BigJonsson
Member
What do you all think of the government needing to survive a confidence vote before the GG or LG allows a prorogation?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
How often is prorogation actually used? I don't snap elections would be better than prorogation necessarily.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
It seems to be a standard tool now. Of course, it's not like anyone cares. lol
Seems like Quebec is the only place where abuses of power will cause riots to happen.
(Otherwise, you have to lose a hockey game or something).
Seems like Quebec is the only place where abuses of power will cause riots to happen.
(Otherwise, you have to lose a hockey game or something).
I think the idea would be to prevent its use when a snap election is likely to occur due to the opposition bringing down the government. Obviously that tactic was used most significantly in 2008 to prevent a confidence vote that was expected to bring down the government.
Prorogation's more common use is to end a normal session of the house when it's finished all the business before it. I think it'd probably not a good idea to have both the beginning (throne speech) and end of a session automatically become confidence motions, so I think you'd have to restructure the legalities around ending the session to make it no longer a prorogation, or to have ending a session without finishing its business be called something else.
Neither's really likely to happen, though, and I don't really think the GG should be given this sort of power.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Depends on what you want to know. If you want to keep up with current affairs, then you should watch Evan Solomon's show on Newsworld/online. It's especially fun when the spin happens.
BladeWorker
Member
I routinely follow National Newswatch as a news aggregator, and Kady O'Malley, Steve Paikin, Andrew Coyne, and Paul Wells where they write and tweet.
Threehundredeight.com is a regular visit of mine in writ periods, but if you want to learn the "rules" of Parliament, going straight to the source at parl.gc.ca is a good start. You can find hansard (transcripts of what MPs say in Parliament, however dumb) there, too.
There are a host of partisan blogs out there, often organized into the Libblogs or Blogging Tories camps. I would suggest getting the lay of the land before you wade into the swamp of purely partisan politics, though. Hard to swim in it without some kind of raft.
Enjoy! And, if you have questions, we promise to answer them more intelligently than the verbal vomit that comes out in question period. Or, at least, I promise.
Threehundredeight.com is a regular visit of mine in writ periods, but if you want to learn the "rules" of Parliament, going straight to the source at parl.gc.ca is a good start. You can find hansard (transcripts of what MPs say in Parliament, however dumb) there, too.
There are a host of partisan blogs out there, often organized into the Libblogs or Blogging Tories camps. I would suggest getting the lay of the land before you wade into the swamp of purely partisan politics, though. Hard to swim in it without some kind of raft.
Enjoy! And, if you have questions, we promise to answer them more intelligently than the verbal vomit that comes out in question period. Or, at least, I promise.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
So much about "Quebec living beyond its means!" conservative rhetoric bullshit:
Study on Public Finance: Ontario and Alberta at risk, Quebec sheltered
English: http://translate.google.com/transla...ovinces-canadiennes-risques-defaillance.shtml
Study on Public Finance: Ontario and Alberta at risk, Quebec sheltered
English: http://translate.google.com/transla...ovinces-canadiennes-risques-defaillance.shtml
DoctorPayne
Banned
A quick question, since I can't find an answer online: do we really not have a current line of succession if anything were to happen to Harper? Has the government just not addressed this since the last election? The most recent thing I could find said that Cannon, then Baird would be next in line - with Cannon gone, do we just assume that the duties would fall to Baird?
matthewwhatever
Member
According to Wikipedia, it's now Marjorie Lebreton, the Conservative Leader of the Government in the Senate.
FAKE EDIT: And if you search around, you can find the full list on the Privy Council Office site. Baird's down from second in line to eleventh, though that has Bev Oda directly above him, so it may have been updated a little since.
FAKE EDIT: And if you search around, you can find the full list on the Privy Council Office site. Baird's down from second in line to eleventh, though that has Bev Oda directly above him, so it may have been updated a little since.
