One could wonder how the 1980 and 1995 referendums would have turned out with a Joe Clark or a Preston Manning as Prime Minister rather than Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien. One could point out that Madame Marois was elected in 2012 through denouncing the Harper government's ultraconservative policies. One could well denounce the unilateralism, lack of dialogue and boondoggles that marked federal-provincial relations under Harper, as well as the Conservative government's hodge-podge of ill-advised political decisions with respect to health, justice, training, old age security, immigration... decisions which are proving costly to the provinces.
Last week the Conservatives had great fun targeting NDP leader Thomas Mulcair for the way his party used House of Commons dollars to pay staff in a regional Montreal office. Outside of the joy politicians and their staff get out of beating up on another party's leader -- what was the point?
As a pro-life woman, it is certainly heartening to see the lack of receptivity to Justin Trudeau's position that pro-life candidates need not apply to be nominees for the Liberal Party. There has not been much (any?) support for this bold declaration that freedom of speech and conscience ought to be denied Liberal nominees. His position sounds extreme. But is it? In my opinion, Mr. Trudeau's remarks are a logical extension of pro-choice philosophy. In spite of the rhetoric, being pro-choice is not actually always in favour of choice. I'm not talking about the woman here; I'm talking about the developing human in the womb.
For the last couple of weeks we have seen the Conservatives targeting the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice and you have to yourself why? What is the objective? What do they hope to achieve?
Canadians' politics are local, not national. The lack of confidence in governments to take on the country's big issues means Canadians trust their governments with smaller, achievable goals. Affordable, doable policy solutions trump vague, grand promises, programs, or visions.
It was exactly one year ago today that Justin Trudeau was elected Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. A year later, the positive mood continues. Politics shouldn't be a sour competition among unhappy people about who can make voters angrier. It should, instead, be about who and what to vote FOR, and the greater country we can build together for our children. That attitude is Justin Trudeau's greatest advantage.
Should we trust a political leader who does not understand basic economic notions? This question is becoming more and more relevant as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, keeps making absurd statements about the economy. He also seems not to understand that government spending does not create wealth and that to stimulate the economy sustainably, we must do the opposite. There's not much harm in it as long as Mr. Trudeau cannot act on his absurd beliefs. But if the Liberal Party of Canada ever comes to power again, these ideas could become a threat to Canadians' economic security. Can we afford to take such a risk?
Trudeau publicly promised that all Liberal nomination meetings in all the federal ridings would be open and democratic. But instead of supporting and encouraging Christine Innes' efforts to win a third nomination, Trudeau kiboshed her candidacy and destroyed Innes' dream of recapturing Trinity-Spadina. Holy hypocrisy, Justin!
There seems to be some confusion as to the difference between open nominations and the commitment in the Liberal Party for open and fair nominations. In 2009, when we presented the "Change Commission" report to the Liberal Party of Canada, we really wanted to call it "Stop Rewarding Bad Behaviour." From coast to coast to coast we had heard stories of 'bad behaviour' in nomination and leadership races that were seriously turning people off the political process.
Last week, Justin Trudeau broke a key promise to hold open nominations in every riding by blocking the candidacy of Christine Innes in downtown Toronto. Therefore, after spending the weekend consulting with friends and family, I am taking what I believe to be a principled decision by withdrawing my candidacy for the Liberal nomination in Hamilton West--Ancaster--Dundas as a sign of protest.
At some point, the NDP has to learn that their filibustering tactics only result in further efforts to limit debate through closure and time allocation measures. The NDP aren't defending democracy by filibustering -- they're filibustering democracy.
Justin Trudeau and his American advisor Larry Summers still believe in the old Keynesian theory that says government can create wealth by spending more money. In reality, every time the government takes an additional dollar in taxes out of someone's pocket, that's a dollar that this person will not be able to spend or invest. Government borrowing has the same effect. The private lenders who lend money to the government will have less money to lend to other private business people. It is like taking a bucket of water in the deep end of a swimming pool and emptying it in the shallow end. It's this kind of typical Trudeau policies that ruined our economy in the 1970s. This is not what Canada needs today.
Justin Trudeau could hardly have picked a worse day to publicly reinvent himself. Though that might not have been such a bad thing. With Canada's not-terribly-stunning gold medal hockey win occurring mere hours after J-Tru's keynote address to the 2014 Liberal convention, the Grit leader's battle to control the weekend headlines was doomed to be a losing one. Few would deny that even on its worst day, the sport is still vastly more compelling than the liveliest political speech. Which Justin's wasn't.
Those who have had the misfortune of witnessing Trudeau speak from the House know how cringe-worthy it is to watch. Trudeau has the unfortunate weakness of seeming incredibly insincere, as well as sounding as if he has continuously just memorized a script. One would think being a former drama teacher would have fixed that problem.
Once again we have a spending scandal occupying the attention of Canadians. This time however, it doesn't involve our esteemed senators but two former generals, Andrew Leslie who is presently a senior Liberal advisor and Daniel Menard who retired in disgrace from the armed forces. Leslie claimed $72,000 for moving expenses and Menard claimed $40,000.