Justin Trudeau and General Leslie - Macleans.ca

Justin Trudeau and General Leslie

The Liberal leader showcases another new friend


Murray Brewster/CP

For the second consecutive day, Justin Trudeau stood before the cameras with a Serious Person to his immediate right.

“I am very happy today to be talking about another element of the team that we are putting together as I’m announcing the creation of an advisory council on international affairs,” Mr. Trudeau explained, “spearheaded by my esteemed friend and colleague Marc Garneau, our foreign affairs critic, and retired General Andrew Leslie, former Commander of the Army.”

Were he not now five years a politician, Mr. Garneau would still be a Serious Person too, introduced not merely as the foreign affairs critic for the third party, but as A Man Who Has Been To Freaking Space. As it was, Mr. Garneau was not today’s exciting news. That honoured place belonged to the General.

“I’d like to thank Justin for his leadership and vision in allowing me to participate and continuing my service to Canada. Thirty-five years in uniform and I’d like to continue helping Canadians where I can. I look forward to listening and learning a great deal over the next while, and I’m very much looking forward to working on the committee.”

Mr. Leslie is apparently still considering whether he might stand for election himself at the next available opportunity—take note those Conservative MPs in the Ottawa area with conceivably vulnerable seats. Until then he might help in the formulation of a few decent ideas for the Liberals to propose. Even if he doesn’t, his mere existence in the general vicinity of Mr. Trudeau—partway through today’s appearance an aide motioned for the General, who had taken a step back, to edge closer to the leader—is of benefit.

“I have a variety of decisions to make,” he said. “The first and most important decision was of course to join Justin and his team, and I thank him for his inspirational leadership.”

Indeed, he had a dreamy foundational story to tell.

“It was a fairly short turning point for me,” he said. “I’ll tell you when it happened, and that was a few short days, weeks ago in response to the Quebec proposed Charter, and the only national leader who stood up and articulated my views in a clear and convincing fashion was Justin who said that the proposed draft Charter is not what Canadians want or need.  It’s divisive and discriminatory. At that moment, I knew I was a member of his team.”

And lo were the scriptwriters for the future CBC miniseries on the rise of Justin Trudeau blessed with a pivotal scene.

In a different time and place, Mr. Leslie, he of tours of duty in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, tapped by no less than Peter MacKay three years ago to guide the modernization of the Canadian Forces, son and grandson of former defence ministers, might’ve been the sort of figure in which starry-eyed Liberal strategists saw a future party leader—a less suave, but more obviously admirable version of Mark Carney. But then—in Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff—the Liberal party has twice tried and failed with Serious Persons. And perhaps it is better to start simply with a person that other people are inclined to vote for and then surround that individual with Serious Persons who will lend credibility and reassurance.

On this day, Mr. Leslie was a walking and talking book blurb.

“I have been drawn to the Liberal Party by the transparency, by the honestness, the forthright approach to problems that impact all of us, the ability to make decisions based on reason and fact, and Justin’s leadership, quite frankly,” he gushed. “I’ve been inspired by it, and throughout the course of my career, I’ve had the opportunity to meet a lot of leaders. And he is the man I’ve chosen to follow, for good reason.”

So maybe Mr. Trudeau is in over his head. But at least now he has impressive company.


Justin Trudeau and General Leslie

  1. Reason works with people of reason.

    As Trudeau Sr used to say ‘Reason over passion’

    • But what we got was debt, no accountability government, and more taxes for idiocracy.

      • He’s Canada’s most loved PM, Dave….so obviously you’re wrong.

        • Central Canada’s most loved PM. There’s a difference.

          • Not true….just more oil mythology

          • No, cold hard facts.

          • The cold hard fact is that PET remains despised in Alberta. But in Emilyworld, Alberta doesn’t count.

          • No, actually he doesn’t. YOUR opinion is simply yours….no one elses.

            And that kind of thinking…everyone is just like you…. is why people don’t like Alberta.

          • Yes, PET and PET 2.0 are hated out west.

            The only people that don’t like Alberta, are the ones that aren’t here.

          • Ahh that explains a lot…..cranky ole white guy from Alberta… again.

          • Busted!

            Bitter, wrinkled, old, eastern bittie.


          • Speaking as an Albertan, I can tell you that isn’t true, except with dummies who don’t get that he was actually trying to protect Canada from the large American oil interests moving into Alberta; I worked for them so I saw it happen. An American oil co president who called the Liberals “brownshirts”, told us we had better vote Conservative or else, and was in a towering rage over the NEP; (he was a Mormon millionaire from Utah) and who started a lot of rumours and BS singlehandledly. He was also into China, went to Beijing, and that was in the 80s – so what was going on there?

          • Thank you Elizabeth….for some reason Albertans see Americans with stars in their eyes…and happily buy the snakeoil

          • No, we just don’t generalize about “all Americans”. As for you Emily, you certainly seem to look at one American with “stars in your eyes”, that is if you comments about Mr. Obama are any indication of your feelings.

          • WTH are you talking about?

          • Elizabeth you also claim that Aaron Wherry “hates” Justin Trudeau and that Stephen Harper lives in an expensive, exclusive neighborhood in Calgary. Your credibility is ZERO! Aaron Wherry is pro-Trudeau and Harper lives in the middle-class neighborhood of Tuscany. Please do not try to pass yourself off as an expert on Calgary. I doubt you even live here.

          • So, Tuscany is “middle-class”? Were you talking about homes under $400K or over $750K? It’s a pretty high-end neighbourhood, although not as desirable as those neighbourhoods *in his riding”, where I live.

            In fact, I’m a ten minute walk from his consituency office. I see it every day. I have lived in Calgary since 1976, residing downtown when I was working in the downtown core, but in the Southwest near the Glenmore Reservoir for the past 15 years. Anything else?

            Wherry is apolitical, he just appears to dislike Trudeau. He doesn’t declare his politics.

          • I don’t care if you are a 2 minute walk from his constituency office. The man lives across the street from my hair dresser in Tuscany. The house is worth about $450K. It is on a busy street.
            As for your suggestion Wherry is pro-Harper, only an idiot would believe that.

          • ” PET most popular PM since 1968. Harper moving up…now in 2nd place behind PET.” Awesome article, Emily. Two PM’s that in their days have been loved by some and hated by others seen as the two most popular PMs in modern Canada. Priceless.

          • Yup, and poll yesterday pointed our Justin more popular than Harper.

