Justin Trudeau apologizes after one pander too many

Practically every time he opens his mouth, Trudeau is saying something somebody wants to hear. It’s what politicians do


Peter Bregg for Maclean’s

Politicians pander. They do it for a living, and it shouldn’t take a cynic to realize as much. It is a very rare Ottawa beast who doesn’t have to do as much to get re-elected. I can think of exactly one; his name is Irwin Cotler, and he was an accomplished human rights advocate and free-speech champion well before and long after he darkened Parliament’s door. I’m sure there are others, but in modern-day politics the general rule is that most of those cooling their heels in the House of Commons have spent their lives as politicians, or spent their lives trying to become politicians. Career politicians spend their lives trying to be liked, and there is one very effective way of doing so: placate, please and pander to whoever happens to be sitting in front of you.

Which brings us to the Justin Trudeau impolitic remark of the week.

As Sun News reporter David Akin has noted, Trudeau made some disparaging remarks about Albertans during an interview with Patrick Lagacé from Les Franc Tireurs, a rather good public affairs show here in Quebec. Here are Trudeau’s offending bits:

Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn’t work.

Lagacé then asks, “Is Canada better served when there are more Quebecers in power than more Albertans?”

I am Liberal, therefore of course I think that the answer is yes. Certainly, when we look at the great Prime Ministers of the 20th century, the only ones that have held up are MPs from Quebec. We have a role. This country, Canada, is ours.

In order to see just how panderous this sentiment, let’s tease out the context in which Trudeau made his statements.

He is being interviewed on a French television station not exactly known for its federalist leanings. The interview is a coming out of sorts for young Trudeau, who until then had been disparaged by Quebec’s softy-sovereignist opinionmakers and television hosts.

He’s exactly the kind of politician soft nationalists and sovereignists alike despise: French, yet draped in the Maple Leaf. How to counteract this stubborn sentiment? Why, trash Alberta, of course!

In Quebec, with a few exceptions, heaping scorn on Wild Rose Country is akin to a handshake: it’s just something you do, and then quickly forget. Not coincidentally, you’ll notice that not one Quebec media type picked up on his bon mots at the time, me included.

It took two years and Sun News to inexplicably slap an ‘EXCLUSIVE’ on the whole mess for anyone outside the province to notice. Frankly, it was a lot more fun to watch him fall down some stairs on purpose.

Trudeau pandered to the exact same group earlier this year when he mused favourably (and in French, no coincidence there) about Quebec separation, in the event that Stephen Harper continued to drag poor Canada back to the Middle Ages.

I always say that if ever I believed Canada was really Stephen Harper’s Canada — that we were heading against abortion, against gay marriage, that we were going backwards 10,000 different ways — maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.

Ah, but watch what happens when Trudeau is put in front of a multicultural A Mari Usque Ad Mare crowd like the one that turned out to hear him announce his Liberal leadership bid in October. The  Alberta-bashing crypto-sovereignist disappears, replaced by the bright-eyed, yay-Canada cheerleader we all know and, well, whatever…

The key to Canadian unity is the shared sense of purpose so hard to define but so deeply felt. The sense that we are all in this together. That when Albertans do well, it creates opportunities for Quebecers. That when Quebecers create and innovate, it echoes across the country and around the world. That whether you’re in St. Boniface or St. John’s, Mississauga or Surrey, we have common struggles and common dreams.

And then watch what happens when Trudeau is made to defend his party’s supposed anti-Western bias following David McGuinty’s sortie the other day:

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

Practically every time he opens his mouth, Trudeau is saying something somebody wants to hear. It’s what politicians do all the time. His sin isn’t inconsistency, or even anti-Alberta sentiment; it’s that he thought he could use the country’s language divide to get away with it.


Justin Trudeau apologizes after one pander too many

  1. I briefly touched on this before, but are we sure that the l in Liberal should be capitalized, here? (assuming it was not a written answer JT gave)?

    • But that has been part of the problem for a very long time. Not only has the Liberal party created the sentiment that everything Liberal is Canadian and everything Canadian is Liberal; the Liberals have also been carried high by this double take on “liberal”. And so a conventional meme has become engrained, generally speaking, in that the ‘liberal’ minds must be the same as being or belonging to the Liberals. Within such general meme understanding there could not be a ‘liberal’ within the Conservative Party. But of course, there are many ‘liberal’ thinkers to be found within any party. It’s just that, in Canada at least, such can not be mentioned because it might become mixed up with the Liberal Party. Hence, the word ‘liberal’ will not be used for any one politician who does not belong to the Liberal Party. Terrible meme, that one.

      • To give you the credit you deserve, that is not entirely a stupid response.

  2. A lot of Albertan’s smoke pot.

    • If they smoked pot, they would think properly. So let’s rule that out!

      • Don’t mistake the large portion of Albertan’s who smoke pot with the small but very vocal Albertan’s who give Alberta a bad name.

        My thinking on my post was that more Albertan’s care about legalizing pot than something JT said 2 years ago.

      • Haha, so you actually believe that being stoned has people “think properly”? That’s just too funny!

  3. now can we talk about the illegal money laundering going on in quebec by a guy named demitri ?

