Justin Trudeau’s sunny ways

The Liberal leader explains his economic agenda

The Liberal party’s latest adventure in YouTube is a seven-minute video sent to delegates ahead of this week’s convention in Montreal.

The French version is a minute-and-a-half longer.

The Liberal line, briefly alluded to in this video, that Stephen Harper has presided over the lowest economic growth since RB Bennett doesn’t obviously tell us anything except that Messrs. Harper and Bennett happened to be prime minister when the global economy went into the dumps.

(And while we’re on the topic… Mr. Trudeau’s suggestion last week that “the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself” (see Mr. Trudeau’s interviews here and here) and the Conservative attempts to attack said suggestion (see here) might raise a few fun questions. Is the federal budget currently in a structural deficit or would the budget eventually return to balance if economic growth returned to normal levels? What amount of spending restraint and reductions are required right now and how durable are the cuts that have been made so far?)




Browse

Justin Trudeau’s sunny ways

  1. Excellent!

    Explanation, hope…..and without the nastiness of partisanship

    • It is well done, isn’t it? — mainly because it presents ideas and a vision with clear, simple language and graphics; I am thinking about how the incredibly complex green shift plan was communicated and received by contrast. Moreover, the production is slick in that it’s not slick, likely fairly low budget, yet engaging. I love that the leader voiced it himself. And if all these commenters watched over seven minutes of the third party leader talking about his economic viewpoint, one would have to say it’s reasonably successful. A leader willing to communicate ideas in clear, simple language is rather refreshing.

      • Too much like rice cakes for my taste – way too airy and not nearly filling enough. Time for the meat and potatoes.

        Hopefully, we’ll get some real policy content after the convention.

        • Or in other words you much prefer the lies and secrecy harper treats Canadians to?

          • No – just saying I want to start seeing concrete policy directions. This is all nice and touchy-feely, but if he soon doesn’t start giving some concrete indication of which direction he intends to go, we’ll start to see his lead in the polls bleed off to the other two parties. And that’s definitely not what I want.

  2. At least when Trudeau makes a political message, its more engaging and not filled with vengeance and demonizing. Tom is trying to speak to 2/3s of the country, and Harper is trying to speak to the other 3rd. Justins message is to the whole country.

    • To all the little children he will appeal. To adults – not so much.

      • Thanks for the insight, Tokyo Rose.

  3. Blah, Blah, Blah – (insert platitude here) – Blah, Blah, Blah – (insert platitude here) – Blah, Blah, Blah.
    Does Trudeau say even just one tangible thing in that clip?

    • He’ll never win an election on intelligence or wit. His plan is to try to say as little of substance as possible to hope the Liberals can trick the public into voting for them. They tried the same thing with Iggy, except Iggy was actually a smart guy.

      That said, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Trudeau’s brought in the same Americans that ran Obama’s first campaign to advise him. And it looks like repeating “Hope and change” endlessly is the only strategy those guys have. All the Americans got was disappointment. I suspect the result would be the same here.

      • LOL Witness Cons running around in a panic!

        • No Emily. Witness Canadians discussing a video they just watched which provides nothing substantive. Just like the past year of JT’s leadership.

          • Hair on fire….heads cut off……foaming at the mouth. LOL

            JUSTIN IS COMING!

          • Are you describing yourself Emily? You seem to be the one jumping to poo-poo any negative comment about your saviour. Instead of just writing “con-bot heads exploding”, why don’t you contribute the conversation or try to defend your messiah? Your posts are as meaningless as Trudeau’s video.

          • Why don’t you wait until you’ve been here more than 5 minutes ………before you make a fool of yourself?

          • Great response Emily. You’re proving to be as empty as your leader.
            PS – I didn’t realize there was a time requirement in order to comment.
            PPS – I was the 3rd person to comment on this board, so I have been here more than 5 minutes.

          • Well your brain hasn’t…..you’ve already lost the Spring Temp position, so you owe Omen an apology

            Clue One….I’m not a Lib….nor a Con or a Dipper. Sorry.

          • So we’ll just file you under the “idiot” category.
            Emily – I’ve seen you on many other comment boards rushing to JT’s defense. If you’re not a lib, you’re only fooling yourself.

