should be able to exchange views and iideas without descending into name-calling. Distressing not to.
Second, I am very sorry that you are troubled by poor vision. That must be acutely frustrating, even depressing. I can sympathize to a degree having last partial sight in one eye just over three years ago.
Third, re: the quote by J.S. Mill, I half hoped you might reply, “I am not one of ‘most stupid people.'” (BTW I have a lot of time for progressive Conservatives, especially of the calibre of Joe Clark and Robert Stanfield. The Reform Conservatives of Stephen Harper are another kettle of fish altogether, and represent to me an extremely ugly version of conservatism.)
Fourth, Pierre Trudeau clearly got under your skin. Your aversion to him would appear to match mine for Stephen Harper. Nonetheless, I would hope not to demean Mr. Harper’s name by spelling it allways all in lower case, much less by misspelling it so as to throw dirt on it. To me, that would be petty and childish.
Fifth, when I juxtaposed the cyberbullying of Ms. Parsons with Mr. Harper’s and his government’s aggressive behaviour and attack ads, and cited the letters to the Globe in support, (a) I hoped I was making the point that the behaviour and attitudes of people in positions of power and responsibility have an impact on society in general, and the impressionable young in particular, and (b) that a whole block of letters to Canada’s national newspaper from concerned citiziens writing in from across the country confirmed that I was not out to lunch on this. (You can perhaps imagine that I am astounded that I, they, and for that matter Jeffrey Simpson, could by any stretch be called “deranged” for drawing reasonable evidence-based comparisons and conclusiions!)
Sixth, I am emphatically not a “name dropper.” In fact I am acutely allergic to name droppers. Following a training in critical judgment and a lengthy career in teaching, mostly university teaching, I put a great deal of stock in accuracy and citing sources. I would have hoped that with your three degrees you would also.
Seventh, work in the business world: eons ago I was with the Distillers Co. Ltd. in London, England for two years. Since 1995, I have been in the financial services sector, making a total of 20 years + in business (in the heat of the moment I wrote 23 and counting–my apologies).
All of which to say, I hope we can mend fences, and agree to disagree thoughtfully and with respect. And with privileged back grounds and careers thereby set a good example.
Does that make sense to you?
@ PJ
Let me begin by saying, I have “very thick skin” .If you know Montreal, at all, you may have heard of Point Saint Charles. Well, that where I was raised . This was and maybe still is, one of the toughest areas in Canada.
I appreciate you concern for my eyesight. I have many more and serious ailments that sight, but the thought and concern is appreciated.
Your J.S. Mill, quote came across as inferring I was stupid. If you meant something else, all you had to do was say what you meant. Simplicity. No misunderstanding . In any event I have been called a lot worse in my life.
As for political stripes. I was a liberal for years. However, time, and events soured me very quickly . Once the full extent of what trudeau did in 1982 was fully realized, I was furious ,and rightly so. I am sorry if you feel offended I do not spell his name as you think I should, but what he did was akin to treason. All Canadians, including the French ,that benefitted most should feel the same way. As bad as you think Harper is, he NEVER,EVER sold out Canada. as turdeau did. You may say it is petty and childish, I like to think of it, as it looks good on him. He was responsible for Canada being able to LEGALLY PASS DISCRIMINATORY LAWS .Take a look at quebec today, trudeau . No western nation on earth to my knowledge has ever even contemplated such action. I can go on, but time is short.
AS for the comparison of Harper’s attack ads, PJ , that is politics It is a blood sport played by knowledgeable adults in one of the toughest professions in the world. There is simply no comparison here to a girls criminal death, and that s what it was criminal.
Harper, and his party are in the business of power. Their tactics, although rough and tumble are PART OF THE GAME. They do itb openly and are subject to criticisms
The Parsons girl’s death , can be directly attributed to cyberbulling , that for the most part involved teenagers. There was a death here. there were no deaths in any of the attack ads. to compare these events , is to politicize something that is not even close to politics. Please don’t even say Harper ads compares. As stated previously that is nonsense, Simpson or not .
You say this influences our youth. Well, maybe, but I doubt it to the extent to believe. Youth today and in days gone by, are far more influenced by video games that are violent, by movies that are violent, by news casts that go on and on depicting stories such as the bombing in Boston. There are very students in school , that sit around and watch CPAC and listen to a bunch of politicians yell at each other, not knowing what they are talking about in the first place. . Their only interest in JT is that he is a HUNK ( For the girls that is) So this comparison was to me and many others simply irrelevant .
BTW: Harper was not the only P.M. that had tight reigns on his party and used attack ads. There were others. and attack ads have been in politics for as long as politics existed itself.
FYI:I knew Bryce McKasey personally. He told me first hand that trudeau was a task master as well, and not easy to work with on any level.
As for name dropping, this is in reference to you always quoting some one , its just a bit over the top for me.
As for business, I was referring to owning a business. I owned business outright. As well I am heavily involved in equities, both in the N.Y. and Toronto markets. I am self taught and very good at it. I deal only in stocks, no other products. I am NOT licensed , but have been extremely successful for 33 years in the market, both during good and bad times. I have advised people , and they have been very successful in acting on my recommendations
There was never any fence to mend from my stand point. You were the one that’s aid goodbye, not me.
But, I am NOT POITICALLY CORRECT and I call it as I see it. I do not fudge , I simply do not believe in saying that up is down and the like.
Fine, peter, I get the picture: Different worlds.
Salut et bonne chance
@ PJ
I’ll take a leaf out of your book, John Milton said :
“Argument is healthy”.
Please do not take offence here, I take nothing personally, and I hope you do not take issues personally as well. I have very thick skin. and never hold grudges. But, as I stated , in my hearts of hearts, different worlds or not, sugar coating issues, and soft peddling does no one any favors. it creates a false sense of security.