            Sorry HI…Harp is never going to make it in spite of Alberta’s best efforts.

          • “Our Justin”….wow, was that a slip or do you really see yourself as an intimate of his? Is it your love for his father PET? Please don’t take up stalking him, that can lead to nothing good.
            You deride Albertans but I have NEVER read where any of them called Harper, ‘our Stephen’. That is creepy to the extreme.
            Of course your obsession with Alberta is a little disturbing as well, not to mention your compulsion to constantly post comments.

          • It’s an Irish phrase. Yes, I’ve used the same on Stevie….even as ‘our dear leader’

            And talk to your buddy FV about Justin, not me.

            Anything else you want to comment on about me, or can I go back to work now?

          • Where is the Canadian version of Jello Biafra when you need him?

          • “…and poll yesterday pointed our Justin more popular than Harper.”


            Yeah, how accurate have those polls been for the last year or so?

            Harper will be re-elected in 2015, despite your wishful thinking.

          • Oil mythology promoted by American oil tycoons living in Calgary and wanting the entire province plus BC to themselves – in the 80s especially.

          • Agreed. Albertans have been dazzled by the dollar signs waved in front of them. They’ll believe anything, and are stunned when others don’t.

            If Harper-as-a-neo-con wasn’t in power I’m sure Alberta would be pushing to separate.

          • Well, he’s established Wild Rose as his provincial branch. Enough Albertans were smart enough to see through it and not allow Ms Danielle to take over as she really believed she would. We were worried, let me tell you. Wild Rose is Harper’s baby. Overhead in a bar downtown Calgary “Harper is the Godfather”.

          • Yeah, like Alberta needs to be even more rightwing. I was just reading that there’s a push to get rid of Calgary’s mayor.

            Suicidal impulses….strange. I used to think it was something about the oil….but it hasn’t affected other countries the same way as ours. They keep their heads better.

          • Hahaha! Now THAT is funny. No one even dared to run against Mayor Nenshi. He has the highest approval rating of any mayor in Canada. As does our police chief, Rick Hanson. For gawd’s sakes, do some real research if you are going to comment on Calgary.

          • At the time I made that comment there was a story on a push to get rid of him. I read yesterday that it fizzled.

            If you’re going to comment on my comments all the time….pay attention as to the ‘when’.

          • Even Conservatives, who aren’t actively shilling in Harper-mode, seem to have a healthy amount of respect for Trudeau.

            What I find most amusing is that Trudeau was a champion of individual rights and freedoms in Canada, a position taken by the right in America, but because Trudeau was that champion, often the right in Canada will look downright authoritarian and opposed to individual freedoms.

          • There is a difference between respect and “love”. People either loved or hated Pierre Trudeau. He might have been loved in some parts of the country but he was despised in others. There are Harper haters now, well there were Trudeau haters in his time and they were just as virulent.

          • Trudeau was not a champion of individual property rights. He was quite selective about which rights he chose to champion.

          • Really? You’ll have to explain this remark further.

        • Reported by CBC News July 30, 2007

          Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau has ranked as the worst Canadian according to an online poll, beating out notorious killers Paul Bernardo, Karla Homolka and Clifford Olsen.

      • Do you know that you’re wrong, or are you just naive? (I’m not a fan of PET’s centralization of power at Langevin Block, but JT seems to not be a fan of that either, and it’s not like Harper has given us anywhere to go from here but “less centralized”. )

  2. The alternate leadership approach – billing yourself as the most serious person in the universe and then surrounding yourself with goofballs whose talent is memorizing and repeating talking points.

    • He remains the smartest guy in the party…course the bar was set pretty low to begin with. Holding a brain storming session with the likes of Tony and Fantino must be a real trial for the PM. He’d do better to ask his cat for input.

      • Best part of the meetings – PIZZA!

        • And donuts.

    • Yes but George Bush was the goofball who surrounded himself with smart people and that didn’t work out too well either. Sometimes you just need ALL smart people.

      • W wasn’t stupid. Most of the time he just played at it.

        • Well, he was not smart enough to realize that he was way out of his league when he was “recruited” by Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld and Cheney to run for president. He and Colin Powell ended up as their puppets. You should check out the W movie if you don’t think W was gulliable. It is a real eye-opener.

          • What makes you think W wasn’t a neo con at heart? He was just better at hiding it under that goofball ah shucks exterior he perfected.

          • Do you think Colin Powell is a neo-con?

          • Probably not. I really don’t know.

      • I agree Dubya was a goofball….but he was surrounded by goofballs as well.

        Dangerous goofballs.

        • Hey you might not have liked them but their intelligence was never in question. That they are dangerous is no doubt.

          • Their intelligence was ALWAYS in doubt

          • They were driven but they were master manipulators. Just because someone is morally corrupt doesn’t make them stupid.

          • They were stupid AND morally corrupt.

          • Really, Cheney is a stupid man and here he was running Halliburton…imagine that.

          • Making money has nothing to do with intelligence.

          • Running a huge corporation has nothing to do with intelligence? Yes, right!

          • Well I’m glad to know he ran it all by himself….but there’s a difference between intelligent and clever.

            Street punks can make a fortune selling drugs….that doesn’t make them intelligent.

          • Well, Cheney is a “street punk” with an MA in political science who was the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation but by all means, continue to deny he is intelligent. Just please do so within the confines of your own head. We can agree to disagree. Obviously, you cannot convince me that he is not intelligent and this back and forth is tedious in the extreme. Ciao.

          • Do you know what Haliburton sells? Doesn’t take any brains to make money at that.

            If you want to confuse street punk cleverness with genuine intelligence it’s up to you. That’s how the world has gotten so many bad leaders.


          • Do you know what ciao means, you use it enough. As for what Halliburton sells….I live in Alberta. I had friends who worked in the dessert in Libya, alongside the guys from Halliburton. Go away, Emily!

          • Yes, I know what Ciao means….you don’t apparently because here you are again….posting to me and telling me to go away. LOL

            Haliburton is as likely to do badly as a weapons dealer….or a drug dealer. Doesn’t take any brains at all.

          • Anytime one is working with equipment and personnel not to mention hostile foreign governments there is the risk of failure. I am sure you think being in the service rig industry on an international level is simple and as you are right about everything, let’s just agree that Emily is always right.

          • Yeah, all those oil companies failing left and right….terrible.

