Justin Trudeau

[VanNuck]

Speaking as a hard-core Conservative, I have to agree with you to an extent - Harper had failed to follow through on his promises for accountable government.

Fortunately for Harper, I do agree with about 60-70% of his policy decisions. Tax credits for students are, I feel, fair educational "subsidization." It encourages students to pick up the shovel if they want to reap the benefits. There's a lot of other little things he's done along the way, but overall, the economy has managed to weather the storm. All due respect to Trudeau, I don't know if I could trust him with the economy through that storm and we're not yet quite out.

One thing though: Harper needs to balance the books by 2015 to even prerequisite reelection.

[aGENT]

Speaking as a hard-core Conservative, I have to agree with you to an extent - Harper had failed to follow through on his promises for accountable government. Specifically, there's no elected accountable senate, the press is too closesly controlled, and he's gone and attempted to thrust through a lot of policies, some of which I disagree with (like Internet monitoring, which he fortunately rescinded). This, my friends, is not what we Conservatives are all about - we are about shrinking the government in favour of empowering and mobilizing communities, families, and individuals, because this is key to a stronger Canada.

Trudeau promises to do just that - that makes people feel good. But before I give him my vote, I want to know what he intends to do.

Pardon my bluntness but you were a fool if you thought simply slapping the Conservative name on their party somehow magically aligned them to your views. You either did not look nearly hard enough at their policies, track record etc or ignored them.

People need to stop voting for labels and party publicity and actual vote with their damned heads.

[aGENT]

Fortunately for Harper, I do agree with about 60-70% of his policy decisions. Tax credits for students are, I feel, fair educational "subsidization." It encourages students to pick up the shovel if they want to reap the benefits. There's a lot of other little things he's done along the way, but overall, the economy has managed to weather the storm. All due respect to Trudeau, I don't know if I could trust him with the economy through that storm and we're not yet quite out.

One thing though: Harper needs to balance the books by 2015 to even prerequisite reelection.

Canada's relative success in dealing with the global economic turmoil is largely due to economic policies brought in by the Liberal governments before him. Also if he'd gotten his way and gotten things like de-regulated banking (like the USA) that he wanted we would have been in far worse shape (like the USA).

[bolt]

Justin Trudeau prime minister and garneau deputy prime minster sounds better then the clown we have in power now

[Wetcoaster]

Speaking as a hard-core Conservative, I have to agree with you to an extent - Harper had failed to follow through on his promises for accountable government. Specifically, there's no elected accountable senate, the press is too closesly controlled, and he's gone and attempted to thrust through a lot of policies, some of which I disagree with (like Internet monitoring, which he fortunately rescinded). This, my friends, is not what we Conservatives are all about - we are about shrinking the government in favour of empowering and mobilizing communities, families, and individuals, because this is key to a stronger Canada.

Trudeau promises to do just that - that makes people feel good. But before I give him my vote, I want to know what he intends to do.

Not much Harper can do about Senate reform - he has tried to push through six bills but there is a constitutional impediment to Senate reform. The matter has been referred to the SCOC for an opinion as to the extent to which the federal government can act unilaterally to effect reform - IMHO there is little room.

As far as Senate reform, the Harper government has introduced seven bills on Senate reform since taking office in 2006 and there is currently a pending bill before the House of Commons on Senate reform - Bill C-7. The best Harper has been able to accomplish was Alberta agreeing to hold elections and that policy he would appoint from that election. The proposed reforms have faced serious opposition from the other parties in the House as well as provincial governments across the country. Quebec has already called on the province's court of appeal to rule on C-7's constitutionality while Nova Scotia has asked that any reforms be done through constitutional amendment.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has twice introduced a motion in the Senate to hold a referendum on its future and he's going to try again," notes the post from June 2011. "His referendum would ask voters to choose between three options: abolish, reform, or keep the status quo." While Segal acknowledged the constitutional "brick wall," he suggests that if the majority of Canadians favoured abolition, then provincial governments would be less inclined to fight the change in the courts.