DoctorPayne
Banned
Ah, okay, thanks for finding that. Weird! Really wish that they'd address the thought process behind this stuff - if they're going to go to the trouble of putting a system of succession in place, why not have some kind of consistent reasoning behind it?
matthewwhatever
Member
It kind of makes sense, in a strange way. The position of Prime Minister isn't an elected one -- it's not even mentioned in the Constitution, in fact -- but rather exists by unwritten convention. For there to be a formal line of succession, there'd first have to be a formal recognition of what's being succeeded.
In our system it doesn't really make sense to have a line of succession. The PM is an artefact of the party, not the parliament, so it would be up to the party to decide who succeeds. That they do this unofficially through the deputy minister doesn't really change that, and there'd be no obligation to hold it.
The thing is that in terms of legislation, the first minister is just one MP among many. And in terms of the executive, they are technically only advising as a chief member of the privy council. The privy council and the legislature can both go on without a prime minister indefinitely.
Also, in the event that the government can't nominate a member to replace the prime minister and have tha be accepted by the legislature, we have an election. The US needs a line of succession because they have absolutely fixed elections. It might be 4 years before a successor could be nominated by any kind of democratic process.
BladeWorker
Member
I'm late to this, but I find it diminishes an executive power of the GG/LG.
A legislature can, and often does, follow the whims of politics and broader public opinion. The figure-head of state is a step removed from this, and accordingly can make decisions without the reprisal that political decisions so often carry.
To have a government seek the permission of the legislature before it goes to the GG further politicizes a decision that should be undertaken for reasons other than pure politics.
Earthstrike
Member
I received this in an e-mail recently. Is this true?
I know it may sound a bit sensationalist but the e-mail also talks about how we are selling one of our oil companies to china. The e-mail also provides a link to sign said petition.
http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale
I know it may sound a bit sensationalist but the e-mail also talks about how we are selling one of our oil companies to china. The e-mail also provides a link to sign said petition.
http://www.leadnow.ca/canada-not-for-sale
matthewwhatever
Member
I don't know anything about Nexen, but FIPA isn't China-specific. According to DFAIT,
It's basically a free trade agreement. Canada already has FIPAs with 24 other countries, along with eight others that are in the process of being finalized (including one with China) and twelve that are currently being negotiated. If you're against free trade agreements in principle, then I guess it's bad, but otherwise it's just Canada signing the same kind of trade treaty with China that it already has with a few dozen other countries.
It's basically a free trade agreement. Canada already has FIPAs with 24 other countries, along with eight others that are in the process of being finalized (including one with China) and twelve that are currently being negotiated. If you're against free trade agreements in principle, then I guess it's bad, but otherwise it's just Canada signing the same kind of trade treaty with China that it already has with a few dozen other countries.
Earthstrike
Member
Hmmm, but this bill apparently includes provisions concerning the NEXEN takeover, and apparently the bill will protect the new chinese stakeholders from enviromental laws.
Yes it's true that foreign companies can take our government to court (in any third party court of their choosing for the most part) to have laws changed. That's not a new aspect to free trade deals. NAFTA and WTO both use similar dispute resolution mechanisms.
matthewwhatever
Member
You can read the agreement yourself, but I don't see any mention of Nexen in there anywhere. As for the environment, there's not much specifically about it, but as gabbo notes, those mechanisms are already in place under the WTO. In any case, I suspect that the real damage to Canada's environmental laws and regulations will come about because Harper destroyed (and continues to destroy) them, rather than because of any WTO cases.
I would participate more in this thread if i could, it's tough to keep up with Canadian politics though with everything going on.
I did read that big article in Macleans about the new NDP leader though, he seems like a good successor to Layton.
A hell of a lot better opposition to Harper than Dion every was at least.
I did read that big article in Macleans about the new NDP leader though, he seems like a good successor to Layton.
A hell of a lot better opposition to Harper than Dion every was at least.