  4. Oh baloney….the only ones complaining are the Cons. Everyone else agrees with Justin.

    And David Mcguinty for that matter.

    Language doesn’t change anything….people are bilingual, or have auto-translators. How do you think countries in Europe understand each other?

    He’s not saying anything different in any case….the IDEAL would be if we all worked together, and as leader he’d promote that. But at the moment, and in my whole lifetime….we’ve never had that ideal. Canada has never gelled as one country. There are ten.

    • Chantal Hebert said on “At Issue” that she had a test for comments like these. She replaces the group in question (Albertans in this case) with Quebecers and then sees how that sounds. As it turns out there’s at least one non-Con (and a Quebecer at that), that doesn’t agree with Trudeau.

      • Ahhh Con ‘literalness’.

        Most people, Jim, most people

    • “the only ones complaining are the Cons”. Really? Then exactly why did Bob Rae, and eventually McGuinty, offer up an apology? Why did Trudeau and other members of his party distance themselves immediately from McGuinty’s remarks.

      As for Trudeau himself, where are all his supporters, supposedly in agreement with him? Do you have some evidence that his views regarding Albertan politics are widely shared? If so, let the Liberals share that disdain with Albertan so they can enjoy another 30 yrs of electoral drought.

      • Because Bob isn’t much of a leader.

        And Cons are about the only ones protesting, so I’d say most others are in agreement with Justin.

        • Well, you’d certainly be wrong in saying that. Most people do not agree with him. Most people in Canada are more accepting of differences than Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Trudeau. Polarization is a tactic used by politicians, it’s not an effective or an admirable tactic among intelligent people. I like to think that Canadians are intelligent people, but I admit that some days it is harder than others to hold to that opinion.

          • You’re confusing race, religion etc with a political/economic one….or a cultural one if you prefer.

            Albertans have a primary resources economy….and the cultural thinking that goes with it. Ontario and Quebec have a different kind of economy and culture.

          • It’s interesting that you think I am confusing five separate things, although I did not mention even one of them in my comment.

            Trudeau made the mistake of conflating geography and ideology. A mistake he has now recognized even though, I’m sure, you will continue to insist it was no mistake at all.

          • Nope, I agree with him…..but then I’m not running for election.

          • Thank God for small mercies.

          • I held elected office in the nineties.

          • As I said. Thank God for small mercies.

          • Mmm I got in, did what I set out to do, and left.

            Now I don’t have to bother dealing with the crazies, and their whining. LOL

          • I too was active in politics during the 1990s, and I can assure everyone in this thread that EmilyOne here was directly responsible for convincing the government not to build nukes with which they could then nuke Portugal with. Her rousing arguments, best summed up in the great line, “Shut up Manning, your a SoCon. And Stupid. Because you disagree with me. Which is also the reason that everyone here is stupid. So much stupidness” singel handedly brought the House to tears, and reminded our elected officials that in fact, they were indeed being quite foolish, and so nuked Spain instead. It was the highlight of my political life, taking part in that debate.

          • EmilyOne can say all she wants. She likes to hide behind a false name so no one can do the fact checking. EmilyOne is a fraud!

          • What was your riding?

          • What office? Or is this just another lie like you being “an economist”?

          • That was a lame troll even for you. LOL

          • What’s lame is a troll who’s only “defense” is based on a bald faced lie. If you’re going to make the absurd claim that you sat in public office in the 90’s as a way to lend credibility to yourself, you lose all of that credibility and more when you can’t name the office.

          • Ho hum

          • “Trudeau made the mistake of conflating geography and ideology.”

            He’s not alone there. Harper does so regularly. And he uses it to stir anti-Easterner sentiment in his prime constituency of Alberta all the time.

            And if voting patterns are any indication of ideology, I’d say there are indeed distinct differences in ideology in this country that can easily be mapped.

        • How about some names please Emily

          • Of the several million people not complaining?

          • No, your name when you served as an elected official…….in the 1990. What was your name then, the one you got elected under.

    • Countries can’t talk.

      How do I think countries in Europe understand each other?

      By speaking english.

      Never been to Europe, Emilyone?

  5. Trudeau’s sin is that he’s a xenophobe pandering to other xenophobes in Que. Trudeau is dividing people on who is and isn’t Canadian based on their moral beliefs. If Trudeau was a decent person, he would be trying to counter xenophobia in Que, not pander to it.

    Is it only Albertans who aren’t proper Canadians or is it all people who don’t think exactly like Trudeau who should not be allowed a voice?

    • Not at all. It’s also the majority of British Columbians who don’t want oil tankers full of Alberta tar, and all those voters that sent child pornagraphy enablers to Ottawa.

    • People shouldn’t be taken in by these crocodile tears. In the National Post comment section one often finds Albertans making disparaging remarks claiming Quebecers are moochers for receiving equalization payments and Ontarians are too lazy to compete with the rest of the world after the overvalued oil dollar caused the manufacturing sector to collapse.

      Here, for example, is the top comment on this story:

      “I live in Quebec and I think the last thing we need is another Francophone Prime-minister. We need a someone who isn’t corrupt in Government. They [the French] are just as bad in Quebec as anywhere else.” (304+, 13-)

      Anti-Alberta Trudeau interview reminds Canadians why the Liberals were voted out

      • Yup, so true. So now we know that Quebeckers hate the west and the west hates anything east of Winnipeg. Can we separate now, divorce, get on with our lives? You won’t be forced to live with our redneck politics and we won’t be forced to pay for your leftist nanny state. Deal?