          • No, you won’t. Sorry.

            And no you haven’t seen me on other comment boards defending Justin…..Sorry.

            Have another coffee before you try this again, K?

          • Whatever. I don’t mind discussing issues but I have no time for your nonsense. bye-bye.

          • Bye-bye sweetums.

          • Way to tie take the man on face offs there E…keep em busy, you’ll tire em out eventually.

          • LOL boring though…..everybody’s a critic rather than a contributor.

          • everybody’s a critic rather than a contributor.

            You might want to go back and read that exchange.. not much “contributing” from you…

          • more than you

          • On this exchange – true. If you count her vacuous bantering as contributing.

            You’re new here. Emily and I have a long history. I’ll give you time to get acquainted with our respective styles and come to your own conclusions about each of us.

          • We all realize, of course, that the Emilies of the comments sections are a natural and inevitable response to the Francien Verhoevens.

          • Not necessary to be name calling….that is rude…Emilyone has more class than you….must be smarter

          • I was rather enjoying filing you and your brain washed crowd into the “idiot” category where it’s “CLEAR” you all belong.

          • In reality it’s you who’s showing a head devoid of a brain similar to harper and his followers. Sort of like a christ thing among your crowd who believe just for being told to.

          • Oh dear….you sound as angry and nasty as Harper and his boys with short pants. Harper will never win another election. Canada does not want a dictator as our leader. Chill out

          • Are you that stupid to fall for that fool? I say the same thing to people who fell for Obama.

          • LOL That’s okay Derek….it just goes along with your many other mistakes in life.

          • Don’t bother Derek. Don’t waste your time trying to have any sort of intelligent conversation with Emily. Just read through her posts.

          • Oh wait…..now you KNOW what my posts have said?

            Your feet look nice in your mouth….leave them there. LOL

          • I’ll respond one last time because you’re a special kind of stupid. Yes, I KNOW what your posts say because I READ them on THIS board. It’s not rocket science. How do your own feet taste, sweetums?

          • It’s definitely your last response because you’re going to the dungeon with the rest of the Twilight Zone types on here.

            Adios

          • sounds like you,re the stupid one….just saying !!!!!!!!!

          • How so Susan? Emily asked how I KNOW what her posts have said. I said “I’ve READ them” – that’s how.
            How does that make me the stupid one? I know you’re “just saying”…. but is there really any basis?

          • you again….why are you being so nasty ??

          • She is the resident troll, with several sock puppets.

          • I take it when you say fool….you mean Harper our dictator PM….

          • Of course, compared to this it’s a friggin’ doctoral thesis.

          • Gawd I’d forgotten how BAD that was.

          • That’s the one someone outed almost immediately as a GOP candidate rip off wasn’t it? These guys have some nerve accusing Trudeau of unoriginality. Bit like TH’s complaining Dunkin’ Donuts has stolen their brand.

          • yea…you,re all scared of Justin Trudeau. Actually he is a breath of fresh air. Harper is a dictator.

        • All of the comments on this thread are about how stupid everyone is. Why do you not discuss the issues? I guess that personal attacks are easier than defending a bankrupt government.

          • Most of us know each other too well…poor excuse but there it is.

          • You’re new here…regulars have discussed the issues many times. The partisan commenters have said the same things for years….and so the answers are the same.

            There are lots of other topics that appear…that COULD be discussed….but most people here only post about politics, and most of them are Con shills campaigning for all they’re worth.

          • When things get factual, we all get called “misogynists.”
            I am actually a misanthrope, but the ancient one cannot twist that to her advantage.

        • Hey, you misspelt “Witless”

          • LOL oh they’re witless alright!

      • I know. There’s nothing original or refreshing about Trudeau’s style – he’s a complete Obama knock-off except that I’ll give Obama props for being a good speaker.

        • oh… I,m sure you meant to say….Justin Trudeau is a breath of fresh air.

      • Oh how I long for the substance of past Conservative election campaigns:

        “The economy the economy the economy accountability accoutability here for canada here for canada here for canada…..no questions, photos only please”

      • You must be confused…When was the last time Canadians saw Harper answer any questions….and he is our PM

      • who tries to say as little as possible???.you must be tired….Harper has been pm 8yrs….when did you last see him stand at a mike and answer questions for Canadians….actually he muzzles reporters,scientist and Cds…You should try to ask him a question sometime…will probably end up in gail.That,s what dictators do.