Earthstrike
Member
Yes this definitely makes more sense. It's just my distrust of harper causes me to automatically question pretty much everything he does. Hell, I still can't shake this feeling that something's up.
That does seem to be the case. There usually aren't a lot of direct challenges to environmental laws in international trade disputes (except water). It seems like Harper is making these drastic changes as some kind of incentive to FDI that hasn't asked for them to begin with (new land/waterway regulations for instance).
BladeWorker
Member
CanadaGAF, I'm disappointed that I'm the one left to mention the SCC ruling upholding Opitz's election in Etobicoke.
Reaction? Bueller?
Reaction? Bueller?
I'm extremely disappointed. The majority decision was crap. If people weren't suppose to vote, then no, removing their ballots from the tally is not somehow preventing Canadians from participating in the democratic process. Shoddy record keeping for an election is more than just 'convenient' as far as I'm concerned.
I would rather each election clog the courts with these sorts of things than get them wrong. Fraud is just as much a hindrance to the democratic process as throwing out ballots.
BladeWorker
Member
But, was this case about fraud, or was it about Elections Canada being stupid in a select few cases?
If the latter, should the fact that Elections Canada was stupid overrule someone's franchise?
My concern is why the judicial branch is looking at votes in the first place. It should've never have been before the courts and should've been handled by Elections Canada only.
It sets a dangerous precedent.
What? EC is not a judiciary, nor should it be. When there's a dispute over law, courts rule on it, not the civil service.
It would depend on the circumstances surrounding the ballots in question. The ones that disappeared.
But the problem wasn't over fraud. The problem was over irregularities over actual votes and other clerical errors that happened on election day.
It went to court because the Liberal candidate believed that EC was not following the letter of the law in how it dealt with the irregularities. The lower court agreed, the upper court basically decided in the majority that it doesn't matter that the letter of the law wasn't followed because to follow it would disenfranchise voters hit by the irregularity (and the right to franchise is constitutionally protected).
Only courts could make these rulings. And I can't imagine many things more dangerous to our democracy than to render the courts unable to rule on matters of law as relates to election proceedings.
Only courts could make these rulings. And I can't imagine many things more dangerous to our democracy than to render the courts unable to rule on matters of law as relates to election proceedings.
BladeWorker
Member
You know, as much as I'm personally disappointed by the result, I believe the court was right. A judicial body can't disenfranchise the good faith votes of citizens - which is to say, unless they can prove fraud, it's probably good faith - over the administrative infractions of EC.
Which is not to say that EC should come out of this unscathed. They really need to get their s**t together. It's probable that more than one riding hinged on their administrative errors. But the voters should not be punished by having their votes thrown out because EC didn't invest in proper training or enforce their own rules.
I speculate: Once upon a time, we had enumerators. How many of these issues might be resolved with enumeration?
Which is not to say that EC should come out of this unscathed. They really need to get their s**t together. It's probable that more than one riding hinged on their administrative errors. But the voters should not be punished by having their votes thrown out because EC didn't invest in proper training or enforce their own rules.
I speculate: Once upon a time, we had enumerators. How many of these issues might be resolved with enumeration?
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I personally don't read much into the ruling. It was a very close election where the result depended highly on the technical interpretation of a small number of votes. The actual mechanics of counting specific provisional votes are always a sort of grey-area thing. I don't think any fraud occurred. I'm glad a court reviewed it. I feel like the general gist of the court's test--putting the burden of proof on disqualifying a vote rather than upholding it.
Have we talked about the government making a move on regulating pre-paid credit? Long overdue and I wish they would have attacked pay-day loan and the measures are still too half-assed for my liking, but it's a start. It's also the first policy that reads to me as pretty transparently the result of an NDP opposition putting pressure on the conservatives, especially in light of the NDP making motions towards that kind of regulation in 2008/2011. It's great to hear.