        • I don’t think Quebecers hate Albertans. They just don’t want Reformers destroying the country with their American Republican agenda. That’s actually how a super-majority feel who voted against Harper getting absolute power last election.

          • Judging by comments posted here and elsewhere though, there are a good many Albertans who think little of anywhere beyond their own borders, and many of those have separatist leanings of their own.

          • However, Quebeckers DO love those Albertans to continue to subsidize their beloved gouvernemama to the tune of several billions per annum.

          • Alberta has absolute power now. Why don’t they do something about it?

          • And the westerners were able to live and not starve when NL sent them salt cod, many decades ago during the Depression. Either Canada is a nation that stands together through thick and thin, or it’s a group of regions that never try to understand each other.

          • Well put, Patchouli. We stand together so far as I’m concerned! I think of Canada before I think of my region/province. Those who are regionally minded first are so often small minded too.

          • When was the last time Quebec helped Canada??

          • Are the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Greens so lacking in ideas that one must presume that those who voted for them where voting against the Conservatives instead of, say, voting for the respective parties?

          • Harper is a very polarizing figure (due to his sleazy politics.) You either love him or you dislike him. The vast majority of voters were in the latter group.

            We need an election system that not only ensures MPs are democratically elected but gives the voter more choices. With Instant Runoff Voting, a person can vote for a party/platform/leader and also vote against another one. A person can transfer their vote so they have an alternative vote on an instant runoff ballot (if a candidate doesn’t win with a majority on the first round.)

            The system we have now is ridiculous awarding absolute corrupt power against the express wishes of a super-majority. That is the literal opposite of democracy.

          • You don’t seem to have any idea of what democracy is. Claiming that anybody who voted for the Liberals voted “against” the CPC is simply a flat-out lie, just like claiming that anybody who voted for the NDP voted “against” the CPC is a flat-out lie.

            Our electoral system is fine, and has been for over a hundred years. If the only reason you can come up with for changing it is so that you’re side wins more seats, that’s a very BAD reason to make any changes.

            I’m guessing next you’ll suggest that Conservative’s shouldn’t be allowed to vote to make the country more “democratic”. Or maybe every party should just get an equal # of seats in the interest of “fairness”?

          • If the only reason you can come up with to maintain a system which awards 39% of voters with 100% of power is that your side wins more seats, that’s a very BAD reason to maintain the system.

          • My reason for wanting to maintain the status quo is because it’s worked well for Canada for well over a hundred years, including the years when Conservative’s didn’t win.

            You seem to think that Canada’s democracy has been broken from the very beginning, and we’ve been doomed ever since. I think the country’s pretty great.

          • The issue is whether it’s democratic or not, not how much like the country. If the latter was the issue I imagine eliminating voting altogether would be on the table.

          • That should be “…how much you like…”

          • You are obviously ignorant of the Chretien years. Then Cons like Harper railed against our antiquated and undemocratic election saying it produced a “benign dictatorship.” Of course, Harper is a hypocrite who had a change of tune when the corrupt system favored him.

            The fact is almost all democracies abandoned FPTP decades ago to ensure a majority of voters are represented in government — or the literal interpretation of democracy.

          • Agree 100%. Our present voting system is sick joke. Almost all developed countries have systems that ensure a majority of voters are represented in government. It’s called democracy. If Canada was a democracy, Harper would’ve been gone long ago. Instead he is wrecking the country and the economy.

          • Yeah, it’s really bad here??? Look around the planet to see how badly we are doing. What are you smoking?

          • Why don,t you go live in one of these countries.Most of them are rioting or cannot pass legislation or are totally bankrupt..No thanks Ron to another one of your bad ideas.

          • Spare me the nonsensical rhetoric. The flat-out truth is that a super-majority of Canadians were strongly opposed to Harper getting absolute power. If we had IRV put in place, Harper would’ve been replaced with a NDP/Liberal government according to the Globe and Mail.

            Why should voters get saddled with politicians and governments they don’t want and didn’t vote for?

            The reason to reform our voting system is to ensure it’s democratic. Plain and simple. But you can ask the same question of Harper who, while in opposition, claimed our current system produced a “benign dictatorship.” Of course he’s fine with it as long as he’s the dictator.

            As for the rest of your foolishness, clearly you don’t comprehend what democracy means.

            G&M: How would Harper fare in a French-style run-off election?

          • The Toronto rag G&M is used as outhouse material.If this is what you read and believe no wonder your in such brain washed fool.

          • I think there is a need for representation from the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens and Bloq Québécois in Parliament. Right now, we have a “winner-take-all” system that means that most people are represented by MPs they didn’t vote for and allows “majority” governments to be formed with 40% of the vote (or less).

          • Funny the system we have was fine with Liberals when Chretien was winning all those majorities with less than half of the popular vote. Now not so much it appears eh?

          • This system was not fine when the Liberals were in power under Chrétien.