          • They aren’t an oil company. They “service” the hole after the oil rig is finished. Believe it or not, people like Mommar Gadhafi were known for not paying their bills and for kicking companies like Halliburton out the country on a whim for supposed slights. I don’t expect you to know that because you aren’t in the oil and gas industry. I know you think you know everything about everything. Maybe you should ask somebody who was actually in the middle east what it was like to work in the industry during the Iran-Iraq war when they were paid to move rigs back and forth in the combat area. Then you might be able to comment intelligently on how things were for the Canadians companies and workers involved.

          • Yes dear we know.

            And it was Cheney you were discussing….you seem to have lost the plot again.

            Now would it help if I said Hosta la vista instead?

          • Much like yours, by the looks of your posts.

          • Silly attacks on other posters adds nothing to a discussion.

          • Mindless drivel in your posts is clogging the system.

          • Don’t need any more examples of your babbling.

            The first 15 were more than adequate.

          • Silly posts add nothing.

            Quit it.

      • Bush’s choices turned out to make quite a mess of just about everything they touched both home and abroad – so I don’t know if they are still considered smart.

        • Oh they were brilliant but likely had some sociopathic tendencies. They didn’t seem to have the ability to empathize and W. didn’t have the ability to be strong enough to stand up to them and so he let them follow their agenda as did Colin Powell.

          • An Oliver Stone movie is a fairy tale version of events. He’s noted for it.

      • Plus you also have to check the smart people for psychopathic tendencies. Not so good if they are brilliant, but morally challenged and one lab accident away from being a super villain.

        • Yes and you can’t have a leader who is innocent and gulliable and incapable of standing against those brilliant sociopathic types either.

      • I wouldn’t say that Justin Trudeau is a goofball like George W. was (nor is Stephen Harper for that matter.) In fact, he comes across as pretty smart and capable to me (no matter what CPC supporters regurgitate,) so I’d say the comparison isn’t very apt.

        • People are rarely goofballs or brilliant. They usually land somewhere in the middle. When a person is going to be the PM, they are tasked with a very large responsibility to take in a lot of advice and make good decisions in the best interests of the citizens of a whole country. Sometimes leaders surround themselves with brilliant, forceful people and get swept away, letting these brilliant people make the decisions for them. Other times, leaders have too big an ego to let go and take any advice. Either way, it can lead to a very poor outcome.
          I have no idea what will happen in 2015. If Justin Trudeau ends up being our PM, I sincerely hope he is “smart and capable”. As a citizen of this country, I want it to flourish no matter who is at the helm.

          • I really agree with your last sentence.

  3. I watched that and Leslie is an impressive individual – definitely a serious person. On some level this has to worry the cons [ perhaps the ndp too] that JT is starting to attract serious, quality people to him. The establishment will also take note.

    • I have to refresh my memory on the report and the government’s reaction. I’m assuming his sudden retirement had something to do with it. Seems to me he was thought to be the next CDS…

  4. ” It’s divisive and discriminatory. At that moment, I knew I was a member of his team.”

    You would think the General would be against divisiveness and discrimination but apparently not because Trudeau is proud member of pure laine.

    Justin Trudeau 2010 – “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work …. 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 is proud member of pure laine.”

      Really? When did people from the left coast named Sinclair become “pure laine”?

      • And Pierre’s mother was also Scottish

        • Didn’t Trudeau senior once hint of native blood too?

          I think it was when he gave the famous, my mother’s name is Elliot speech..’.just look at this face’ he said,essentially blowing Leveque’s chances of winning the 1980 referendum out of the window.

          • LOL could be. I don’t remember that one. I can only find this one reference….

            Yes, Elliott was my mother’s name. It was the name borne by the Elliotts who came to Canada more than 200 years ago. It is the name of the Elliotts who, more than 100 years ago, settled in Saint-Gabriel de Brandon, where you can still see their graves in the cemetery. That is what the Elliotts are. My name is a Quebec name — but my name is a Canadian name also.


          • That’s the one. Somewhere in there he made a reference to to his face – hinting he had native blood too.

          • Yes. Pierre Trudeau said “Look at my face.” He basically implied that he came from a multi-ethnic background himself and was not of a ‘pure’ race.

      • This is news to me and I grew up close to Margaret. Why didn’t the name James Sinclair seem out of place?

    • I am sure he is less naive now. This whole “values charter” has really jumped and bit everyone and challenged everything we thought we knew about how inclusive and inviting our country is to those who come from other places to make their homes here.

    • Pure laine? Tell that to the separatists in Quebec. They don’t consider Justin Trudeau to be a true French Quebecer. They think he is a traitor and is not pro-Quebec enough!

  5. “Son and grandson of former defence ministers” Actually he’s grandson of two former defence ministers. Both Liberals, of course. There’s no mention of his father going into politics.

  6. Is General Leslie the friend who shared the backyard doobie? Even as a leader of the ground forces those tinted shades make him look like a bit of a sky pilot.

    • Was he wearing them at the press conference – I hope not. :-)

      • Why not? Gotta pull the “youth” vote.

  7. As long as he doesn’t have something from DND procurement
    stuck on the bottom of his shoes.

    • Good point, we wouldn’t want that contamination spreading.

  8. Leadership Lite.

  9. Trudeau surprised me yet again in not looking out of place along side Garneau and Leslie [ who truly are men of accomplishment] in discussing foreign affairs. He managed to sound serious and didn’t give any credence to the part of his audience that simply wanted to blame Israel for all the ills in the ME. He came across as nuanced yet consistent, even a bit hawkish on the necessity to take unambiguous moral stands on issues. This guy is going to be no push over in debates to come on serious issues. He’s going to turn out to be a nightmare for the other parties to paint into a corner – and a particular nightmare for Mulcair, whose one trump card is experience and gravitas.

  10. Mr.Leslie: one long infomercial for Justin. How shallow can one get.

    • Yeah, about as shallow as putting partisan “journalists” in the Senate to serve as paid professional fundraising mouthpieces for one’s party.

      • or allowing the use of taxpayer dough to fly these “Senators” around the country to speak at fundraisers – talk about your double dipping eh Francien?

        • Yes, when senators charge the senate and charge the CPC for campaigning then that is double dipping and I don’t like it when ANY politician does it.

          • Or when our ex-journos don’t bill the CPC, then the CPC gets to double dip! Is that better or worse than the individual senator pocketing the cash?