Have we talked about the government making a move on regulating pre-paid credit? Long overdue and I wish they would have attacked pay-day loan and the measures are still too half-assed for my liking, but it's a start. It's also the first policy that reads to me as pretty transparently the result of an NDP opposition putting pressure on the conservatives, especially in light of the NDP making motions towards that kind of regulation in 2008/2011. It's great to hear.
I'm not really sure why fraud should even be considered a factor. If, for example, an entire polling station's ballots got incinerated in a fire and that riding's win hinged on a number of votes significantly less than cast at that station, I don't really think it'd matter if it was fraud or not whether something should be done about the certification of the results.
This was even narrower than that situation.
I also find it kind of strange to think that someone can be disenfranchised by ordering a new election. It'd be different if the next highest candidate were simply acclaimed, but I don't think that was ever going to be the case.
I'm not saying it was the wrong decision. IANAL. But I feel like we've swung really hard as a society into believing that elections are something terrible and to be avoided at all costs, and that that's costing us in terms of our overall valuation of the democratic process.
This was even narrower than that situation.
I also find it kind of strange to think that someone can be disenfranchised by ordering a new election. It'd be different if the next highest candidate were simply acclaimed, but I don't think that was ever going to be the case.
I'm not saying it was the wrong decision. IANAL. But I feel like we've swung really hard as a society into believing that elections are something terrible and to be avoided at all costs, and that that's costing us in terms of our overall valuation of the democratic process.
I definitely agree with you BW. The judicial branch should not interfere with the voting process of civil society unless there is evidence of criminal behavior.
EC needs to step up their game in terms of training their volunteers and employees.
I haven't seen any movement on this issue. Then again, doesn't Alberta have some protections against predatory lending?
BladeWorker
Member
It was established early on that the issue wasn't fraud, it was administrative screwups.
And, even if it was fraud, innocent until proven guilty.
If voters were found guilty of fraud then Boris' lawyers would have made that case and the SCC could have considered it in their ruling.
Since fraud was not the issue, we can't assume that the voters were committing fraud. You can't assume a crime has been committed when it's not clear that there is fault to be laid at the hands of the individual, as opposed to the organization.
Edit: and, it's not that the law doesn't matter - it very much does. It was about which law mattered more; the Charter, or the laws governing EC and the conduct of elections. The majority ruled that the Charter mattered more.
And, even if it was fraud, innocent until proven guilty.
If voters were found guilty of fraud then Boris' lawyers would have made that case and the SCC could have considered it in their ruling.
Since fraud was not the issue, we can't assume that the voters were committing fraud. You can't assume a crime has been committed when it's not clear that there is fault to be laid at the hands of the individual, as opposed to the organization.
Edit: and, it's not that the law doesn't matter - it very much does. It was about which law mattered more; the Charter, or the laws governing EC and the conduct of elections. The majority ruled that the Charter mattered more.
Law is well equipped to deal with negligence or other criminal activity either civil or common, but extremely bad at investigating procedural issues that fall within another jurisdiction. Like the SC said in its ruling, much of the issues stemmed from clerical and training issues on election day.
An better oversight committee (or an auditor) within EC would be much more effective than referring the problem to a judicial body.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
For those who haven't been following the public inquiry on the construction sector in Quebec: for over a decade, infrastructure contracts costs were inflated by 30% to 35% for the Italian mafia, political party funding, and those who helped maintain the system in place.
That's a lot of public money stolen. So much for the whole "deficit!!! living beyond your means!".
Since the permanent anti-corruption unit has been put in place, the costs have gone down by around 25% to 30%. But that's JUST the construction sector. Let's see how much has been stolen in the recycling/composting program, hospital equipment purchases, university spending, etc. Not even talking about how much is getting stolen from under our feet when it comes to natural resources.
The money to fund everything forever is there. But no, let's raise the retirement age! Such bullshit. Same crap is happening world wide but the middle-class has to accept cutting all programs it benefits from.
That's a lot of public money stolen. So much for the whole "deficit!!! living beyond your means!".