          • What a pile of crap you spout RON WALKER..PM Harper got more votes than the LIBERALIES–More than the NDcommies__more than the GREEN beanies–More than the Separatisties..In our world all of these parties ran separately and all of them lost..PM Harper beat the crap out of all of them.And we laugh at your ignorance of that fact.

          • Think what you wish, I for one do not want anymore Quebecer’s as PM.

          • And those who voted against Harper lost didn’t they?

            Get over it..it is getting boring to read these whiney, sore loser postings..

        • Haven’t you heard? Once the cons got back in power in SK, they asked BC and AB to join and form the “new-west” — but they left Manitoba out, too NDP for the “new west.” So you are going to have to change that to the west doesn’t like anyone east of Regina for this theory to work.

        • Khazakstan demonstrates the viability of a cold, flat, landlocked nation, reliant on oil and farming.

          Welcome to Saskbertistan, the Khazakstan of the West!
          Sacha Baron Cohen could even do a Rob Anders movie.

          • By George, you’ve got it. ;-)

      • You’re comparing the opinion of internet commentors with someone who wants to lead the country. That’s simply ridiculous.

        • Just pointing out that the vast majority of Albertans say much worse things about Quebec than anything Trudeau said about the Reformers from the province wrecking the country.

          What’s actually ridiculous is a fanatic like Harper leading the country (to ruin):

          Harper on Atlantic Canadians: “I think in Atlantic Canada, because of what happened in the decades following Confederation, there is a culture of defeat that we have to overcome.”

          Harper on Canada and Canadians: “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status.”

          Harper on America and Republicans: “Your country and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.”

          • All three are true … even if you disagree with them.

          • CRAP. 1) Atlantic Canada survives and thrives very nicely and they are NOT ‘a culture of defeat’ 2) Canada is hardly ‘2nd Rate’ (what a moronic comment, czi!)~Canada typically rates in the highest 2 or 3 among ALL the nations of the world for quality of life…always well above the US ranking. 3) Harper made this idiotic comment when George W. Bush was president and Harper was so embarassingly eager to lick his boots! Bush was a total disaster; the worst president ever! On Bush’s watch his neo con policies lead to the 2nd Great Depression a horrible economic slump that we’re still trying to overcome. Bush started a costly war with Iraq when Bin Laden was in Afghanistan~go figure eh! Re Harper’s comment that the US conservative movement is ‘…light and inspiration to people in this country and across the world.’…yeah right…if you mean ‘light and inspiration’ to absolute morons buying the lies the GOP sells. Did you watch any of the Republican debates? All but one (ie Ron Paul) of those candidates said whatever crap they believed would win them the nomination…and so it continued when Romney became their choice for president; nobody could say for certainty where he stood on almost any issue. The Republicans are so transparently all about using lies and propaganda to win the vote.

          • I think your the one who needs help Ron.A little fanatical and way behind the times.You like living in a country that is taken care of by the nanny state.True Canadians like to work for their money and help the truly in need people.Working 3 weeks and getting EI for the rest of the year was a culture of defeat.And you can see what is happening in Ontario..OH Mike Harris is not the premier anymore RON,it,s your famous for corruption Liberal party.And how about the $8 billion a year welfare payment to your buddy Quebec every year.Now that,s what I call second tier ( when exactly do they get off the teat) Quit spouting your nonsense Ron Only Quebec and Toronto Star readers are cheering you on.

    • Trudeau’s problem is that while he had great ideas, he left the details to the bureaucracy, which is IMHO the most biased part of our government. During my work term in Ottawa ten years ago, I couldn’t believe how many people in the bureaucracy believed, for example, that Saskatchewan still didn’t have electricity or television, or that Corner Brook was a ten minute drive from downtown St. John’s.

      As a result, things that should have been good ideas, such as bilingualism and the NEP, are dividing the country to this day.

    • Oh come on Tony, even you don’t believe that load of nonsense. Quebec bashing is part of the national dialogue. So is calling B.C. nothing but a bunch of dope smoking hippies.

  6. In 2010, Trudeau was a PQ MP, facing an election with a weak leader. He was trying to keep his seat, and speaking to the constituents of his province. Moreover, I am a Liberal and live in the prairies, and in no way did he say that all Albertans are jerks: he said our country is being run by Albertans (and in 2010, in addition to the Prime minister, we had several powerful Albertans in cabinet: Kenney, Prentice, Ambrose; Ablonsky and Merrifield and Menzies were all ministers of state at that time too. To me, we were being run by Albertans, and perhaps now that we have all condemned the anti-Albertan comments from McGuinty and Trudeau, we should take a look at what they are saying and see if there’s any truth to it.

    Of all people, Martin Patriquin should relate to this: it took a year of upset before his original comments about corrruption in PQ have been exonerated, and the truth behind them is just coming to the fore. And I am dying to find out the connection between Senator Houssakas and that twerp Soudas and all this corruption.

    On a related note, Twitter people keep comparing JTs 2010 remarks to those from other leaders; not respecting that he was NOT the leader at the time, and likely since they just had a new leader selected, would not be entertaining that notion for some time, if ever. Nobody could have predicted (and nobody did) that the Liberals would be reduced to third party status, and the new leader forced to resign after not even retaining his own seat.