    • Is there ANYTHING Justin can do that will get praise from you? You seem to attack him regardless of what he does. You have no objectivity. How can a Conservative supporter like yourself disagree with the wisdom behind having an experienced General as a Defence Advisor to a party leader? How can that possibly be bad?

      • I’m curious why you seek Justin’s praise when you’re from Los Angeles.

        • And why the biggest JT pom pom waver on here is from Los Angeles.

      • As soon as Justin will come up with something substantive to say, I will seriously consider him as a political opponent to Harper. Until then.

        • Don’t lie. Nothing could ever happen to ever have you admit anything positive about Justin Trudeau. You have a serious hate-on for him, and the only thing that makes sense to me is you worship at the Holy Shrine of Stephen Harper and see Trudeau as a credible threat to him.

          The opposite of love is not hate, hate and love are separated by a very thin line. The opposite of love is complete uncaring apathy. You’ve proven yourself to be a die-hard Trudeau hater, and if you really thought he was insubstantial and not credible you’d ignore him and be bored by him.

          • A cursory review of your posts from the past 7 days, I see zero positive comments about the Conservatives.

            Perhaps you could point me towards yours.

          • I don’t hate nor love Justin Trudeau. I don’t hate or love any politician.

            I just wish Justin would explain this to all Canadians:

            “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
            $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

            “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

          • Liar, you hate Trudeau, your obsessive copy/paste of a non-issue proves it.

            Further, I’ve never seen you hold Stephen Harper to the same standards. Why aren’t you demanding he explain the missing $3.1 billion or Nigel Wright’s $90,000 cheque to Mike Duffy?

            The list of scandals you could roast Harper on are as long as my arm, but you’d NEVER “wish Stephen would explain this to all Canadians.”

          • The Wright/Duffy cheque is under investigation, is it not?

            I don’t like speculating. I will wait until the investigation is completed.

            Speculation, which so many of you engage in, means nothing but speculation. I don’t need to make my evaluation based on pure speculative opinions on your part (or anyone elses part).

            Give me the facts just like I give you the facts about Justin.

          • Lying about F-35s, fake lakes? Gazebos?

          • There were no lies about the F-35. Merely different interpretations on numbers – what’s included and what’s not.

            When you buy a car, do you include the cost over ten years to run and maintain the car?

            Now tell us: how does Justin plan to legalize pot?

          • He lied about there being a contract.

            And, yes, I do assess life cycle costs when I buy a new car, i.e. fuel efficiency and my known driving profile; also I check into earlier models of the cars I consider to see what their known maintenance issues are. But hey, that’s just me being an engineer.

          • Well, Francien can empathize with liars.

          • What contract?


          • I would hope he would tax and regulate it like beer or wine.

            But logic won’t permeate that partisan addled organ you call a brain.

          • According to Canada’s procurement rules, RULES, there are not different interpretations.

            Of course, if you’re trying to spin it to make it look less expensive than the RULES say you’re supposed to, some might consider you to be lying.

          • Funny that, until you found out the your own Conservative MP was
            earning money on the side, your “outrage” was simply at the fact that
            Trudeau earned money in addition to his MP’s salary. When your MP’s
            “double-dipping” was brought to your attention you abruptly stopped
            responding to comments. When you resumed responding the problem was no
            longer earning money in addition to an MP’s salary, but was now
            Trudeau’s field of work.
            What caused the change of heart?
            much did your Conservative MP earn from his farming business? How
            much from his auction business? How many of the days he didn’t attend
            parliament was he attending to his other businesses?
            Who knows. He won’t tell us.

          • I am not talking about MP’s earning extra income.

            I am talking about getting paid for a job (being an MP on a salary which includes giving speeches) to then skip that job to do the same job again for an extra fee!

            That is what Justin has been doing. It’s called double-dipping.

          • Huh, I didn’t realize Justin was representing the views and concerns of the citizens of Papineau when giving those speeches.

          • Funny, but when Justin Trudeau delivered his speech at a Union get together, he charged a speaking fee while other MP’s who spoke at the SAME conference did so for no extra charge.

            And yes, the conference was not in Trudeau’s constituency and neither was the conference within the constituency of the other MP’s.

            Got an answer to THAT one??

          • I suppose that is something you want to ask the organizers, why they would want to pay a speaker.

            If its the OPSEU conference in March 2010 you are talking about, that was apparently booked via his speaking agency and the Ethics Commissioner had reviewed and indicated it was OK. Trudeau was described as an MP by the organizers, over which he had no control.

            Read Ivison’s column here (but probably no need to point it out to you as you were the first to comment on the story):


            Ivison provides his opinion (as would be expected) but at least he sticks to facts when drawing his conclusions. If you really have a problem with this issue, I hope you are taking it up with the Ethics Commissioner; also perhaps you can start a petition to be tabled in the HoC whenever the Prime Minister gets around to reconvening it.

          • But what you stated in your earlier post is false. Justin Trudeau did speak out of his constituency for a fee while other MP’s gave speeches outside of their constituencies for NO extra fee.

            Are you sure that Justin T, as an MP, never gave speeches outside his constituency without charging an extra fee? Please do tell.

          • You are confused, I made no such statement.

            Just because he was speaking, for a fee, after having been elected MP for Papineau, it does not automatically follow that he was speaking in his capacity as an MP, i.e. he was not there expressing the views of his constituents.

            But, when all is said and done, I’ll probably stick with the assessment of the duly appointed Ethics Commissioner over that of a one-note troll.

            Given your history of waging this ludicrous campaign, it appears to be too difficult for you to envision that someone can actually separate two or more different streams of their life.

            When the PM uses government resources (Challenger jets) at far below cost to attend hockey games, is he doing that as PM or as just plain old Stephen Harper? Is that not double dipping according to your lexicon?

          • Actually, I asked you if you think there are no instances where Justin T has given speeches as an MP outside his constituency without an extra fee.

            You are not answering such question.

          • “Are you sure that Justin T, as an MP, never gave speeches outside his constituency without charging an extra fee? Please do tell.”

            You are asking me to confirm something that I never said.

            Pretty sad that you feel the need to make sh*t up in this campaign of yours.

          • Are you really that dumb or are you just playing dumb?

            When you say “Huh, I didn’t realize Justin was representing the views and concerns of the citizens of Papineau when giving those speeches.” it implies that Justin only speaks as an MP (for which he gets paid) when he speaks in Papineau about there concerns.

            So, you think that if JT speaks outside his constituency and does not speak specifically about Papineau concerns, he is then NOT speaking as an MP and should charge extra.