In the result the Conservative government has now sent the issue of Senate reform to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference case to determine the extent to which the Senate may be reformed without the need for a formal constitutional amendment as set out in another thread on Senate reform. This was explained in detail in another thread on Senate reform.

The federal government has now referred its plans for Senate Reform set out in Bill C-7

( http://www.parl.gc.c...1&DocId=5101177 ) to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on its constitutionality.

The federal government will seek clarification from the Supreme Court on its powers to reform or abolish the Senate, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform confirmed Friday afternoon in Ottawa.

Tim Uppal tried to blame the opposition parties for delaying the legislation, which was first introduced in June 2011, but hasn't been debated for nearly a year.

A key piece of the Conservative Party's platform going back to the days of its predecessor, the Reform Party, Senate reform has stalled amid resistance from senators and some of the provinces.

There are also questions about whether the majority of the provinces have to agree to the reform, something required for constitutional change. The federal government maintains such changes are relatively minor and can be done with the approval of Parliament alone.

The government's Senate reform bill, C-7, would limit senators' terms to nine years and allow the provinces to hold elections to choose senators. The Governor General would then, on the advice of the prime minister, appoint senators who had been selected through provincial elections.

The court is being asked whether the Senate Reform Act is constitutional, as well as about the constitutional amending procedure for changes to the net worth and property qualifications for Senate nominees, which were designed at the time of Confederation.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ate-reform.html

Here are the six questions referred to the SCOC.

The Governor in Council has referred the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada:

Senate Term Limits

1. In relation to each of the following proposed limits to the tenure of Senators, is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to make amendments to section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867 providing for

a. a fixed term of nine years for Senators, as set out in clause 5 of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act;

b. a fixed term of ten years or more for Senators;

c. a fixed term of eight years or less for Senators;

d. a fixed term of the life of two or three Parliaments for Senators;

e. a renewable term for Senators, as set out in clause 2 of Bill S-4, Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure);

f. limits to the terms for Senators appointed after October 14, 2008 as set out in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act; and

g. retrospective limits to the terms for Senators appointed before October 14, 2008?

Senate Appointment Consultations: National Process

2. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to enact legislation that provides a means of consulting the population of each province and territory as to its preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate pursuant to a national process as was set out in Bill C-20, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act?

Senate Appointment Consultations: Provincial Processes

3. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to establish a framework setting out a basis for provincial and territorial legislatures to enact legislation to consult their population as to their preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate as set out in the schedule to Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act?

Property Qualifications

4. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to repeal subsections 23(3) and (4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding property qualifications for Senators?

Senate Abolition

5. Can an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to abolish the Senate be accomplished by the general amending procedure set out in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, by one of the following methods:

a. by inserting a separate provision stating that the Senate is to be abolished as of a certain date, as an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 or as a separate provision that is outside of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 but that is still part of the Constitution of Canada;

b. by amending or repealing some or all of the references to the Senate in the Constitution of Canada; or

c. by abolishing the powers of the Senate and eliminating the representation of provinces pursuant to paragraphs 42(1)(

and (c ) of the Constitution Act, 1982?

6. If the general amending procedure in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not sufficient to abolish the Senate, does the unanimous consent provision set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply?

It seems the Harper government has listened to the public on the issue of warrantless searches of internet subscriber information and has made numerous attempts to reform the Senate but has run up against a constitutional roadblock and they are looking for a way to get around that.

I completely disagree with increasing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and limiting the use of conditional sentences which have been proven to work.

On the social side he has carried through on his promises to not change the law on abortion or capital punishment.

[Trelane42]

--“more charisma than Barak Obama, Bill Clinton… kind of guy who knows how to make you feel good”

--“I support him because he was starting to look like V from V for Vendetta. That's all it takes for me”

--“met him at a fundraising event a few months ago. He's a nice guy and a really good speaker”

--“love the guy. Good looking, nice hair and full of charisma. The kinda guy I want spanning the globe as leader of my country”

I’m sorry, but assuming the above posts are not in jest, Democracy, as originally devised, was not meant for those as innocent as you. It wasn’t that long ago that leaning on these sentiments as reason to vote was recognized as distinctly… female.