    A few years ago, a video came to light in SK that showed MP and minister of state Lukiwski saying something really hateful about homosexuals; he said, “There’s A’s and there’s B’s. The A’s are guys like me, the B’s are homosexual
    faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases.”

    Which statement do you find more upsetting and deserving of resignation? Hmmm?

    • I share your disdain of Lukiwski’s comments. But he’s not running for the leadership of the party. Trudeau is.

      • You missed the point of my comment.

    • Not to defend Lukiwski, but he did a full apology in 2008 when those 1991 remarks came to light.

      Trudeau has yet to take ownership of his 2 year old remarks. Considering Trudeau wants to be PM (not just an ordinary MP as Lukiwski currently is), one would hope for a bit more from him.

      • You don’t need to defend him: his constituents seemingly loved his remarks and rewarded him with a higher margin of return to the seat.

        He apologized before you wrote the remark, so I’m not sure if you are being disingenuous or if you need to exact a pound of flesh to accept the apology.

        • Or door number #3, I didn’t see the apology before I wrote it. Occam’s razor and all.

          • The apology was pretty weak all things considered, he quickly jumped from “I was wrong to say this” to “this is all a conservative plot” without addressing the people he may have hurt by his comments and without eating much humble pie, unlike the Lukiwski apology.

    • Moreover, I am a liberal and live in Alberta. And in the last election, I voted for the CPC.

      No one is saying that Trudeau said “Albertans are jerks”. You insert such silly expansion yourself. See what’s happening?

      Do you think Lukiwski could be chosen as leader of any party? If so, why do you think he would be chosen as leader? And if not, why would he not be chosen as leader of any party?

      • but you’re not liberal you’re a partisan. I withdraw my earlier comment about your earlier reflections not being entirely stupid.

        • I am a liberal, not a Liberal.

          Being partisan as in how? Please explain! In believing, through reason, that Harper isn’t perfect? I do believe, through reason that he is not perfect. In believing, through reason, that Harper is the most knowledgeable of the political party leaders in Canada right now? I agree with the majority of the MP’s in the House that Harper is the most knowledgeable MP of them all. As has said their votes.

          • I caught the distinction between lower and upper case in fact I have commented in this very thread that I think many transcribers are in the wrong by giving a capital L in JT’sr emarks.

          • Liberals don’t believe that anybody who isn’t a partisan Liberal can be liberal. Many CPC voters are absolute liberals, and are disgusted with many of the illiberal policies of the Liberal Party of Canada.

            There’s nothing liberal about the CHRC’s campaign to shut down certain political speech that the Liberals support. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to raise taxes on everybody just so the government can have more control of our day-to-day lives. Too many Liberals fail to see that, which is why more and more liberals are voting for the CPC. The LPC in many ways may be the most illiberal party in the country right now.

    • Had Trudeau made his statement about “conservatives” running the country,and not used “Albertans” there would not be an issue today.The same with McGuinty.
      We are not being run by Albertans,we are being run by Conservatives,and that should be totally clear.

      What Trudeau didn’t apologize for, was his statement that the country should be run by Quebecers….and that will be used against him in the next round.

      • Time will tell.

    • 1. The man said, “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda.” He didn’t say, “certain Albertans” or “some particularly nasty Albertans.” As phrased, it can only mean Albertans, collectively.
      2. The Lukiwski video was from 1991, a scant 15 years before he came to power. He said he didn’t think that way anymore, and that was that.

      3. At what point in their political careers should Liberals be expected to stop sowing hostility and discord? Do we have to get David McGuinty or Trudeau installed as leader before they’ll try to do so?
      4. Trudeau was a PQ MP? How did we miss THAT story for two years?

      • Province de Quebec, not Parti Quebecois (threw me for a sec as well)

        • Thanks, Keith. Yes, I meant Province de Quebec, sorry for the confusion, both of you.

          • My foolish assumption, of course. Still … first you say he didn’t rip on all Albertans, then you say we’ve all denounced him for his anti-Albertan comments. Defend it or denounce it as you like, but how can you do both?

          • Well, there are no PQ MPs, as in Parti Quebec, only PQ MPs as in those from Quebec, but I wouldn’t call you foolish exactly. You are Albertan? And so you are offended and wont ever again vote LPC? That is too bad.

          • oh shoot, I (obviously) meant to type Parti Quebecois, not just Quebec.

      • And hopefully fewer still who believe this kind of stuff. I saw his public apology, and I live in the city that knows he has never showed up to anything he’s been invited to that would actually show a sincere change of heart or mind. Seriously the guy is scum.

  7. The irony is that Pierre Trudeau challenged the West to do what he did, go to Ottawa and change thing.

    “Why should I sell your wheat?” Come to Ottawa, and sell your own damn wheat. Particpate in the federation. Don’t sit out there and whine.

    And so that is what the West did with Reform. “The West wants in”.

    And now that the West is in, Justin and the McGuinty brothers and most Liberals (if you scratch their skin and look under it), want to send Westerners back home.

