The new Trudeau Effect's consequences on Canada's future are far more profound and far-reaching than most of us understand. When this kind of quality, substance, and stature are attracted to electoral politics for the first time, you just know that we are at the dawn of a very new, exciting, promising time in our nations history.
In Ontario, in the one riding the Liberals had previously held (Scarborough-Agincourt), the Party was re-elected with Arnold Chan getting some 60 per cent of the popular vote. In the seat previously belonging to NDP powerhouse Olivia Chow (Trinity-Spadina), the NDP lost to Liberal Adam Vaughan who polled over 53 per cent.
An overwhelmingly male echo-chamber of pundits, scholars, theologians, Catholic clergy and politicians is in an uproar, because Justin Trudeau directed the Liberal Party to adopt the status quo ante on women's health that has been settled law in Canada for decades. And who's not howling with outrage at Justin Trudeau's audacity in supporting women's access to abortion, or wringing their hands at his shocking breach of parliamentary conventions? Women, that's who.
Justin Trudeau, leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has announced that anyone who wants to be a candidate for the LPC must commit to voting in favour of pro-choice, if and when it comes to proposed measures on abortion. This is a step too far. Ultimately, it must be a truly exceptional situation for one to be willing to allow Party discipline to trump the right of MPs to vote according to their own opinions, particularly on issues of conscience.
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.