            OK, if that is how you think about it, then I am curious if you think Justin has never ever delivered a speech as an MP outside of Papineau and without speaking about Papineau concerns WITHOUT and extra fee.

            Do you think it is true that Justin Trudeau, as a paid MP, has never delivered a speech outside of Papineau without demanding an extra fee?

            If you do not see the relevance of that question, then I must conclude that you are indeed dumb.

          • Its a bit rich for someone who is is demonstrably unable to wrap their mind around the distinction between speaking AS an MP versus speaking as a person who incidentally happens to be an MP, to be calling someone else dumb.

            The first comment was my (admittedly lame) attempt at sarcasm or humour, Nonetheless, it is too bad that it eluded you. In any case, the comment does not eliminate the possibility that when he is speaking outside of Papineau, he can be doing so as an MP, as he might be at a byelection rally, or indeed in the HoC. So the whole premise of your argument is complete bunkum.

            Now, I don’t know whether he has never delivered a speech in his capacity as an MP (which is not the same as doing so while he happens to be an MP) or indeed in his duties as a party member, but since you appear to fancy yourself an expert on this dossier I would like you to show me the evidence of such. But as I said, the fact he is an MP does not preclude his speaking as a sought-after speaker for fee, expressing his views on whatever matter he was asked to speak about, so be prepared to be refuted by this logic.

            But here’s a quiz for you: Look carefully at the shot of the cover of the hockey book that Stephen Harper is credited with authoring. Does the author’s name say “Prime Minister Stephen Harper”? Or “Stephen Harper, MP for Calgary Southwest” ? No? Then was he double dipping when he spent 15 minutes each day working on it as has been claimed?

            Just to help you out, here’s a link with the shot: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/04/a-great-game-title-and-cover-of-stephen-harpers-hockey-book-revealed/

          • The question I’ve asked you is very relevant because IF JT has given speeches as an MP (without extra fees) outside his Papineau riding, but then ALSO gives speeches for a FEE outside his Papineau riding, then in fact JT is arbitrarily drawing a line.

            JT then does this: sometimes he decides to give a speech as an MP outside his riding for NO extra fee AND sometimes he decided to give a speech outside his riding, while still getting his MP salary, with and EXTRA fee attached.

            Such drawing of lines is arbitrary and the only difference then becomes the EXTRA FEES he charges.

            To get paid TWICE for doing a job ONCE is double dipping.

            I can understand why you don’t want to see that JT is drawing lines arbitrarily. For if you would admit to seeing the arbitrary line being drawn, you would have to come to the conclusion that the only difference is the extra money received.

            You rather keep making excuses for JT instead of facing the facts. But that is your choice.

            My choice is this: I do not like the abuse of the system by means of double dipping. I don’t like it when Duffy did it and I don’t like it when JT did it.

          • No.

            MP’s are not ‘on the clock’, they are not paid by the hour. They receive an annual salary and are covered for legitimate expense claims (offices, travel to their ridings and the like). If they were paid by the hour, and JT (or others) claimed the time spent on speeches while accepting a fee, then you would have a case.

            Giving a speech is not the essence of being an MP, and for you to think so is the embodiment of arbitrariness, unless you can pull out a job description from the HoC HR Department stating that. (oops sorry, I was being facetious this time, I hope you got it this time)

            But anyways, if giving speeches was the heart and soul of being an MP, then dozens of backbenchers are bilking the system, unless you count shouting insults in the Commons as ‘speeches’.

            Don’t get me wrong, being able to give a speech is surely an advantage in ones role as an MP, as it would help an MP get re-elected, and would help in persuading others of your views, but it doesn’t preclude an introvert with a fear of public speaking from running for and being an MP.

            But, you still didn’t answer my question about Stephen Harper . . . surely he double dipped according to your definition, so I hope you are on some forum castigating him for that as strenuously as you are doing for JT.

          • I have never said that giving speeches is the ‘essence’ of an MP’s job. I have said that the giving of speeches is PART of an MP’s job.

            Secondly, it is true that if JT decided to give speeches outside his riding for no extra fee, to then also give speeches outside his riding for an ADDITIONAL fee, that he must have made decision to do so by arbitrary means. Sometimes he decides to give speeches outside his riding for a fee and sometimes he gives speeches outside his riding for no extra fee. There is no logic behind drawing such line; The line is purely arbitrary,

            Justin picks and chooses when he wants to get paid extra for his speeches and when he does not. But you don’t want to admit that is what happened. You simply ignore reality.

            Why would I answer your question, if you have not even tried to answer mine. I asked a question and you avoid the answering of my question by asking me a question. I don’t fall for such excuses.

          • Oh yes you have . . . you have frequently said giving speeches is part of their job, and you apply some kind of reasoning to infer that ergo ANY speeches they give are therefore MP work. Not sure how your logic works there.

            As for arbitariness, how about this: Invitations to speak for a fee were through the Speakers Spotlight organization. I would think that invitations for party work or legislative work would have been received via his MP office or his riding office. Seems pretty clear to me.

            They have indicated that sometimes requests for paid engagements went to his MP office, but that these inquiries were referred to Speakers Spotlight, as they should. No big deal, as its entirely possible an organization wanting him to speak for a fee might not be aware of how to approach him for that.

            Now, you can answer my question.

          • Yes, I have said, often enough, that giving speeches is part of an MP job. But I have never said that giving speeches is the essence of an MP job.

          • But that’s your basic premise, don’t try to weasel out of what you’ve been saying all these months. Is it impossible for you to conceive that a speech can be unconnected to ones work?

            So is writing part of the job, is Stephen Harper double dipping?

          • JT has arbitrarily decided when to charge extra for speeches and when not to charge extra. Do you not understand the meaning of ‘arbitrary’??

          • Obviously you don’t.

            Requests for speeches through his speakers agency: those command a fee.

            Requests for speeches for the party or legislative work as MP or as a candidate: no fee, but possibly costs covered (which he should not claim as MP expense, unlike what Mike Duffy did as a Senator)

            I expect he would choose which speeches to give for a fee from amongst the requests that are channeled to him by the speakers agency that he is associated with.

            I don’t see how you can see that as arbitrary.

            Still waiting for your answer about the hockey book though.

          • You obviously don’t understand the meaning of arbitrarily decision taking.

            Clearly, Justin has given speeches on the topic of the environment in his own riding, for NO extra fee.