This is why, I was one of the few teachers that actually failed students if they did not successfully achieve the requirements of the course. Passing them , when they didn`t deserve it, would only have hurt them more in the long run
Like you , I would like a balanced and center approach to most issues. However, when events happen, that result in shifts to the far left and result in 28% of the population setting the agenda for the other 78% , that is beyond the pale.
My pet political peeve is quebec, and forced bilingualism.
It is not that I am so much in love with the conservatives, as much as they are ,to me, the best of a very bad lot
As for trudeau, the economic cost to me and my family, not to mentioned his deception made me as I said furious. I have also blogged elsewhere, that he is among the most intelligent and crafty politicians in Canadian history. But to me, there is no coming back from betrayal and it is just my little way of venting.
Aha, Peter, I see you have promoted yourself to capital P! Great. So, since you “never hold grudges,” on to R, S, and… T?
@ PJ
I am not sure I follow RST
Am I not correctly spelling something. I know I purposely type a small t, but the others ??? IF, so, I may now need a glass to put over the keys
@ PJ
“I never hold grudges , but I NEVER forget”
Gordie Howe
A joke, peter/Peter. Travelling along the alphabet to your favourite trio of R (just in case) for yours truly, S for Simpson, T for…well, you know who.
“What Issues Would Trigger a Canadian to Actually Vote?” You ask, Jamie.
Well, how about $3.1 BILLION reportedly missing and unaccounted for from the Harper Conservatives’ anti-terrorism budget?
@ PJ
It is my understanding that this 3.1 biliion was over a 10 year period, Harper was elected 7 years ago. It is also my understanding that these funds were lost, or misplaced over 35 different government departments.
it is also my understanding that no one walked out the door, with these funds, a la the sponsorship scandal
There was a representative from the treasury board on CFRA yesterday. She said that these types of misplaced funds is not uncommon over a ten year period .
What happens is that any surplus funds usually is put back into the overall revenue funds and therefore is not accounted for , and people just presume these funds disappeared. She also stated that
it is a more common occurrence in just 5-6 governments. having taken place in 35 departments is really more credible that these funds were misplaced.
She also believes, that this money is not lost, simply misplaced.
I do not know this ladies name, but all seemed ok with her explanation. Being, that she is from treasury , she no stake in any political party.
@ALL RE: POSTED question by PJ Robertson ON May 1, 2013 at 10:58 am
PJ asked…
“What Issues Would Trigger a Canadian to Actually Vote?” You ask, Jamie. Well, how about $3.1 BILLION reportedly missing and unaccounted for from the Harper Conservatives’ anti-terrorism budget?'”
Ah yes, plenty of deflection and rarely a word from “that side” when confronted with the HUGE amount of money wasting boondoggles by provincial Liberals: Ornge, E-health, the latest billion on electric plants etc etc… But no time wasted in jumping on the band wagon when the Auditor General shows this missing amount . Which btw, has NOT been tagged as being mishandled or misused YET. It’s just not accounted for.
What i find interesting is this AG is the unilingual AG that Harper himself put in and despite the fact that he is now “showing up” the very government (Harper) that put him in as AG (so much for the constant Liberal accusations of puppet assignments) there is more interest in whether he has learned to speak French than his actual scathing reports.
Yes, this is the AG that the French press have been relentlessly hounding without pause since he was appointed. about whether he has learned French or not caring little about his reports and how well he is doing his job or how much waste he has uncovered against the very PM that put him in there, NO… what are the FRENCH PRESS CONCERNED ABOUT and demanding to know ? Whether or not he has learned FRENCH YET.
The poor man has only been in that position for little over a year and in that time has now come out with at least two fairly scathing reports against the very PM that took a chance — even though he went against the STUPID rules in this Anglophone dominated country that “dictate” — against normal democratic constants — that these government people MUST BE bilingual and put this AG in there.
What’s worse is the MEDIA in this country led by the those like the CBC (something else that has now come up as another Liberal attack) have not reported on the French medias attacks on this AG in their press conferences. Yes, it is mentioned but not in the capacity that IT SHOULD BE.
IE: The French media are attacking this poor AG so badly that THIS actually SHOULD BE THEEEEE story that is covered by the OTHER media. This would shame them into realizing that what this man has to say and how he is doing his job is WHAT IS important and NOT the fact that, while producing these great scathing reports he simply has not had the time to freaking learn French. HOLEEEEE MACENAW…
If our media WERE DOING THEIR JOBS and not treating this French issue with kid gloves as it has been doing with this issue for several decades now, this French issue would NOT have the traction that it has.
AND, perhaps this inequity would not exists the way it does in this country.
Oh and just for the record, figured it was worth mentioning the Liberal conceived gun registry boondoggle which was said to have (wasted) 2.3 BILLION (a program btw that we were initially told would cost something in the neighborhood of an amount in the mere millions that was ultimately supposed to be recovered once the program got going) . Many believe that this 2.4 Billions dollar “media reported number” was grossly under reported and the actual amount wasted was closer to 4 billion freakin tax payer dollars.
But hey, let’s do the Liberal dance… dun dun ta ta ta ta ta … Distract la la la la la … Deflect
who wa oh wa who… … That darn AG MUST BE bilingual .. There we go… no longer talking about these other things at hand
@ edudyorlik
Couldn’t have said better my self.
Notice, no pro trudeauites or liberals heard from on these issues, just complain about legal attack ads on JT
OH yeah, the JT whose reaction to the Boston bombings was,we must find out why they did this.
NOT, about the poor innocents that were killed or maimed are doing. Not word one about sympathy or how they are doing
It is reactions like this, that reflects inexperience and a lack of sensitivity towards fellow human beings. Perhaps he can consult Castro, his dad’s bud on these terrorist bombings.