There are threads on this forum that may help with discernment. Hard to believe, I know, but the one on sugar and century long propaganda battle over recommended consumption levels, industry falsified/hidden health studies, and derailed government intervention purchased by company coin is a good one. All things are connected. Preference for industry created brands works the same be they sugar or political junkies.

PS: Justin hits like a girl and his opponent has the stamina of a 60 year old diabetic.

[Electro Rock]

Come on now, there's nothing this country needs more than another cult of personality centered around a bisexual little champagne socialist from Quebec named Trudeau!

[silverpig]

--“more charisma than Barak Obama, Bill Clinton… kind of guy who knows how to make you feel good”

--“I support him because he was starting to look like V from V for Vendetta. That's all it takes for me”

--“met him at a fundraising event a few months ago. He's a nice guy and a really good speaker”

--“love the guy. Good looking, nice hair and full of charisma. The kinda guy I want spanning the globe as leader of my country”

I’m sorry, but assuming the above posts are not in jest, Democracy, as originally devised, was not meant for those as innocent as you. It wasn’t that long ago that leaning on these sentiments as reason to vote was recognized as distinctly… female.

There are threads on this forum that may help with discernment. Hard to believe, I know, but the one on sugar and century long propaganda battle over recommended consumption levels, industry falsified/hidden health studies, and derailed government intervention purchased by company coin is a good one. All things are connected. Preference for industry created brands works the same be they sugar or political junkies.

PS: Justin hits like a girl and his opponent has the stamina of a 60 year old diabetic.

How many of the candidates for the Liberal leadership have you met in person? I've met 2. My wife met a third.

I had all of 15 seconds to type up the post and added some other comments on Joyce Murray's policies. My knowledge of Trudeau isn't limited to "he's nice". I heard him speak about the gun registry, about partisan politics, about his vision for Canada.

It's just that his charisma is what comes across first.

[Dittohead]

I don't vote for someone based on looks and a name which seems to be why he is even being considered. anything other than NDP. I usually vote Conservative or Liberal.

[VanNuck]

Pardon my bluntness but you were a fool if you thought simply slapping the Conservative name on their party somehow magically aligned them to your views. You either did not look nearly hard enough at their policies, track record etc or ignored them.

People need to stop voting for labels and party publicity and actual vote with their damned heads.

Well when it all comes down to it, nobody can ever match your views 100% (generically speaking). Harper and his Conservatives still came close though, given their track record on the economy, foreign policy, and domestic social issues.

Canada's relative success in dealing with the global economic turmoil is largely due to economic policies brought in by the Liberal governments before him. Also if he'd gotten his way and gotten things like de-regulated banking (like the USA) that he wanted we would have been in far worse shape (like the USA).

Call it a moderation effect. The Libs before happened to govern during the prospering 90s, made possible largely by a roaring American economy, in turn made possible by the FTA. However, America's gone south since, along with much of the world.

Even Harper knows he can't have his way without rocking the boat, which is why he's been forced to steer the ship closely and carefully. And he's actually made a lot of smart moves - tax credits for college students and eliminating long-form census (which is really pointless).

But I want to see what Trudeau has to offer - if he's going to offer positive reforms to reduce the government in favour of mobilizing citizens, cut taxes, and preserve family morality, then he might have my vote.

[VanNuck]

Not much Harper can do about Senate reform - he has tried to push through six bills but there is a constitutional impediment to Senate reform. The matter has been referred to the SCOC for an opinion as to the extent to which the federal government can act unilaterally to effect reform - IMHO there is little room.

As far as Senate reform, the Harper government has introduced seven bills on Senate reform since taking office in 2006 and there is currently a pending bill before the House of Commons on Senate reform - Bill C-7. The best Harper has been able to accomplish was Alberta agreeing to hold elections and that policy he would appoint from that election. The proposed reforms have faced serious opposition from the other parties in the House as well as provincial governments across the country. Quebec has already called on the province's court of appeal to rule on C-7's constitutionality while Nova Scotia has asked that any reforms be done through constitutional amendment.

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has twice introduced a motion in the Senate to hold a referendum on its future and he's going to try again," notes the post from June 2011. "His referendum would ask voters to choose between three options: abolish, reform, or keep the status quo." While Segal acknowledged the constitutional "brick wall," he suggests that if the majority of Canadians favoured abolition, then provincial governments would be less inclined to fight the change in the courts.

In the result the Conservative government has now sent the issue of Senate reform to the Supreme Court of Canada by way of a reference case to determine the extent to which the Senate may be reformed without the need for a formal constitutional amendment as set out in another thread on Senate reform. This was explained in detail in another thread on Senate reform.

Here are the six questions referred to the SCOC.

The Governor in Council has referred the following questions to the Supreme Court of Canada:

Senate Term Limits

1. In relation to each of the following proposed limits to the tenure of Senators, is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to make amendments to section 29 of the Constitution Act, 1867 providing for

a. a fixed term of nine years for Senators, as set out in clause 5 of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act;

b. a fixed term of ten years or more for Senators;

c. a fixed term of eight years or less for Senators;

d. a fixed term of the life of two or three Parliaments for Senators;

e. a renewable term for Senators, as set out in clause 2 of Bill S-4, Constitution Act, 2006 (Senate tenure);

f. limits to the terms for Senators appointed after October 14, 2008 as set out in subclause 4(1) of Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act; and

g. retrospective limits to the terms for Senators appointed before October 14, 2008?

Senate Appointment Consultations: National Process

2. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to enact legislation that provides a means of consulting the population of each province and territory as to its preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate pursuant to a national process as was set out in Bill C-20, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act?

Senate Appointment Consultations: Provincial Processes

3. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, acting pursuant to section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to establish a framework setting out a basis for provincial and territorial legislatures to enact legislation to consult their population as to their preferences for potential nominees for appointment to the Senate as set out in the schedule to Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act?

Property Qualifications

4. Is it within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada acting pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to repeal subsections 23(3) and (4) of the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding property qualifications for Senators?

Senate Abolition

5. Can an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to abolish the Senate be accomplished by the general amending procedure set out in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, by one of the following methods:

a. by inserting a separate provision stating that the Senate is to be abolished as of a certain date, as an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 or as a separate provision that is outside of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 but that is still part of the Constitution of Canada;

b. by amending or repealing some or all of the references to the Senate in the Constitution of Canada; or

c. by abolishing the powers of the Senate and eliminating the representation of provinces pursuant to paragraphs 42(1)(

and (c ) of the Constitution Act, 1982?

6. If the general amending procedure in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is not sufficient to abolish the Senate, does the unanimous consent provision set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 apply?

It seems the Harper government has listened to the public on the issue of warrantless searches of internet subscriber information and has made numerous attempts to reform the Senate but has run up against a constitutional roadblock and they are looking for a way to get around that.

I completely disagree with increasing the use of mandatory minimum sentences and limiting the use of conditional sentences which have been proven to work.

On the social side he has carried through on his promises to not change the law on abortion or capital punishment.

Well yeah I guess there's only so much one can do to concerning senate reform - but his track record for Senate appointments that will make us Conservatives cringe.

Except for not following through on making government more accountable and opening up the books (I mean, come on, what's he got to hide now with a majority?) or being more proactive to listen to citizens via social media public appearances, etc, his democracy record has been pretty good.

[Gross-Misconduct]

I will vote for Justin on the strength of his great hair alone.