            Justin has given speeches on the topic of the environment outside his own riding for an EXTRA fee.

            And Justin has given speeches about the environment outside his own riding for NO extra fee.

            Why he decides to give speeches for fees, sometimes, but not at other times when being outside of his riding, makes such decisions arbitrarily choosen, for there is not logical system detectable.

            Now, you are trying to tell me that the choice is not arbitrarily but depends upon which speeches were being booked by the ‘agency’.

            BUT JT had a choice! He did NOT have to give those speeches for a fee; He CHOOSE to give those speeches for a fee.

            The ‘agency’ could not FORCE Justin to do anything. Justin made the choice! Such choice was then arbitrarily made.

          • I would surmise that if he was offered to do so through the agency, he has the option of saying yes or no.

            In those cases he could I suppose “arbitrarily” decide which he would accept, but in all cases, the group requesting him to speak would know from the agency that there would be a cost.

            I would also suppose that he could decide to give a speech booked through the agency as pro-bono, but in such cases there would likely be a cost to the requesting organization.

            As for those speeches for which no fee was charged, do you know what the origins were of the requests to speak?

            So before you arbitrarily decide what is arbitrary, maybe get the facts. If you can’t get all the facts then its your prerogative to assume the worst, but just because you think so doesn’t make it so.

            And the answer to my question??

          • These are the facts:

            Justin made the CHOICE to give speeches for extra fees while being a paid MP.

            No one forced Justin to give speeches for extra fees when he became an MP.

            When Justin speaks on the environment as an MP and when Justin speaks on the environment for extra fees, is the contents of those speeches different?

            You are trying to make excuses for Justin T. But it is still a fact that Justin T made the decision he did make. He was never forced to make the decisions he made. His line-up of speeches (when to be paid extra and when NOT to be paid extra) was purely arbitrarily.

            As to Harper’s hockey book: He will donate all of the proceeds of that book back to charity. Harper wrote his book at evenings for about 15 or 20 minutes (something similar to writing a diary at the end of a day) and such time spent will be donated to charity.

          • Of course he made the choice. Why is that even an issue?

            Now, it would be interesting to see transcripts of those speeches, to see whether the paid speeches contained party policy or encouraged the audience members to support his party or oppose others. If not, then there’s nothing wrong with them. It is entirely possible to speak to a group to encourage them to engage in the issue in their own way, anyone can engage in environmental activism in their own way in alignment with their own values.

            So, your line of argument is specious unless you can show me such proof.

            But its interesting, you seem to be flailing around to find examples of malfeasance but when you are unable to come up with facts and logic you abandon one example (Union conf) and look for another. Surely a sign of a weak argument.

            As for Harper, you seem to make two distinctions:

            (1) It was in the evening: as if time of day mattered! If JT spoke to these groups in the evening, it would be all right?

            (2) The funds are going to charity: It was fairly recently announced that the proceeds would go to charity, but I don’t recall you criticizing him for it before that. In any case, it doesn’t matter what Stephen Harper does with the proceeds, he is still accruing a benefit, allowing him to donate money he would not otherwise have, as a result of writing a book while being an MP. His choice to donate was arbitrary, much like Nigel Wright’s decision to give Mike Duffy $90,000.

            (And anyway, do you know with certainty that JT didn’t donate all his proceeds to charity? If he did, would this activity be OK? I don’t believe he did, but the point is, if that was the case would you still be arguing this?)

            BTW, its not excuses for JT I am making, I am just patiently pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and logic in the hope you will recognize them and move on to other issues to discuss, for which I have no doubt you will have interesting perspectives.

          • Francien, I thought the Conservatives were in favour charity.

            Can a paint store not donate paint to a cause, and yet be paid for another can sold to a different charity? Any individual has the right to bargain or donate their time as they see fit, even MPs. And the ethics commissioner agrees.

            You’re all bent out of shape, and apparently you’ll never get unbent, but it’s silly and tiring. You may wish that politicians or political leaders did not make money in part based on their profile, but our profile is how we all make money. Especially politicians.

            Would anyone read Harper’s hockey book? No. Want proof? He didn’t even write it, it’s just his name on the cover. You should be as angry over it, if your truly angry at ‘taking advantage’.

            Because again, there is NOTHING wrong with a ghost-written books or speaking fees.

          • You were talking about MP’s earning extra income from other business and calling it “doube-dipping”, until you found out that your Conservative MP was doing exactly that.

            Why the change of heart?
            Why won’t your Conservative MP tell us how much he earns on the side or what he was doing when he missed votes?

          • No, I did NOT say that MP’s earning extra income from other business is double dipping.

            If you have proof that I DID say that was double dipping, please show me the proof that I’ve said as much.

            Stop putting words in my mouth.

          • Public speaking is what MP’s do as part of their salary.

            There is no MP, other than Justin Trudeau, who has given speeches for extra fees.

            But if another MP (from any party) would start fundraising and give speeches for an extra fee while being on an MP salary, then I would complain about them just as much.

            Duffy abused the system. I have said so many times.

          • Yes that’s what you say now that you know that your Conservative MP is making money on the side. But that’s not the question.

            Why aren’t you asking why your Conservative MP kept his occupation when entering politics? Or why you MP needed more than his MP salary? Or why he’s “fundraising for himself” while being paid as an MP?
            Why are you no longer concerned with these things?

            Why the change of heart?

            And if you haven’t figured out by now that Duffy’s abuse of the system wasn’t getting paid for speeches, you’ve got a serious comprehension deficit.

    • Yep, just like surrounding yourself with police officers so you can make yet another “law and order” “tough on crime” speech.

      Or touring the Arctic after years upon years of broken promises.

      Or trotting out members of a so-called “victim’s rights group” for yet another “law and order” “tough on crime” speech.

      Or apologizing to First Nations people before slashing their budgets, ignoring their concerns, and using racism as a wedge issue to vilify them and gain votes

  11. This is a great catch for the Liberals. They can be simultaneously for a stronger military and cutting waste in defence. Neither will likely happen regardless of who wins in 2015 but in the meantime their spokesman on defence has more credibility than the current and far more than the former MND.

    I don’t believe for a second that the Liberal’s (if they’ve thought about them) actually support Leslie’s ideas of cutting bureaucracy in order to strengthen the army field force. The people in NDHQ generally can’t simply be shifted to the field and the costs to fire them would be enormous. Even if it could be done what exactly would the current field army at closer to full strength be for? No one’s keen on another small war in the Muslim world and we don’t need more troops to go back to blue helmet peacekeeping.