Since the permanent anti-corruption unit has been put in place, the costs have gone down by around 25% to 30%. But that's JUST the construction sector. Let's see how much has been stolen in the recycling/composting program, hospital equipment purchases, university spending, etc. Not even talking about how much is getting stolen from under our feet when it comes to natural resources.
The money to fund everything forever is there. But no, let's raise the retirement age! Such bullshit. Same crap is happening world wide but the middle-class has to accept cutting all programs it benefits from.
BladeWorker
Member
Is that covered under my paywall?
/snark
/snark
Interesting take on the ruling's effect on the right to vote and possible implications for more strict voter-id laws like are being pushed through in many states: http://negative-euphoria-rabbit.tumblr.com/post/34332891950/shrineheart-dropsofstars-kennyvee
The states where the right to vote is enshrined in the constitution (as it is in Canada) have struck down voter id laws pretty uniformly afaik.
The states where the right to vote is enshrined in the constitution (as it is in Canada) have struck down voter id laws pretty uniformly afaik.
This seems to be another in a long line of Conservative moves that are good, but nobody asked for, and are just to get conversations away from other fuck ups they've committed recently.
ripastraea
Member
Kinda unrelated but found this in my google news feed, Pakistani politician, Imran Khan, questioned by U.S. officials at Pearson about his position on drone strikes (he's against)
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...nada-ends-with-questioning-from-u-s-officials
As someone who's also against drone strikes...ugh. I hope he and his party win the Pakistani general election next year
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...nada-ends-with-questioning-from-u-s-officials
As someone who's also against drone strikes...ugh. I hope he and his party win the Pakistani general election next year
I've been reading a bit more National Post since the Globe and Mail pay-wall, but it is difficult to take the paper seriously when you read shit like this (not that the G&M is much better).
"No matter who wins U.S. election, Canada’s energy sector loses" - Yadullah Hussain
After initially laughing to myself I then glanced to my right and noticed another article entitled "Oil giants impress with $3.1B profit haul despite economic gloom" that somewhat contradicts the lead story. Ok, whatever, I can get past this because I understand in economics everything is relative in nature. That is to say, $3.1B might seem like a high number, but if the correct energy policies are in place, profits could be even higher. Keeping this concept in mind I say to myself, "well maybe the author has a point, lets read the article."
The article seems to have no coherent argument. The first half has nothing to do with Canada. Instead it focuses on the Balkan oil formation in Dakota and shale gas in Ohio. Seemingly this has absolutely nothing to do with Canada unless you are to argue that the growing oil and gas industry in the States will somehow depress Canada's. Hussain clearly ignores that dozens of Canadian companies have been using their expertise in oil and gas from Western Canada as a competitive advantage when bidding on contracts in the United States. We could even state that the development of shale gas and the Balkan fields in the United States has been a net benefit to Canadian companies.
The author then goes on to state:
What exactly is the point of this passage and how does it relate to the headline? Are we to infer that because Obama didn't create the oil can gas boom, he is somehow bad for the energy sector in Canada, or that it is a negative that unlike Mitt Romney (as the author states), Obama is open to "all-of-the-above" energy policy instead of strictly fossil fuels? Perhaps because Obama rejected the Keystone XL he is somehow bad for the Canadian energy sector.
Well, perhaps with Keystone XL the author has a point. However, Hussain then seems to argue the opposite:
So, not approving the pipeline wasn't a great idea, yet approving the pipeline might not be a great idea either because North America, with its current export infrastructure has a limited ability to export crude. Hussain fails to mention that there are already efforts under way to reverse pipelines from Cushing to the coast so that Canadian oil producers are able to arbitrage the difference between Brent and WTI. These are all details that TransCanada takes in to consideration. They aren't going to propose a multi-billion dollar pipeline if there is no profit to be made. The pipeline has been proposed because there is a massive glut of oil in Alberta. Alberta simply doesn't have the export infrastructure right now to support continued investment to the scale we are used to. Companies have been forced to export crude on trains because there aren't enough pipelines to meet demand anymore. First, this is much more expensive, and second, I wouldn't be surprised if it is inherently more dangerous than a pipeline. I have argued before that as a province we have gotten a bit ahead of ourselves and as a result are not getting full value for our Oil because of the Brent-WTI differential.