    • More particularly, two incidents involving Trudeau are remembered as
      having fostered Western alienation, and as emblematic of it. During a
      visit to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan on July 17, 1969, Trudeau met with a group of farmers who were protesting that the federal government was not doing more to market
      their wheat. The widely remembered perception is that Trudeau dismissed
      the protesters’ concerns with “Why should I sell your wheat?” – in reality, however, the media never adequately reported the fact that he asked the question rhetorically and then proceeded to answer it himself.[64]

      Years later, on a train trip through Salmon Arm, British Columbia, he “gave the finger”
      to a group of protesters through the carriage window – less widely
      remembered is that the protesters were shouting anti-French slogans at
      the train


      • Seeing wheatseller’s ID I’m always reminded of the wonderful irony that he has been so hurt and consumed by a comment made decades that he made his handle a tribute to his outrage, decades later he still hasn’t managed to learn that his understanding of the context of the comment is entirely fictional, and the original source of his misunderstand is the Liberal Media.

        • Yeah, even living through it most of them have managed to ‘forget’ the reality of it, in favour of a victim thing again. It’s amazing.

        • hear hear!

        • Outrage over the NEP is also based on ignorance. Kenny said yesterday that “the NEP devastated the economy” of Alberta. Not true. The fact is Alberta benefited from a very high price of oil in the early 1980s. But in the mid-1980s the world price of oil crashed and with it Alberta’s economy.

          Instead of taking responsibility for their shortsightedness of betting everything on oil exports, they blamed Trudeau for giving Canadians a discount on Canadian oil (through the NEP.)

          Albertans have not learned their lesson. Today they are betting everything on bitumen exports. But now the price of oil only has to stay below $80/barrel to make most oil-sands oil unprofitable causing the same crisis all over again.

          • I imagine the reaction would be exactly the same if, for example, Canada tried to tell Quebec that it had to export it’s hydro electric power to Canadians at a discount.

          • I think most Albertans undertand that it wasn’t the NEP that devasted the economy as evidenced by the “please god give me another oil boom and I promise I won’t piss the next one away” bumper stickers. But it feels better to have someone else to blame.

          • If I recall from my Business & Gov’t 410 or whatever course, the NEP took money from ALL oil producers in Canada, while a second program whose name I forget gave the proceeds to CANADIAN producers who were engaged in REMOTE oil exploration & production. Like many Trudeau-era programs, it was a good idea, but badly implemented. Bureaucrats were left to define “remote”, and as things turned out every “remote” oil producer has their head office in or near Toronto and Montreal.

            As a (non-Albertan) westerner who lives in Ontario, I have to comment that oil plays a much smaller part of Alberta’s economy than most easterners believe. Alberta has both the largest resource-based GDP and non-resource-based GDP of any province on a per capita basis. (Unless you count Iqaluit as a province.)

            While I am generally anti-oil-sands development, or at least anti-unregulated-development, I don’t see petroleum prices going anywhere but up in the long term.

          • Sorry Ron, this is wrong. Your interpretation of the NEP is laughable. The NEP ensured that companies producing oil would not be able to charge open market values. In that environment who would want to setup up shop? Hence a devastated industry.

          • Cmon now the NEP was taxing Alberta oil very heavily and sending the money to Poorer provinces, get your facts straight.

          • Wow, are you ever stupid.

            You imply Alberta benefited from the NEP? (And then you try to “prove” it using an unrelated fact.

            York benefited from the Americans burning it down. Proof? Construction costs were much lower than today!

            “A Regional Analysis of
            Fiscal Balances under Existing and Alternative Constitutional
            Arrangements,” a paper by Mansell and Schlenker (1992) study the costs of the NEP in terms of transfer payments to Ottawa stolen from Albertans. That’s $84 billion in 1980-6 dollars. That doesn’t take into account the effect of other things like the 40% in housing prices (world price was still high when this happened). And that’s with only 2.2 million Albertans. Almost $40,000 PER CAPITA over the life of the NEP. A family of four? $160K (in 1980s dollars). That buys a house. Israel destroying the shittier houses of Palestinians isn’t controversial is it? Why should Trudeau escape criticism for essentially the same thing – destroying families’ houses? Because you’re okay with him dressed as a Nazi on his motorbike during WWII?

            In 1999, the price of oil was $12/bbl. We had a surplus with low unemployment. Stating that low oil prices were the cause of the NEP’s effects is dishonest.

            What do you do, Ron? Your salary has been cut by $6,000. You will also be directed to pay $6,000 for your wife and each of your 2 children. Oh yeah, those are 1980 dollars. Accounting for inflation, that $24,000 is worth $64,599.12. Make the check out to Alberta for this amount, as well as checks in this amount postdated for the next 5 years as well. I know this won’t negatively effect you, as oil prices are still high.

          • Thank you. I’m Albertan and truly tired of, after 40+- years, NEP rhetoric .

      • So your blaming the son for the sins of the father huh?

        Are you will to take the blame for anything your father or mother did?

        • That’s a quote from Wikipedia about what actually happened. I posted it to clear up these myths westerners are so fond of.

        • Well, when the son is expoiting his father’s “legacy”, in order to be recognized, he should be willing to take the blame for having his warped, self-serving, sense of entitlement because of who his daddy was…What has he actually accomplished on his own merit??
          The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

          Seriously, does he even have his own unique personality?

    • “‘Why should I sell your wheat?’ Come to Ottawa, and sell your own damn wheat.”