    Leslie can be used to point out the growth in DND bureaucracy and it’s incompetence. That’s enough for 2015. The details of his ideas will be quickly forgotten.

    • We need both more troops and equipment to go back to peacekeeping…..where we belong….but specialized…..and a yard sale on the rest of it. Including most of the bureaucracy

      Plus a hacker/counter hacker team.

      • The CF has ~ 100,000 uniformed personnel and many of the medical, logistics and communications functions previously done by soldiers are now done by contractors. At it’s height, and counting people not actually deployed to Afghanistan, the Kandahar mission had 3% of the CF assigned to it. How do we not have enough troops for peacekeeping?

          • This comment was deleted.

          • No, you’re Doofus….I’ve met you before.

            PS and your older brother is smarter than you.

            PPS Introduce him to Francien Vanderhoeven on here….she has over 10,000 posts.

            PPSS Meanwhile….find something more useful to do with YOUR life

          • Yes, we should have just let the Serbians slaughter those Kosovar Albanians, right Emily?

          • Quoi?

          • Read a book Emily. Canadian military pilots participated in the bombing campaign in Kosovo.

          • Everyone knows what happened, Rocks….pay attention

          • Lead by example.

          • In peace-keeping, yes. In war, no.

          • You really are delusional.

            Do tell.

            How does a military equip and train for ‘Peace keeping’?

            What happens if and when it turns into a nasty shooting war?

            The CF trains for the worse case scenario and if you are in an area with a lower threat level, then it’s an easy job.
            “Sweat more, bleed less.”, is a wise training motto.

            If you were in the Cf, you’d have known that.

            The only thing your misguided thoughts would do, is get people killed.

          • Peacekeeping is absolutely vital….and a huge contribution to the world by Canada. We’re good at it and it’s a major advance in the effort to build a civilization. We should be proud of something we do well.

            First you make the peace.

            Then you keep the peace.

            Then you observe the peace.

            Then you exit.

          • LOL!

            You can’t even see the holes in your argument, and you’ve even posted what I need to refute it.

            “First you make the peace.”

            And how do you do that? What do you use?

            “Then you keep the peace.”

            Again, how and with what?

            “Then you observe the peace.”


            That is SO adorable!

            You fail to realize that most of the people fighting today, don’t want to ‘make peace’.

            If you actually got out from behind your ‘puter, and went out into the real world you’d learn some facts.

            Not some vacation spot, but some of the real crap holes, out there.

            The world is cruel, there is no peace.

            Life is pretty cheap, and a rare thing, is peace.

            Some cultures don’t like peace.

            Okay, now you can exit.

            Don’t come back.

          • Tsk….and you promised you wouldn’t talk to me again.

            I have no idea where you got your ideas on peacekeeping….but I guess Kissinger was right when he said:

            “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. . .”

            Ciao baby.

          • The voices are confusing you again, I see.

            I never said I wouldn’t ‘talk’ to you again.

            You’re quoting Kissinger?

            BAH! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

            “Ciao baby”?

            In this battle of wits, here’s an apt quote, “Isn’t that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight.”

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Wow.

            Stating the obvious doesn’t help your credibility.

            Shoo fly.

          • A simple explanation from a simple mind.

            How’d that work out in Somalia?

          • Well it figures you would be out there pushing that old load of Lethter B. Pearthon horse pucky

            According to Lester, the main idea of “peacekeeping” is to train a civil police force for a possible eventual use against your own citizens.

            That’s quite different from training military soldiers to protect the taxpayers from external threat. N’est ce pas?

          • John…aka Mordant….aka everybody and their dog…..I gave you the usual waltz around the dance floor ….now take the rubbish and bog off.

          • Let me tell you another one about Lester

            When Pearson defeated Diefenbaker in April 1963 they had to change houses; the Pearsons from Stornoway to 24 Sussex and the Diefenbakers, the reverse.

            In a letter dated April 29, 1963 from Diefenbaker to his brother Elmer, we read; “Olive and I moved into the Leader of the Opposition’s home on Friday. It was a very trying situation and no attention was paid to leaving the house in a state of even approaching cleanliness. There was very little furniture and
            Olive is away this morning ………………….”

            So there you have it from Dief’s book titled Personal Letters of a Public Man (Doubleday 1985) That little dity is on page 132.

            How do you like them apples Emily? On the big moving day Lester left the house dirty and clipped all the furniture. He’s all yours buddy. Another fine Liberal .

          • Newsflash.

            The CF was fighting a war in Afghanistan.

            What do you think they did in Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Libya, etc?

            The world is a dangerous place, outside of your bubble.

          • What dum-dum was in charge then, hmmm?

          • Jean Chretien, and the CF hating Liberal party.

            Only a Lib would think there’s nothing wrong with going to a desert theater wearing green camo…..

            Mind you, he doesn’t know which way a helmet goes on, so that explains a lot.

          • Afghanistan has far more than sand. Only a Con would buy that talking point. Only a Con would buy a photoshopped picture as well.

            Harper is sinking fast….Trudeau is rising.

            Complaining about former PMs isn’t going to change that.

          • “Afghanistan has far more than sand.”?


            Do yourself a favour, and do some simple research before I embarrass you anymore.
            Go look up what ALL the Allied forces are wearing and what colour their vehicles are.

            “Harper is sinking fast….Trudeau is rising.”?

            Only a libtard would believe that.

          • Scott…..the world is full of other things to do than babble to me.

            Go find them

          • Lead by example.


            The grown ups are trying to have a discussion.

          • “Afghanistan has far more than sand.”?


            I suggest you look at what all the other Allied militaries are wearing for camo, and what colour they’re painting their equipment.

        • Oh, mental….

          Wrong yet again.

          Post some facts for once.

        • Oh, mental_ward…..wrong, still.

          Are you allergic to intelligence and the facts?

      • “…back to peacekeeping…”?


        You obviously have no idea what a country’s military is for, do you?

        • I served in it for 5 years.

          However the time has come ….and we were the first to realize it….that 200 countries with 200 militaries….is not the way to create a peaceful world.

          • I’ll bet we know each other.
            When I was in we had 6 Russian camp followers trailing us wherever we went although I don’t remember them trying to pretend they were “serving.”
            You’re not Big Aggie are you?.

          • Why is it that Con males think sexism will attract voters to their party?

          • Oh I don’t know. Why is it that the Liberals and the NDP think that a thrawn, yappy old eunich like you will attract anyone to theirs?

          • That’s what you think of Harper??

            Hey…your choice.

          • Doubtful.

            I served longer.
            You’re point?

            “However the time has come..”?


            You should pull your head out, and look around.

            We’ve been in more shooting wars since the ‘Peace Dividend’ arrived, than we have in decades prior to the Cold War ending.

            What’s your delusional idea for creating a ‘peaceful’ world?


            If you were paying attention, you’d see it isn’t other nation’s armed forces that are causing the most problems nowadays.

            Here’s some wise old sayings,

            “The wolf always carries away the gentle lamb.”

            “Walk softly, and carry a big stick.”
            “The best defense, is a good offense.”

          • I have no idea what you’re on about….but since wars aren’t possible in the 21st century, and we’ve gotten less violent over the centuries anyway…..you might wanna rethink your life philosophy.

            Maybe….love thy neighbour as thyself

            Or ….do good to those that harm you

            Or even….turn the other cheek.

          • “I have no idea what you’re on about…”

            Well, thanks for admitting your cluelessness.

            “…but since wars aren’t possible in the 21st century, and we’ve gotten less violent over the centuries anyway…”?


            I can’t reason with crazy, or fix stupid, people.


            Before you start quoting the Bible, you might want to look up things like, say, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades or the Muslim jihads of recent times.

            Now go take your meds.

          • Oh good….don’t bore me again then.

          • That’s the best come back you have?


            Typical for someone that’s out of ammo in a battle of wits.

          • Well, at least you admit your ignorance.

            Quoting the bible is probably not a good way to defend your argument.

            Considering religion has been responsible for most of the blood shed in human history.

            The Inquisition, the Crusades, and the current Muslim jihads…


    • Actually, there’s a pretty good case to be made for sending the military desk-jockeys back out into the field. There could be an argument made that peacekeeping is a good way to promote Canada internationally, keep the military honed and their skills sharp, as well as justify their budgets and personnel.

      There are also relatively inexpensive ways to cut military bureaucracy, and the Liberals have historically proven adept at that task (as opposed to the ballooning public service under the Conservatives.)

      • The field units fill their rank structure in from the top- that’s why we have half strength low readiness regular units with full compliments of majors. There simply aren’t jobs for all the extra senior officers and sergeants major in the HQs with field units- even if they were still up for field service. Positions in HQs could be cut, full time reservists laid off and civilian positions reduced but hundreds of excess regular officers and NCOs would have to be bought or waited out. It would be expensive and the people quite happy to sit in Ottawa for decades and the empire builders would fight back to stall it.

        • More BS from mental_ward….

      • Personnel have always been posted between NDHQ and operational units.

    • Oh, Freddie mental_ward….

      Wrong again.

      “The people in NDHQ generally can’t simply be shifted to the field…”?


      Personnel are posted into, and out of, NDHQ.

      They are routinely posted back to operational units.

      Thanks for playing.

    • Oh, freddie….wrong again.

      Why do you insist on making incorrect comments about a subject of which you know absolutely nothing about?

      “The people in NDHQ generally can’t simply be shifted to the field and the costs to fire them would be enormous.”


      Personnel have always been posted into, and out of, NDHQ.
      Guess where they go to and come from?
      Operational units.

  12. I’m glad to see that Justin Trudeau is recruiting a strong team of people who are experienced in their fields. If he wants to be put forward a credible alternative in the next election he needs to be serious about this and this shows he is working hard to put together a professional team. He may not win as early as the next election since it may take more time to get the experience to be PM, but hopefully he will have a good shot at becoming Official Opposition leader.

    • I’m sure you do hope for that, Rosanna Lopez.

      How is Hillary 2016 coming along?

      • If Hillary Clinton wins the U.S. presidency in 2016, will you comer back here and eat your words?

        • I think you’re missing my underlying question…. I’m curious who exactly I’m talking with – perhaps Rebecca Fine’s long lost twin?


          • How did you find this?

          • I saw it when john g posted this a few months back. It’s been known on these boards for a while.

            The more curious part is why, after being outed, she continues to post – as someone who hopes Justin Trudeau has a successful political career, it does not help his cause to have astroturfers like Ms. Fine/Lopez masquerading as concerned Canadians.

            Ms. Fine/Lopez – feel free to rebut any of this. To date, you haven’t.

  13. Good choice on paper. But I will wait until policies start rolling out. I still remember how Fantino was touted by the press on how helpful he was going to be for Harper.

    • It only takes about 5 minutes of listening to Leslie to realize he’s no Fantino. At least based on what i heard today.

      • He’s dreamy.

        • He knows how to fire a big gun too.

          • I’ll betcha he has a really big gun. A great big Liberal gun.

          • And it fires great big bullets, Liberal bullets.

  14. PET was the best Prime minister ever. And his son will follow in his footsteps and change canada around. He will be the next PM

    • He will be the next PM – which is a shame.

      Tru-Doh! original was and still is hated out west.

      While you might follow the kool aide trail in eastern Canuckleland and love to kiss the shadow of TruDoh! Lite, there are a large number of hard working Canadians west of the Ontario / Manitoba border who would rather pizz on the Tru-Doh! original’s headstone than shake Tru-Doh! Lites’s hand.

  15. I get the impression that Wherry doesn’t like Trudeau.

  16. Really, we need a journalist who is not going to be sarcastic about this. Reading this – do I trust journalists? No, not if they’re going to behave like that. If Wherry is angry about the General, perhaps he’d better go work out with a punching bag rather than resort to such infantile sarcasm.

    Keep your likes and dislikes a little more on the back burner. Work out with a punching bag instead.

  17. Leslie – just another opportunist – disappointing actually considering his background.

    I wonder how much the libs paid him?

  18. Gen Leslie did not get to be CDS and was not happy about it. Join the liberals hope they get elected and hope to become MND then ram your policies down the throat of the military. If Justin keeps him on his team, I will not vote Liberal. Leslie has an agenda and it will not be good for DND, especially the Navy and Air Force. Very dangerous person.

    • Sounds like you have a vested interest in the status quo. Something is wrong when you have a government that is dying to spend money and DND can’t seem to be able to do it without fiasco’s like the F 35.

    • Actually, your comment is very true if rumours at NDHQ are to be believed. Leslie never could be trusted in a clinch.