Then Hussain states:
Wait, what? This energy debate is so complex yet prior to this Hussain sums up Obama's energy plan as supporting a failed solar company and rejecting the Keystone XL.
Moving on, Hussain then states:
Once again, this seems to contradict the headline. Canada improving its export capacity should be viewed as a net positive.
Are we to assume Canadian companies are going to be locked out of competitive bidding for these contracts? This simply isn't the case. Canadian companies are continually bidding on contracts in the United States. American companies may be selling their Canadian assets, yet Asian and European companies have been very happy to jump in. I don't necessarily see this as a negative. It is not as if we are giving away our resources either. They are still controlled by the government.
Hussain seems to infer that because these new lands will be opened up, Canada will somehow fetch a lower price for it's oil and gas. Sure, there is some merit to this argument until we consider that there are already efforts under way to arbitrage the difference in prices between Brent and WTI. Furthermore there exists plans to develop many LNG export terminals in both the States and Canada. If you give a company an opportunity to exploit a risk less arbitrage opportunity THEY WILL EXPLOIT IT. These prices are not going to stay depressed forever.
This article, reads like a bad Political Science 101 paper. No coherent argument. Furthermore I absolutely reject the notion that Canada's energy sector is in a "tight spot". Complete bullshit and a sensationalist article.
"No matter who wins U.S. election, Canada’s energy sector loses" - Yadullah Hussain
After initially laughing to myself I then glanced to my right and noticed another article entitled "Oil giants impress with $3.1B profit haul despite economic gloom" that somewhat contradicts the lead story. Ok, whatever, I can get past this because I understand in economics everything is relative in nature. That is to say, $3.1B might seem like a high number, but if the correct energy policies are in place, profits could be even higher. Keeping this concept in mind I say to myself, "well maybe the author has a point, lets read the article."
The article seems to have no coherent argument. The first half has nothing to do with Canada. Instead it focuses on the Balkan oil formation in Dakota and shale gas in Ohio. Seemingly this has absolutely nothing to do with Canada unless you are to argue that the growing oil and gas industry in the States will somehow depress Canada's. Hussain clearly ignores that dozens of Canadian companies have been using their expertise in oil and gas from Western Canada as a competitive advantage when bidding on contracts in the United States. We could even state that the development of shale gas and the Balkan fields in the United States has been a net benefit to Canadian companies.
The author then goes on to state:
What exactly is the point of this passage and how does it relate to the headline? Are we to infer that because Obama didn't create the oil can gas boom, he is somehow bad for the energy sector in Canada, or that it is a negative that unlike Mitt Romney (as the author states), Obama is open to "all-of-the-above" energy policy instead of strictly fossil fuels? Perhaps because Obama rejected the Keystone XL he is somehow bad for the Canadian energy sector.
Well, perhaps with Keystone XL the author has a point. However, Hussain then seems to argue the opposite:
So, not approving the pipeline wasn't a great idea, yet approving the pipeline might not be a great idea either because North America, with its current export infrastructure has a limited ability to export crude. Hussain fails to mention that there are already efforts under way to reverse pipelines from Cushing to the coast so that Canadian oil producers are able to arbitrage the difference between Brent and WTI. These are all details that TransCanada takes in to consideration. They aren't going to propose a multi-billion dollar pipeline if there is no profit to be made. The pipeline has been proposed because there is a massive glut of oil in Alberta. Alberta simply doesn't have the export infrastructure right now to support continued investment to the scale we are used to. Companies have been forced to export crude on trains because there aren't enough pipelines to meet demand anymore. First, this is much more expensive, and second, I wouldn't be surprised if it is inherently more dangerous than a pipeline. I have argued before that as a province we have gotten a bit ahead of ourselves and as a result are not getting full value for our Oil because of the Brent-WTI differential.