      That’s not what Trudeau said. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia which debunks the Western anti-Trudeau mythology:

      “Trudeau met with a group of farmers who were protesting that the federal government was not doing more to market their wheat. The widely remembered perception is that Trudeau dismissed the protesters’ concerns with ‘Why should I sell your wheat?’ – in reality, however, the media never adequately reported the fact that he asked the question rhetorically and then proceeded to answer it himself.

      “Years later, on a train trip through Salmon Arm, British Columbia, he ‘gave the finger’ to a group of protesters through the carriage window – less widely remembered is that the protesters were shouting anti-French slogans at the train.”


      • Absolutely. Try telling that to an Alta politician and I guarantee they will start howling “NEP! NEP!” beore the endof the thrid sentence.

    • “And so that is what the West did with Reform. ‘The West wants in’.”

      This comment is hypocritical. This guy is shedding crocodile tears over Trudeau’s remark that Canada is suffering because Albertan Reformers are in charge. Then he says Albertans are shut out if there is a PM from Quebec…

  8. Charles Caccia didn’t pander.

  9. Where in the article is Trudeau’s apology referenced (as the title suggests)?

    • I rather think the article was being readied for publication when JT made his apology, and so it was easier to reference it in the header. It popped up too soon after the apology to have been written since.

      • So can you point me to the apology – I haven’t seen it yet.

        • Never mind – found it

    • I was wondering the same thing. In fact, I visited this site exactly to find out whether Trudeau had in fact apologized.

      • Well, I did eventually find the apology, but to be honest I’m having trouble parsing it. It’s not a straightforward “It was wrong of me to disparage Albertans”.

        • ok I will have to look for it then.

          • Found it. More on that later…………

    • He said he wasn’t attacking the people of Alberta but Harper. Excuse me the people of Alberta overwhelming support Harper and the Conservatives. When in a hole you should stop digging. Air head!

      • “Excuse me the people of Alberta overwhelming support Harper and the Conservatives.”

        A super-majority of Canadians do not.

        • You need to suck it up buddy! The election was held. Those that voted supported the Conservative party. They got the most votes and won the election. You may not like it but those are the realities of our electoral system since the country was founded.
          Did you complain when Chretien won a majority government with 38% of the vote? I suspect turn out was a lot higher in those days.

          • No – a sufficient number of voters supported Harper and his party to give him a majority of the seats – but in no way did he receive the majority of the votes. (It’s been a long time since any party truly had a majority of voter support.)

            In short, you are overstating your case.

            Personally, I think we need an overhaul of our electoral system; FPTP is in no way reflective of the will of the people in this country…

          • STV proponent here! (But that’s a totally different topic.)

          • Here we go again. The winning side by far had more votes than any other party, despite your protestations.
            40% of all eligible voters chose not to bother to vote. No one knows how they would have if they´d voted. They may be simply satisfied enough with the status quo. If they did vote it most likely would be along the same pattern as the existing vote. But there is a choice of four other parties.

            We all must try to grasp that with 5 parties it is most likely improbable that any party could reach a 50% threshold rather than claiming victory with our more typical 38% to 30% to 24% to 7% and 4% over five parties, roughly saying.
            The USA reached it with Obama at 52% to 47% of voters. It is only a two party system in the USA and almost 40% of people (or a staggering 102 Million eligible voters) chose not to vote too.

          • You are absolutely correct. But Holinm was either vague or deliberately misleading. Ron Waller was correct in saying a majority of voters voted against Harper; holinm’s response implied most voters went with the CPC.

            If you read my comment again, you’ll see that I was pointing out the very thing you have said. I then said that FPTP in a multi-party system does not a true democracy make.

            Under our current system we always end up with our country led by a party that represents a minority of voters – which in turn helps to create the hyper-partisan atmosphere that’s poisoning both the HoC and the nation.

          • Read my comments again. I said “those that voted” I knew I had to be accurate because you lefties are so precise in your thinking. Right.

          • Except you weren’t accurate. You said “Those that voted supported the Conservative party.” <40% of those that voted supported the Conservative party.

          • Ron said that more voted against the CPC than for them By your response, I gathered you to mean that most voters supported the CPC – which is an inaccurate statement. If precision was your intent, then you missed the mark.

          • Tony Blair, with the unique insight of a man who brought a losing party from zeroes to heroes, has made the point that it tends to be the electoral losers who complain about the system rather than attempting to win under the conditions present. When they drop the complaining, they tend to win.

          • I was of the same opinion when the Liberals were in power, and would hold the same opinion if the NDP ever get in. It’s true I don’t like the CPC, but my issue with our current electoral system is not based on the party in power.

          • His insight being, that once having achieved absolute power, a party has no desire to cede any of it. His insight certainly says nothing about the democratic merits of the system.

          • No, his insight being that the democratic system in Canada and Britain is strong, and its inherently undemocratic to change the rules of the game in order to win, because it should be about more than simply winning at all cost. There has to be a constant standard.

  10. Its called being two-faced to some extent, but I believe he thinks Quebec is superior, thats the rub.

  11. While writers are expected to play with words, I do object to the word “pander” in this context since by definition, it refers to sexual procurement in the most pimpish of ways. Sucking up works better in this context.