      • Easy to see how much Mr. Trudeau frightens the oil crowd whose only agenda is more money in their pockets and to hell with the environment.

      • Have you seen the Alberta numbers lately ?

    • I’ll bet you didn’t last 30 seconds judging by your informed commentary.

      • Nope. I watched the whole painful video. I assume you watched the whole thing too since you couldn’t tell me one tangible thing Trudeau said.

        • Well it was a little pedagogic , but that’s just Trudeau’s style. Just like Harper’s is to never tell the whole truth about something when a half truth or plausible lie will serve better politically.
          Look it works for the message or spin if you like that JT is trying to put out there…ie., sunny Laurier ways revisited.

          • yea….someone speaks the truth…..

        • you tell me what Trudeau said……waiting

          • He never says anything, so I agree with your question.

          • haha…..so u didn,t read it…..shame on u

          • I never read fiction.
            All politics is like a pick-up artist gaming us to get into our pants. I am merely interested in how people form such dogmatic stances.

          • Didn’t you read my original post? He didn’t say anything:

            Blah, Blah, Blah – (insert platitude here) – Blah, Blah, Blah – (insert platitude here) – Blah, Blah, Blah – middle class – blah, blah, blah – negative politics.

    • is your name Stephen Harper…or are you one of his boys with the short pants.You sound scare and upset. Chill out Harper is history next election

  4. Why is the French version a minute and a half longer than the English version? What is Trudeau saying to French-Canadians that he’s not saying to English-Canadians?

      • Do you think I’d have asked the question if I spoke French?

        • You don’t speak French? Well whose fault is that?

          • Probably Justin Trudeau’s, somehow.

          • LOL yup….I”m expecting FV any minute.

          • Slightly. This wouldn’t be an issue if he were saying the same things in French as he’s saying in English. But this has become the Liberal way, lying to Canadians in both official languages.

          • Since you don’t speak French….LOL

          • Since by your own admission you don’t speak French…how’d you know that NotRick…you some kinda mind reader now?

          • If it’s the same message in French and English, why does it take almost a minute and a half longer to say it in French than English?

          • I don’t know for the same reason you don’t. But i’m not jumping to half assed conclusions for one simple reason…lots of other people do speak French. If Trudeau though he could slide something that blatant by in the age of the internet then he’s a fool.

          • Compare English and French versions of our laws; it often takes more words to express the same meaning in French. You don’t need to understand French to see it graphically illustrated there. So, assuming he speaks at the same pace in both languages, it is not surprising it takes longer to cover the same ground.

          • so nice to have people with brains on board !!!!

          • Thank you for a reasonable response. Everybody else seems to think I’m an idiot because I don’t speak French, or I’m asking some type of completely unreasonable question.

          • Surely, one of your team can translate it for you.

          • Trudeau did draw it in crayon…what more can he do?

          • Maybe if they slowed down the tape they could follow it…

          • That or more colour. Probably that and the absence of sound bubbles that threw Rick off.

          • He’ll just have to wait for Jenni Byrne to send him his attack points. She seems to have gone to ground after the Leslie fiasco.

          • Yes, it is interesting that the Liberals seem to think that voters need to be spoken to like children. I guess it matches the Liberals grasp of the economy. Ie. “the budget will balance itself”.

          • Roll tape – Kelly Leitch lecturing voters on ‘jobs and the economy’.

          • Yes, because that’s how language works. French and English and even Mandarin can be translated on a direct word for word basis. Why, it’s just a matter of substituting The English words with the French, right?

          • ha!ha! you guys are so afraid of Justin…..Speaking of lying to Canadians….oh dear….you must be really tired to night

          • LOL very likely

        • Ah, I forgot you lived in Justin Trudeau’s Canada where everybody who doesn’t speak French is a second class citizen.

          • You live in Ontario Rick….not Moosebutt Alberta.

          • I don’t live in Ontario, or Alberta. But thanks for proving, yet again, that you can be wrong about absolutely everything.

          • And I”m not an economist ….so we’re even.