Then Hussain states:
Wait, what? This energy debate is so complex yet prior to this Hussain sums up Obama's energy plan as supporting a failed solar company and rejecting the Keystone XL.
Moving on, Hussain then states:
Once again, this seems to contradict the headline. Canada improving its export capacity should be viewed as a net positive.
Are we to assume Canadian companies are going to be locked out of competitive bidding for these contracts? This simply isn't the case. Canadian companies are continually bidding on contracts in the United States. American companies may be selling their Canadian assets, yet Asian and European companies have been very happy to jump in. I don't necessarily see this as a negative. It is not as if we are giving away our resources either. They are still controlled by the government.
Hussain seems to infer that because these new lands will be opened up, Canada will somehow fetch a lower price for it's oil and gas. Sure, there is some merit to this argument until we consider that there are already efforts under way to arbitrage the difference in prices between Brent and WTI. Furthermore there exists plans to develop many LNG export terminals in both the States and Canada. If you give a company an opportunity to exploit a risk less arbitrage opportunity THEY WILL EXPLOIT IT. These prices are not going to stay depressed forever.
This article, reads like a bad Political Science 101 paper. No coherent argument. Furthermore I absolutely reject the notion that Canada's energy sector is in a "tight spot". Complete bullshit and a sensationalist article.
The National Post is horribly uneven in tone, as demonstrated above. A lot of times their written arguments never seem to quite line up with their evidence.
I *sort* of like it in that regard in that it keeps me on my toes and doesn't let me mindlessly agree with everything I read, but I have to be careful not to get mental whiplash.
But with the Globe paywall and the Star going subscription in 2013, I'm running out of news sites.
I *sort* of like it in that regard in that it keeps me on my toes and doesn't let me mindlessly agree with everything I read, but I have to be careful not to get mental whiplash.
But with the Globe paywall and the Star going subscription in 2013, I'm running out of news sites.
So, Canada-GAF, what do we all make of Justin "The Great Uniter" Trudeau's 2010 interview saying that Canada isn't doing well because "Albertans control our community and socio-democratic agenda" and that Canada "Belongs to Us" (whether he meant Liberals, or Quebeckers, I'm not sure)
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/23/justin-trudeau-alberta-comments_n_2177176.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/23/justin-trudeau-alberta-comments_n_2177176.html
gutter_trash
Banned
so Justin just had his "people cling onto their guns and religion" moment.
Now candidate Justin needs learn to watch his mouth because the Cons are infamous at digging up shit from the past.
It's not like if Albertans would vote Liberal anyway.
Anyway, he was right about past great Prime Ministers such as his dad, Chretien and Martin
BladeWorker
Member
His "apology" has been worse than his comments and is giving the story more legs than a centipede.
EnderWiggles
Member
He's not wrong. Alberta shouldn't be the majority influence in the federal government. Quebec deserves to have a strong voice, as does every province. Alberta's interests are the Harper government's focus, which isn't reasonable considering Quebec's population is over double that of Alberta's.
This won't hurt Trudeau anyways, it's not like any sort of Alberta base exists. If anything, this will help unite both Ontario/Quebec/Maritime with BC voters who hate Alberta.
gutter_trash
Banned
the interview was conducted by a nationalist separatist journalist, Patrick Lagacé in French.
Justin was stating a fact the best Federalist Prime Ministers were from Quebec while speaking an nationalist TV show and audience.
So if Conservatives wanna take that out of context, let them. But Justin spoke the truth
Justin was stating a fact the best Federalist Prime Ministers were from Quebec while speaking an nationalist TV show and audience.
So if Conservatives wanna take that out of context, let them. But Justin spoke the truth
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked