Debating C-45 -

Debating C-45


Megan Leslie’s speech on the budget bill.

And, for the sake of comparison, Chris Alexander’s speech on C-45.


Debating C-45

  1. Congratulations are in order. Mr. Wherry has put up a post that shows BOTH sides of a debate WITHOUT Wherry arbitrarily declaring one side as being “a farce” or coming out “in defence of” a certain side. Well done Mr.Wherry for putting up a post where your viewers can decide without partisan slant attached. Well done to you sir and I hope this trend will continue!

      • You realize the links you posted were to you own comments? I know what you were trying to do (show AW is not biased) but this looks kind of narcissistic. Next time try trimming the /#disqus_thread off the url

        • Just in a hurry….all you had to do was scroll up.

    • Why is it not surprising partisan Conservatives have absolutely no comprehension of the function of journalism? The Harper Conservatives are trying to claim that the cap and trade system is a “job killing” carbon tax with a ridiculous propaganda campaign that is stinking up the House of Commons. This is after having supported the cap and trade system themselves in the past. In other words, it’s a farce.

      The only side journalists take is the one that involves the facts. They are critical of *all* parties that make false claims. Instead of whining about unfair treatment, Conservatives should just drop their recent scam to put one over on Canadians.

      • But Ron, you use the term “ridiculous propaganda campaign” and I ask “ridiculous” according to who exactly ? Ridiculous to you perhaps, however a quick glace of your prior posts on here reveals that you are clearly a highly partisan leftist and that is likely an understatement on my part. The fact that an ardent leftist such as yourself attempts to defend Wherry’s political leanings is evidence alone on why a journalist should not side with either government or opposition but rather stick to reporting the facts and leave the personal picking of a side out of the equation. Much as Wherry did in this particular post and why I commended him for it. Let’s hope for more non partisan posts that show both sides of an issue without Wherry picking sides.

        • Maybe if it’s phrased this way…

          One party is ridiculing another party for its environmental policy. However, the party doing the ridiculing actually endorsed a similar policy a short time ago. Can you understand why someone might come to the conclusion that such a situation is ‘ridiculous’?

          • I doubt it. Bill seems to think it’s all a matter of opinion, that a reasonable person cannot review the facts and simply conclude that someone is being very naughty – maybe both sides – but one side is telling a ridiculously transparent whopper.Bill seems to regard that as being somehow “unfairly biased.”

            Bill probably believes that govt’s don’t tell lies for strategic political reasons either, or that parents sometimes lie to their kids.

        • Try looking up the words “ridiculous”, “propaganda” and “campaign” and you’ll see what I mean.

          I am most certainly not a leftist. I support the centrist Keynesian system that North Americans used in the post-war era (back when we created modern living standards and paid down most of our government debt.)

          But this issue is not about economics. It’s about lies and hypocrisy. The Harper Conservatives have only themselves to blame for any bad press they receive indulging in them.

          BTW, the fourth estate plays a very important role in a democracy by debunking government propaganda. A journalist does not reveal any leaning on the political spectrum by doing his or her job exposing lies and hypocrisy. Andrew Coyne, for example, is a conservative columnist who occasionally tears into the Harper Government for its failures (he once said they engage in a “know nothing” brand of conservatism…)

          Conservatives believe that anyone who criticizes their policy is a “leftist.” Clearly they just don’t get it…

          • Christopher Hitchens once wrote, “The truth can not lie, but if it could, it would lie somewhere in the middle.”

            The point is that you don’t take a true statement and a false statement and split the difference. That’s not being objective, it’s just being stupid and lazy.

          • “The point is that you don’t take a true statement and a false statement and split the difference. That’s not being objective, it’s just being stupid and lazy.”

            What true statement and false statement are you referring to?

  2. Megan Leslie’s explanation about why phone-book-sized omnibus bills bypass the democratic process is definitely worth watching. It should probably be taught in schools.

    She made a good point where she challenged Conservative members to explain what the changes were to the assisted human-reproduction act, let alone what they were doing in a budget bill…

    It’s interesting how the Conservatives make the entire focus of the bill about “jobs and growth” and how we are living in “dangerous” economic times. If the two omnibus bills with over 800 amendments to over 70 bills are supposed to be about the economy alone, then why try to sneak other things in?

    I find it odd how Conservatives talk about “jobs and growth” while the unemployment rate is forecast to grow higher and economic growth is forecast so low it hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression.

    • “economic growth is forecast so low it hasn’t been this bad since the Great Depression.”
      Ron, that is an absolutely blatant lie. Do you have no shame at all? Jesus, even within the last decade, GDP growth in 2003 was 1.7 percent under the LIBERALS. It’s currently projected to be 2.5% for 2012. Never mind the fact that Canada had extremely serious recessions in, e.g., the mid-1970s, the early 1980s and the early 1990s, all of which resulted in negative quarterly GDP growth. Do you just pull statements like that out of your butt and hope nobody calls you on them?

      • Clearly you don’t know how to read a graph. In the 1980s and 1990s economic growth was around 5% when the economy was in recovery. The 2000s had the lowest average growth since the 1930s. It’s foolish to pick one year (when the economy is in a slump) and compare it a year when the economy is supposed to be in recovery (Carney is on record saying 2.5% GDP growth represents the economy in full recovery.)

        Now economic growth is forecast even worse than the 2000s. The recovery we had from the Great Recession has been one of the weakest since the 1930s. Here is the growth from 2010 to 2014 (including Carney’s forecast): 3.2%, 2.5%, 2.1%, 2.3%, 2.4%. You won’t find GDP growth more anemic on that graph which covers the last 50 years.

        So where is all the “jobs and growth” the Conservatives are promising? We are getting the opposite, facts being facts.

  3. Well, Chris Alexander does have nice hair, doesn’t he.