          • Manitoba is blessed to have you. You and Vic Toews.

          • He could be Vic Toews. They have the same grasp of basic facts.

          • And the same outrage level!

          • Why so bigoted against Alberta?

        • yup

        • you don,t have to speak French to know that generally,many French words takes more time to say than English ones..just the way the language lends itself

    • You have to be pretty dumb if you read the message in English and didn’t understand it in French. Their both pretty well identical.

      • I know that Liberals consider anybody who doesn’t speak French “dumb”, but my question wasn’t about the text in this childish video, it was about what’s BEING SAID in the video. It can’t possibly take 8:46 to say the same thing in French as what can be said in 7:23 in English. Obviously the message being spoken is different in the two videos. This is not the first time the Liberals have attempted to say one thing to French Canadians while saying something different to English Canadians.

        But please, by all means continue to remind everybody how the Liberals despise English-only speakers.

        • “It can’t possibly take 8:46 to say the same thing in French as what can be said in 7:23 in English”

          Yes, it can. Some things require more words to express in one language than another. On average, to judge by the laws and court judgments I’ve read (and my little-used spoken French), French requires more words than English does to express the same meaning. That means a longer period of time, if spoken at the same pace.

    • That’s where he talks about his plan to violently overthrow the government if Harper wins again in 2015. Start building a bunker.

      • Right, he’s passing them the formula for the antidote to the deadly plague he plans to unleash in the RoC. Rick’s spotted the flaw in the plan right off, some people speak French outside of QC…oops…master plan foiled. And by a half wit to boot.

        • Dam – and just when he had the retired Generals on board…

    • actually if you knew the French language….you,d understand….

  5. the commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself

    It seems to me the only party in Canada with a commitment to grow the economy is the Conservatives. The economy won’t grow it’s way out of deficit by increasing the amount of money the government spends annually. It won’t grow it’s way out deficit by legalizing marijuana. And it certainly won’t grow it’s way out of deficit by electing a PM with as few ideas as Trudeau.

    • JT will solve everything with his dreamy hair and doe-y eyes. He just has to wish for it and click his heels together three times.

      • Another Con man-crush. Hmmmm

      • Trudeau would not click his heels together three times. He’d hire an “expert” adviser to do the heel clicking for him.

    • Raise the GDP dude….this isn’t rocket science.

      • *sigh* For someone who claims to be an economist, I would think you’d know that you can’t just magically “raise the GDP”. There’s no dial at the finance ministry that can just be cranked up.

        Furthermore, it’s not as simple as “raise the GDP”, if government expenditures are increasing faster than the GDP is rising. The government could take in $1B more next year, but that does nothing to solve the deficit if the government spends $2B more next year.

        By the way, where did you get your economics degree?

        • No magic is involved Rick

          And hey, it’s your Con govt raising spending. LOL

        • Yeah you can raise the GDP….we’ve been doing it for centuries.

          Did you think it happened by magic??

    • The problem is that the economy is not growing. We are running trade deficits, budget deficits and investment is leaving the country. The economic growth of the country in Harpers time is barely better than RB Bennetts government of the great depression.
      Countries like the UK and the US have better unemployment numbers than Canada and that was supposed to be the big achievement of the government.
      Maybe it is time for some new ideas as the current ones are not working.

    • John, you should know by now that all Conservative fundraising letters are evil, and all Liberal fundraising e-mails are as pure as the driven snow, even when they intentionally include outright lies.

    • Oh for god’s sake you’re pathetic and so is Atkin who should know better. Did he even contact her before tweeting that, cuz that is the way the sun crowd roll?
      It’s an easy fact check, even i knew she had it wrong. At least give her the opportunity of saying she made a mistake.

      • It’s not David Atkin’s job to fact check for the Liberal Party of Canada. An e-mail fundraiser was sent out including blatantly false allegations against the CPC, and he simply reported it. You know, he did his job. I know that in Liberal la-la-land the media is expected to cover up any gaffe’s by Liberals, but thankfully the rest of us live in the real world.

        • Idiot. Any decent journo would call to confirm. I don’t do twitter so i have no idea whether it’s a different ethic and neither do you; i don’t see why it would be.

          • She sent out a mass fundraising email. Why would he call to confirm the contents of an e-mail he received? The contents is right there in front of him, there’s nothing to “confirm”. The fundraising e-mail contained a screenshot of a tweet, which Freeland inferred came from a Conservative MP, when it in fact came from a journalist. This was not a mistake, as the identity of the actual tweeter was intentionally blurred out in the screenshot. She actively and intentionally lied to her e-mail subscribers.

          • If he either Atkin, John or you had actually bothered to read the email [which was not sent to Atkin] you’d see she inferred nothing of the kind. You’re right for once, it was not a mistake, nor did she do any thing wrong. A child of 6 can still see who the tweet came from. If it was intentionally done to deceive it was poor effort.

          • You’ve come a long way from it being an easy fact check and knowing immediately she got it wrong.

          • I made a reasonable first assumption…she got it wrong. You think it was reasonable assumption she did it intentionally. Seems i was wrong, i should have checked the emal first. You on the other hand likely checked the evidence and still made the worst possible assumption.

      • At least give her the opportunity of saying she made a mistake.

        I did. 24 hours is plenty of time.

        • What on earth does that mean?. Did Akin contact her, or are you saying you fed him this, and if so did you contact her?

      • I’m not sure she had it wrong. I received a copy of the email myself; it was carefully crafted to give the impression a CPC MP was the one who said it – though she doesn’t come right out and say that. I was certainly left with the impression it was from a CPC member.

        I’m not impressed. It looks like something straight out of the CPC playbook.I thought the Libs were trying to do things differently?

        • That isn’t the impression I get from reading the script. I didn’t even glance at the tweet when I looked at it originally. But if someone as reasonable as you are is bothered by it, then an explanation of why the tweet was blurred is called for. I’m going to try and ask her if I can get through to her. I’ll let you know. But as I said the text does not IMO, even my second opinion read as accusing the CPC of anything worse than shouting her down – which is bad enough.

    • Calling it an outright lie is a stretch. Is it deceptive? Yes. Disingenuous? Yes. She does not outright attribute the quote to a CPC MP.

      I’d say it’s about on the level with CPC mocking of Trudeau’s “budget will balance itself” quote, quoting only half the quote, omitting the other half that brings a lot of context to it.

      Political party distorts story for own political gain. News at 11. I say these two cancel each other out.

      As for Wherry, briefly reviewing, I don’t see any posts of him investigating/analyzing CPC distortion of Trudeau’s quote either. Should we put him through the wringer for that too?

      Pitchforks, everyone!!

      • I’m not sure it even qualifies as disingenuous since it could easily have originated from any number of Tories on Harper’s team.

      • YOu mean like John did?

        Glass houses John. Glass houses…

    • http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/blog/this-is-my-big-girl-voice/

      Here’s the email. The original tweet is even referenced [ ID and photo blurred for some reason, which i'm sure you will now spin into a conspiracy]
      Even a cursory reading shows she did not say the tweet came for the CPC.
      Atkins got egg on his face and you’re a fool. Haven’t you got a global CC conspiracy to undermine somewhere?
      edit: If it as an intentional attempt to deceive it as a very poorly executed one.

      • The email is crafted to give the impression in was a CPC member who said it. I received the email; I read it to mean just that. A close parsing shows she never actually said it – but the intent is clearly that a reader not paying too close attention to the syntax and not taking time to fact-check would be left with the distinct impression it was someone in the CPC who said it.

        You know full well I have no time for the CPC. Part of the reason is dirty tricks like this. It certainly doesn’t buoy my hopes for a change in direction of governance from the Libs when they start using the CPC handbook.

        • I think she could have made the exact same point without the reference to the tweet. The real issue is the fact the cons were extremely rude and disrespectful, not only to her but to all her constituents. The reporter’s tweet was offensive but made less so by his subsequent apology. No apology from Harper’s team though.

          Anyway, the email opened this door which is unfortunate and unnecessary, but also not exactly the biggest news of the day.

          John is whining yet again.

    • Seen worse deception in CPC campaigns. Not a proud moment for Libs though.

    • Waaaaaa

      Seriously, THIS is more important than Trudeau’s video?

      Well no, no it is not. But I can see why you would prefer we all focus on this instead. I mean, the way Freeland was treated in the House was shameful, but at least there is a nugget in there with which you can also criticize the liberals (small as it may be in comparison to the way the conservative MP’s behaved that day). This is how desperate conservatives have become – they want to highlight their own team’s bad behaviour instead of a statement by Trudeau on the economy.

      Keep on doing what you are doing liberals.

  6. Why am I not surprised that the Liberals are talking to Canadians as if voters are children? Hand drawn cartoons? Really? I’d expect to see this type of thing on Sesame Street, not from a party that wants to run a nation of over 30,000,000 people.

    • Yet you still didn’t get it…oddly enough.

      • What do I not “get”? That I don’t like being communicated to as if I’m a 5 year old? I know why I don’t like being spoken to like a child. Perhaps you’d like to explain why you find it appropriate for the leader of a federal party to speak to voters as if they’re all idiots.

        • keep spinning…you aren’t getting anywhere.

        • You’re talking about the Poopin’ Puffin again, stupie?
          Hahahahaha!
          You’re too stupid to come up with your own talking points. Stick to the ones you’re given!

        • But a 5 year old is what you are little Wickydumdums.

    • Phew! I can smell that sweat coming off that one, stupie!
      And it only took you a couple of hours and 20-odd comments on this story to come up with it. Or did you hear it on Sun TV?

    • At least when the other party that wants to run the country does cartoons
      you can’t see that hand drawning them. And they have poop! You’d never see poop on Sesame Street!
      What a sad failure you are, stupie.

  7. The difference between Harper and RB Bennett is that back in the 30′s the government would not borrow money to invest in the economy. So people took their cars hooked up horses and called it the Bennett Buggy.
    Harper has increased our debt by $160 billion dollars and yet still could not get much more growth in the economy than the great depression.

    Furthermore we are running continual trade deficits and investment is leaving the country.
    Sounds to me like the government is failing miserably.

    • Your last point is a good one, and one JT is emphasizing along with Harper’s lousy job of trying to get social license for pipelines. Presumably this is part of the Trudeau growth strategy also – essentially he’s a better salesman. Harper the wind; he the sunshine….
      It’ll take more and frankly i’m not sure real growth will really comeback until it does in the US. Which makes Harper’s record on getting pipelines through even worse.

  8. Anyone read the Globe’s fawning piece of tripe for this half-wit? The only policy difference seemed to be that Justin would have pushed Keystone through faster. In a choice between two turds, I choose neither. Time to give Mulcair a chance.

    • Sorry, my man. I believe you were directed through the wrong
      door. This room is for the Lib-Con tennis match. I think you
      want the door on the left … over there.

      • It’s the door the majority of Candians will be taking in the next election – as we ignore the distortions of the extreme right wing corporate media and the consistently and historically inaccurate polls – join us, won’t you? End the CPC-LPC corruption and vote NDP.

      • Hah. You’re old enough to know there no such thing as correct door. :)
        There’s just a worse, worser and worsest of all door. The main thing is to evacuate through any door that leads out of Harper’s house.

        • +1 .. I could go off all over that .. but I won’t.

          • I’m not old enough to know better yet, so i’ll stick to merely worse…JT

  9. It’s 2014. How much longer are the Conservatives planning on saying they’re not responsible for anything because of the 2008 recession? Which as I recall, they were claiming didn’t exist as it was taking place….

    • You recall correctly, Kalin, though Conservatives will tell you that they didn’t add nearly as much to the debt as the opposition wanted…in other words, they compromised, which, had they done so in the first place, would have saved us the cost of a needless federal election.

  10. This guy makes my skin crawl. Freakishly freakish.

  11. Maclean’s – as I’ve asked a few times now, PLEASE adopt a different format so we don’t have to scroll down forever through this inane chatter to get to the next post!!!!!

  12. How much do you get paid to be an online Liberal?

  13. Excellent video without being the vicious and nasty stuff we’re use to from harper. Just the facts all Canadians need to know.

    • What facts? Facts such as people want work? So what’s new.How will Trudeau create all those jobs? Out of thin air??

  14. Pingback: The quietly televised Conservative attack ads - Macleans.ca

Sign in to comment.