Justin Trudeau Becomes Liberal Leader & Possible PM

[Langdon Algur]

He wasn't agreeing with it.

[Lockout Casualty]

Paraphrasing his notoriously Quebec-centric father and agreeing with it, which is basically the same as saying it himself.It goes without saying that if that had been Harper speaking about Alberta, he would have been toast let alone having the media trying to cover for him.

[Electro Rock]

<p>

He said that his father argued that Quebec didn't need special treatment because they are bilingual and more culturally diverse than the rest of Canada.

You can invent all the fake context you like, but it doesn't change the fact that he was relaying what his father believed.

[aGENT]

name='TOMapleLaughs' timestamp='1366072031' post='11304472']

Attack ads only work when the masses don't find him all that vote-worthy to begin with. Actually, they don't work at all. (Is anyone honestly swayed by that garbage?)

[Wetcoaster]

He was paraphrasing someone else. Those weren't his own words. It's pretty obvious and if you can't make or understand that distinction, I pray for humanity's future.

[TOMapleLaughs]

[aGENT]

Okay how about his own words.

Justin Trudeau has been stumping the country and particularly Western Canada telling us rubes in the West how he has vision of a unified Canada with the West as full partner. Asked at a campaign appearance in Edmonton what he thought of reported remarks by David McGuinty telling Alberta MPs to go back to Alberta and run for provincial or municipal office because they do not represent Canada, Trudeau would not comment directly but stressed his priority is national unity.

"My entire campaign has been about bringing people together, about not pitting region against region and about being a strong representative and a voice that says the same thing in Chicoutimi as we say in downtown Calgary as I'll say in Toronto as I'll say in B.C.," said Trudeau.

"That's the kind of politics that I am trying to do here."

But that does not square with his remarks he made in a recorded interview in November 2010 where he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.

Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And he released this statement on Facebook and to the media he fell back on the time honoured excuse that his comments were taken out of context - sort of hard to maintain when the quotes are in fact considered in the context of the interview and follow-up questions. And then followed up by the misdirect...

"The Conservatives are using out-of-context statements made years ago in a long interview. They are clearly concerned that they are losing the byelection in Calgary Centre and are resorting to smear campaigns to stop their slide," the statement said.

"Justin knows that Calgary, Alberta and all of Western Canada are at the very heart of Canada's future. That's a message he has taken to every part of the country, from the beginning of the campaign. We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians."

Here again is the context for Justin... perhaps he is unfamiliar with the generally accepted definition of "context"???

:

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau told interviewer Patrick Lagacé.

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec.... This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rta-quebec.html

And it is not the first time Justin Trudeau has pushed his Quebec first view and tried to hang it on those who do not share his particular view of Canada that is not socially progressive like Quebec.

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.

In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,”

said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.

...

“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time?

Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.

“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”

The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh?

And it seems when he becomes frustrated he fails to engage his apparently limited brain power before putting his mouth in gear as occurred in December 2011 when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent in the House of Commons and had to issue another apology. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said he lost his temper in the House of Commons during question period when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent, which he later apologized for.

"I lost my temper and used language that was most decidedly unparliamentary and for that I unreservedly apologize and withdraw my remark," Trudeau said once question period had concluded Wednesday.

And why should the Conservatives not use his own words to hoist him from his own petard? And they will undoubtedly do so if he becomes the Liberal leader.

The fact Justin Trudeau is an intellectual lightweight without much experience nor much of a record just makes it much easier. And then when he utters such statements with,out thought he simply presents an inviting political target that have been the downfall of much more experienced and qualified past Liberal leaders.

Sounds like just more of the same old, same old from the Liberal party of Canada as Matt Gurney of the National Post writes in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

Mr. Trudeau’s interview was given to Patrick Lagace, host of Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters). And shoot Mr. Trudeau does … right at Alberta. He magnanimously lists Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, as a successful prime minister, but his other examples of good Quebec leaders — his father, Chrétien and Martin — aren’t just Quebecers, they’re Liberals.

And according to Mr. Trudeau, Canada belongs to them.

It doesn’t really matter if he was referring to Quebecers or Liberals. The comment reeks of arrogance either way.

This certainly won’t help the Liberals in Alberta, particularly in the upcoming Calgary Centre byelection. Harvey Locke, the Liberal candidate there, is probably wondering what he needs opposing candidates for, with Liberals like Messrs. Trudeau and McGuinty blowing up his campaign.

But the comments by both senior Liberals will resonate far beyond Alberta’s borders, and help to remind Canadians why it was they turfed our former natural governing party from office six years ago. It wasn’t any particular scandal or policy, but mostly because the entire party had come to embody a sense of entitlement, and the Liberals weren’t even trying to hide it anymore. They clearly felt they were owed not just cushy jobs and patronage posts, but the entire country and its collective identity.

It blew up in their face, of course. Millions of Canadians who might have gone for the Liberals’ policies found they didn’t much like being told that Liberal values were Canadian values, and that’s that. How could those who didn’t happen to support the Liberals conclude anything other than that their government didn’t consider them legitimate citizens? Such phenomenal arrogance cost the Grits at the ballot box. In case anyone is having difficulty remembering how that turned out, in a space of eight years, the Liberals went from expecting a 200-seat majority under Paul Martin to earnestly wondering if they can survive anything less than a drastic reinvention. Liberals have groused ever since that millions of Liberal voters have “stayed home” during the last few elections. Maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe their ego simply drove millions of people out of that big tent the Liberals are so eager to talk about.

The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.

These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.

Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.

It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

Rember the federal by-election being in Calgary Centre and the Liberal Candidate polling strongly in what seemed to be a tight race before the McGuinty comments and revelation of Trudeau's earlier interview with a less than stellar Conservative candidate, this has got to hurt. The Liberal candidate must be wondering whether he should be fighting those within the LPC and not his electoral opponents. With friends like David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau, who needs enemies????

And if Trudeau and other members of the self-proclaimed Natural Governing Party do not get it, fellow Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay gets the the weakness exposed by such remarks.

Fellow leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay even launched her campaign in Calgary.

“Launching in Calgary was very much to make a point to Albertans, Canadians and members of the Liberal party,” she said in an interview Thursday.

“It’s not that the Liberal party has become irrelevant to a lot of western Canadians. But I would say that western Canada increasingly seemed irrelevant to the Liberal party.” (

)

…

Meanwhile, the party’s decision not to hold any debates in Alberta or Saskatchewan during its leadership campaign has also prompted anger and frustration.

Liberal spokeswoman Sarah Bain says the omission was not meant as an intentional slight to those provinces, but came down to date and venue availability.

That hasn’t sat well with some leadership candidates and their teams, a number of whom have said they’ve asked the party to reconsider.

Hall Findlay said it’s one thing for Liberals to show up in western Canada, it’s another to actually include western Canadians and look out for their interests.

“People are skeptical, and rightfully so,” she says. “The challenge for us as a party is to walk the talk.”

http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz2Czzu7Pbl

The problem it seems is that theJustin Trudeau Liberals are in fact talking the talk and walking the walk... and it is the same old entitled talk they have been peddling without much success in the West for decades.

[Wetcoaster]

So vote federal NDP then

[ronthecivil]

Okay how about his own words.

Justin Trudeau has been stumping the country and particularly Western Canada telling us rubes in the West how he has vision of a unified Canada with the West as full partner. Asked at a campaign appearance in Edmonton what he thought of reported remarks by David McGuinty telling Alberta MPs to go back to Alberta and run for provincial or municipal office because they do not represent Canada, Trudeau would not comment directly but stressed his priority is national unity.

"My entire campaign has been about bringing people together, about not pitting region against region and about being a strong representative and a voice that says the same thing in Chicoutimi as we say in downtown Calgary as I'll say in Toronto as I'll say in B.C.," said Trudeau.

"That's the kind of politics that I am trying to do here."

But that does not square with his remarks he made in a recorded interview in November 2010 where he said he thought Albertans who were in charge were ruining Canada and it would be best to have Quebeckers running things.

In November 2010, Trudeau told a Quebec television show that he was tired of Albertans running the country and that, whether it was Jean Chretien or Brian Mulroney, Canada is better off when Quebecers are running the country.

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau said in French to interviewer Patrick Lagace on the Tele-Quebec program Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters).

Lagace then asked Trudeau if he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans?"

Trudeau replied: "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec... This country - Canada - it belongs to us."

Trudeau specifically named prime ministers Pierre Trudeau, Chretien and Paul Martin but also included Progressive Conservative Mulroney on his list of great Quebec prime ministers of the last century.

http://cnews.canoe.c...2/20377596.html

And the response when he came under fire for those comments? Trudeau and his strategists have apologized and tried to spin the comments.

Liberal leadership contender and Montreal-area MP Justin Trudeau says he is sorry for controversial remarks he made in an interview about Alberta politicians.

“I’m sorry I said what I said,” The Globe and Mail reported him as saying Friday. “I’m here to serve.”

In a six-minute scrum with reporters in Vancouver, he said he made a mistake in associating the Harper government with a specific region of Canada, according to media reports

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And he released this statement on Facebook and to the media he fell back on the time honoured excuse that his comments were taken out of context - sort of hard to maintain when the quotes are in fact considered in the context of the interview and follow-up questions. And then followed up by the misdirect...

"The Conservatives are using out-of-context statements made years ago in a long interview. They are clearly concerned that they are losing the byelection in Calgary Centre and are resorting to smear campaigns to stop their slide," the statement said.

"Justin knows that Calgary, Alberta and all of Western Canada are at the very heart of Canada's future. That's a message he has taken to every part of the country, from the beginning of the campaign. We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians."

Here again is the context for Justin... perhaps he is unfamiliar with the generally accepted definition of "context"???

:

"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work," Trudeau told interviewer Patrick Lagacé.

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec.... This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...rta-quebec.html

And it is not the first time Justin Trudeau has pushed his Quebec first view and tried to hang it on those who do not share his particular view of Canada that is not socially progressive like Quebec.

In February 2012 he talked about a Canada governed by Harper and the CPC as not his sort of Canada and that the best thing to do would be for him to leave with a separate Quebec. His father must have been turning over in his grave at that statement.

In a French-language interview in February, Trudeau took issue with the social conservative policies of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government and indicated he would be in favour of Quebec separating if they continued.

“I always say that if, some time, I believed that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper, and it was going against abortion, and it was going against same-sex marriage, and that it was moving backwards in 10,000 different ways, maybe I would think about making Quebec a country,”

said the Montreal-area MP in the weekend interview with Radio-Canada.

...

“When Quebec is not involved in the governance of this country, this country moves too much toward the right,” he said in the radio interview. “It’s not necessarily that Canadians don’t have the same values as us Quebecers. It’s that there’s a way of seeing social responsibility, openness toward others, a cultural pride here in Quebec that’s necessary for Canada and it saddens me a great deal (to see what’s happening now).”

http://www.edmontonj...1092/story.html

And his defence at that time?

Trudeau later sought to defend himself in a bizarre press conference in which he spoke in the third-person.

“The question is not why does Justin Trudeau suddenly not love this country because the question is ridiculous,” Trudeau said. “I live this country in my bones in every breath I take, and I’m not going to stand here and somehow defend that I actually do love Canada because we know I love Canada.”

The arrogance and entitlement just shines through, eh?

And it seems when he becomes frustrated he fails to engage his apparently limited brain power before putting his mouth in gear as occurred in December 2011 when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent in the House of Commons and had to issue another apology. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Liberal MP Justin Trudeau said he lost his temper in the House of Commons during question period when he swore at Environment Minister Peter Kent, which he later apologized for.

"I lost my temper and used language that was most decidedly unparliamentary and for that I unreservedly apologize and withdraw my remark," Trudeau said once question period had concluded Wednesday.

And why should the Conservatives not use his own words to hoist him from his own petard? And they will undoubtedly do so if he becomes the Liberal leader.

The fact Justin Trudeau is an intellectual lightweight without much experience nor much of a record just makes it much easier. And then when he utters such statements with,out thought he simply presents an inviting political target that have been the downfall of much more experienced and qualified past Liberal leaders.

Sounds like just more of the same old, same old from the Liberal party of Canada as Matt Gurney of the National Post writes in an article titled "Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out":

Mr. Trudeau’s interview was given to Patrick Lagace, host of Les francs-tireurs (The Straight Shooters). And shoot Mr. Trudeau does … right at Alberta. He magnanimously lists Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, as a successful prime minister, but his other examples of good Quebec leaders — his father, Chrétien and Martin — aren’t just Quebecers, they’re Liberals.

And according to Mr. Trudeau, Canada belongs to them.

It doesn’t really matter if he was referring to Quebecers or Liberals. The comment reeks of arrogance either way.

This certainly won’t help the Liberals in Alberta, particularly in the upcoming Calgary Centre byelection. Harvey Locke, the Liberal candidate there, is probably wondering what he needs opposing candidates for, with Liberals like Messrs. Trudeau and McGuinty blowing up his campaign.

But the comments by both senior Liberals will resonate far beyond Alberta’s borders, and help to remind Canadians why it was they turfed our former natural governing party from office six years ago. It wasn’t any particular scandal or policy, but mostly because the entire party had come to embody a sense of entitlement, and the Liberals weren’t even trying to hide it anymore. They clearly felt they were owed not just cushy jobs and patronage posts, but the entire country and its collective identity.

It blew up in their face, of course. Millions of Canadians who might have gone for the Liberals’ policies found they didn’t much like being told that Liberal values were Canadian values, and that’s that. How could those who didn’t happen to support the Liberals conclude anything other than that their government didn’t consider them legitimate citizens? Such phenomenal arrogance cost the Grits at the ballot box. In case anyone is having difficulty remembering how that turned out, in a space of eight years, the Liberals went from expecting a 200-seat majority under Paul Martin to earnestly wondering if they can survive anything less than a drastic reinvention. Liberals have groused ever since that millions of Liberal voters have “stayed home” during the last few elections. Maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe their ego simply drove millions of people out of that big tent the Liberals are so eager to talk about.

The Trudeau camp responded quickly to the revelations. In a statement put out on Thursday afternoon, they said, “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview … We need to get beyond the divisive politics of the Conservatives and include all Canadians.”

Problem: It was Mr. Trudeau himself making the divisive comments, saying Canada didn’t work when Albertans have power, and that the country belongs either to one province, or just Liberals from that province. Mr. Trudeau may feel the quotes were taken out of context, but they still [ital]sound[endital] astonishingly divisive. You can’t accuse someone else of playing the politics of division when your own party, twice in two days, has treated Albertans as somehow unfit to hold office in their own federal government.

These comments just don’t sound divisive (though Lordy, they do). They also sound achingly familiar. This is exactly how many Canadians suspect the Liberals really feel, deep down inside: The only good Canadian is a Liberal. Everyone else is either an American or an Albertan (one suspects that, to many Liberals, this is a distinction without a difference). The Liberals can embrace the oil sands all they want. Until they stop treating the people who live in the general vicinity of the oil sands as enemy aliens out to rob the Grits of their rightful, if temporarily interrupted, rule over Canada, they’re not going to improve much on their third-party status.

Yes, the comments are from a couple of years ago, which may help partially offset the oh-so weak response put out by the Trudeau team (though we’re not talking unearthed university-era debate club stuff here — this was Trudeau speaking in his capacity as a Liberal MP only two years ago). And the Liberals have been doing okay lately. Polls show they have a shot to come back to second place. Maybe even compete for government.

It could happen. But they’ll need more than a new leader and some new policies before that can happen. They need a full-on attitude adjustment. Despite all their talk about renewal, it’s not clear that’s in the making.

http://fullcomment.n...were-voted-out/

Rember the federal by-election being in Calgary Centre and the Liberal Candidate polling strongly in what seemed to be a tight race before the McGuinty comments and revelation of Trudeau's earlier interview with a less than stellar Conservative candidate, this has got to hurt. The Liberal candidate must be wondering whether he should be fighting those within the LPC and not his electoral opponents. With friends like David McGuinty and Justin Trudeau, who needs enemies????

And if Trudeau and other members of the self-proclaimed Natural Governing Party do not get it, fellow Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay gets the the weakness exposed by such remarks.

Fellow leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay even launched her campaign in Calgary.

“Launching in Calgary was very much to make a point to Albertans, Canadians and members of the Liberal party,” she said in an interview Thursday.

“It’s not that the Liberal party has become irrelevant to a lot of western Canadians. But I would say that western Canada increasingly seemed irrelevant to the Liberal party.” (

)

…

Meanwhile, the party’s decision not to hold any debates in Alberta or Saskatchewan during its leadership campaign has also prompted anger and frustration.

Liberal spokeswoman Sarah Bain says the omission was not meant as an intentional slight to those provinces, but came down to date and venue availability.

That hasn’t sat well with some leadership candidates and their teams, a number of whom have said they’ve asked the party to reconsider.

Hall Findlay said it’s one thing for Liberals to show up in western Canada, it’s another to actually include western Canadians and look out for their interests.

“People are skeptical, and rightfully so,” she says. “The challenge for us as a party is to walk the talk.”

http://www.canada.co...l#ixzz2Czzu7Pbl

The problem it seems is that theJustin Trudeau Liberals are in fact talking the talk and walking the walk... and it is the same old entitled talk they have been peddling without much success in the West for decades.

[aGENT]

Frankly I'd love to do the same. Cut off Alberta and let him rule it in to a polluted, prisoned and archaic anti-freedom @#$%-hole like he's trying to force the rest of Canada in to.

Living in Harper's vision of Canada I can hardly blame Quebec for reconsidering their position on separation.

[Aladeen]

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?

[silverpig]

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?

[silverpig]

Okay how about his own words.

*snip*

[Aladeen]

No single person is fully qualified to run all aspects of the government and represent everyone. That's why we have a system of local representation, and allow the PM to pick a cabinet of experts.

He is getting younger people more interested and involved in politics, and that is definitely good for the country. He has a stated vision of a unified Canada, and wants to eliminate divisive politics.

His comments about joining Quebec to separate were a hypothetical situation where Harper turned Canada into a country that wasn't socially progressive and inclusive - he'd rather separate than be part of a country that was so backwards. That's not an issue though as Harper hasn't gone back on his promise to not re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debate (although as recent news shows, there are those in his party who don't want the same thing).

If he can get the right people in his cabinet and in the PMO, he'll do fine. He has the ability to attract that talent.

[Coda]

Not sure after the comments he left in Anne Frank's house and trying to smuggle his monkey into Germany that he is what is best for this country... isn't he a little young to be prime minister? I know the tween girls love him but does that really give him the right stuff to lead a nation with a variety of demographics?

[silverpig]

I was joking man... it was Justin Beiber that did those things.

[Lockout Casualty]

Sounds like Harper's got "a big problem". What a hypocrite.

[aGENT]

With their stance on Quebec and separation??? Nope I am a committed federalist and the NDP has been all over the map on Quebec separation.

[Wetcoaster]

Do you agree 100% with ALL of the policies, principals etc of any party? I sure don't.

And for the record I don't think they're "all over the map" I think they have a barely controversial view of the voting requirements.

Given that only roughly 1/3 of "Quebecois" want out of Canada even under the - in their (and my) opinion - highly damaging Conservative/Harper government, I think the 50+1 of actual vs eligible voters (translating to an estimated 47% of eligible) "issue" has been highly overblown.

They've also stated that if they were presented with data/argument showing an actual issue with this format that they'd be more than open to re-examining it.

Then there's also the knowledge that as the "Unity Bill" that brought any of this up was introduced under the Haper/Con majority and had absolutely zero chance of actually passing and is quite obviously a politicking move aimed squarely at it's large Quebec based support. You'd have praised the Cons for the exact same maneuver appealing to vast swaths of their base.

[aGENT]

There are some policies such as opposition to Quebec separation/sovereignty that would be so basic that I could not support a party that wavered on that position.