[Dogbyte]

ho-hum

[VanNuck]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/03/20/justin_trudeau_declares_he_can_beat_stephen_harper_in_a_federal_election_just_watch_me_he_writes_in_note_on_airplane.html

Forty-two years after it was first uttered — in very different circumstances — the Trudeau challenge is back.

“Just watch me,” Justin Trudeau scribbled in a note on Tuesday night, when a fellow passenger aboard his Halifax-to-Toronto flight asked whether the front-running Liberal leadership contender could defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

“Justin, Can you really beat Harper?” Michael Kydd wrote on a note he passed to Trudeau. “Wishing you all the best!”

Trudeau replied by invoking Pierre

during the FLQ crisis of 1970, when a militant band of Quebec separatists kidnapped a British diplomat and a provincial cabinet minister.

Photos View gallery

• zoom
  
• zoom
  

Then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau was asked by a CBC reporter how far he would go in the suspension of civil liberties during the crisis.

“Well, just watch me,” he said at the time.

Kydd posted the note to Twitter. “Cool response!” he wrote.

Kydd later noted that there were only about seven people aboard the flight. It turns out he will be “just watching” Trudeau, however, no matter how tickled he was with the response. Kydd acknowledged he’s a life-long Conservative and big supporter of Harper.

“Saw this as an opportunity to have some fun,” he said in a tweet to the Star’s Susan Delacourt.

Harper’s communications director, Andrew MacDougall, was having some fun, too, on Wednesday with the Trudeau note. MacDougall put out his own scribbled reply to a question. A photo of yellow-lined paper was posted by the PM’s adviser on Twitter with a question: “Hey Andrew, what do you think about Justin Trudeau’s ‘just watch me’ quote? Best, Dom.”

The reply: “Hey Dom: Fuddle Duddle! Andrew.”

(“Fuddle duddle” was what Pierre Trudeau claimed he said during a stormy session in the Commons. Others said it was a well-known obscenity.)

Yup, our friend Justin is wasting no time conjuring up his daddy's lexicon. It does leave us to wonder, is this a sarcastic allusion to his father, or his he just as arrogant and smug as the late PET?

[Wetcoaster]

Yup, our friend Justin is wasting no time conjuring up his daddy's lexicon. It does leave us to wonder, is this a sarcastic allusion to his father, or his he just as arrogant and smug as the late PET?

Unlike his father who had the intellect, abilities, accomplishments and resume to back up such an attitude, Justin does not.

Justin fits in the class of unremarkable politicians that Winston Churchill remarked upon:

A modest man, with much to be modest about.

[silverpig]

Unlike his father who had the intellect, abilities, accomplishments and resume to back up such an attitude, Justin does not.

Justin fits in the class of unremarkable politicians that Winston Churchill remarked upon:

A modest man, with much to be modest about.

He could still be a good PM if he surrounds himself with the right people. He's charismatic, a good speaker, and good with the public (so far). If he gets an all-star PMO, set of advisors, and cabinet, he'll do well.

[Wetcoaster]

He could still be a good PM if he surrounds himself with the right people. He's charismatic, a good speaker, and good with the public (so far). If he gets an all-star PMO, set of advisors, and cabinet, he'll do well.

Sorry I want a leader as PM not a figurehead.

[VanNuck]

Sorry I want a leader as PM not a figurehead.

Nice point there. But I will half-argue though that a leader is a figurehead. Trudeau needs to surround himself with the right people, just as Harper and the predecessors did. But you're right. For all his passion, if he doesn't show he has the intellect, strength, and will to be a real leader, to set the course for Canada, and to lead this nation especially in a time of crisis, then he'll be a disasterous PM.

[Mr.Habitat]

If his last name wasn't Trudeau this guy would be nowhere.

[silverpig]

Sorry I want a leader as PM not a figurehead.

As do I, but a leader isn't someone who knows everything there is to know about finance, international trade, law, ethics, the environment, and the economy. That's what the cabinet, PMO, and civil servants are for.

A leader is someone who can get people excited and get people to do something they wouldn't normally otherwise do.