    • Your lexicon would seem to be a bit more limited than it really should be.

  12. Don’t be fooled by Trudeau. He will come after Western Canadas Oil wealth and give it to the East so he can assure his rise to power. He is not in this for Canada, but for his own glory and ambition. He will split Canada in two. He will give away taxpayers money to every useless liberal cause. When ever you vote for charisma over substance, you get Jello…..


      • Was Ontario not divided when it did vote against the lord our Harper?

      • Like Father, like son, and we know what his record was regarding this matter.

        • Sorry, who are we talking about now, God and Jesus, or PET and JT? You poor, pathetic, alienated little Albortions, I’m with McGuinty: just leave the national stage if you cannot accept that the whole country isn’t the same as you. This is no nation: it’s a collection of regions that never ever understand each other.

          • Ecclesiastes 9:17
            Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools.

          • Don’t bring Ralph Klein into this.

    • Well, the nation voted in ol’ lack-of-charisma and we got… what, exactly? Arrogance and bad money management?

      • No, but that is what you will get under trudeau, Arrogance and bad money management. Harper just does his job governing, not making a big show of it either.

        • Economic Action Plan!

          Puahahah~! Rubes you guys are…

        • Damn right he doesn’t make a show of it; in fact he goes out of his way to hide what he is up to. Just ask the PBO.

          As for money management, it is conservatives (Mulroney and now Harper) who set record debts, and Liberals who put the nation back on track after the Mulroney blowout. We’ll have to see who puts the nation back in financial order once these clowns get the boot.

      • Ecclesiastes 9:17
        Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools….

        • Well, there’s nary a word of wisdom spoken in the HoC these days, but plenty of nonsense spewed by our “rulers”… which I guess makes us a nation of fools??

          • Depends whether canada votes for trudeau…….

  13. I am betting he will be the eventual breakup of the confederation if he makes Prime Minister.

    • Harper has certainly set the stage for that break-up. In fact he predicted it.

      • lets see who actually does it then.

      • can’t seem to find any reference to that online…..can you point me to the article?

        • Oh sure you can. That one….

          “Whether Canada ends up as one national government, or two national
          governments, or several national governments or some other kind of
          arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion.”

          …and many other charming remarks are at urls like:


          • that doesn’t sound like much of a prediction to me and considering the source URL (obviously a liberal website) is probably taken out of context to boot.

          • Lots of Harpies quotes on that page, and there are many more quote pages for him. Obviously you didn’t read the comment at the bottom….those quotes were compiled by the Con party.

          • They are nothing but quotes compiled from news services. No mention of who compiled them unless you believe “Meredith” (no last name) is Harper’s biographer.

          • Theres no point in continuing. You are a Liberal and I am Conservative. The bet still stands. God Bless Canada for now.

          • Ahhh. Well you can diddle around all night if you want, but I’m busy.

            “To prepare for possible attacks against what their leader said in the
            past, the Conservatives compiled a 500-page book of controversial
            Stephen Harper quotes. What the Conservatives didn’t expect on was that
            the book would fall into the hands of the Liberals during the election
            campaign. The book of Harper quotes is available at the following
            address: http://www.scribd.com/doc/53953055/Harpers-Big-Book-of-Fancy-Quotations

            Oh and…


    • I think you need to give a timeframe for that bet. Seems kind of hedgish and long-termish, but go for it.

      • how about within 2 years of Trudeau becoming PM

        • Okay, that’s firmer. How will we know when Canada is kaput? What’s the measure? Will it be as extreme as hellfire, or signalled by something milder, say a province seceding the nation? Which province goes first?

          • one province out should do it…..not sure if its Quebec or Alberta first.

          • Okay, I`m in. But you are going to have to vote Liberal first, to ensure Trudeau can get in, so we can see when he kills the country.

  14. What about Harper’s “fence around Alberta” sentiments of a few years ago — why aren’t easterners continuing to be appalled by this? Perhaps it’s because we’re a bit more adult than some AlbertaCons —

    • Once again I know you lefties are fixated on Harper but this is about what Trudeau said. Try to stay focused.

    • Because, when it really comes down to it, most easterners have never read the real letter. Here it is so that it can be read in full, to clear up the non sense which has been spread about the letter:

      The famous Alberta “firewall” letter
      Dear Premier Klein:
      During and since the recent federal election, we have been among a large number of Albertans
      discussing the future of our province. We are not dismayed by the outcome of the election so
      much as by the strategy employed by the current federal government to secure its re-election. In
      our view, the Chretien government undertook a series of attacks not merely designed to defeat its
      partisan opponents, but to marginalize Alberta and Albertans within Canada’s political system.
      One well-documented incident was the attack against Alberta’s health care system. To your
      credit, you vehemently protested the unprecedented attack ads that the federal government
      launched against Alberta’s policies – policies the Prime Minister had previously found no fault
      However, while your protest was necessary and appreciated by Albertans, we believe that it is
      not enough to respond only with protests. If the government in Ottawa concludes that Alberta is a
      soft target, we will be subjected to much worse than dishonest television ads. The Prime Minister
      has already signaled as much by announcing his so called “tough love” campaign for the West.
      We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This
      means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that
      we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help
      Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in
      Under the heading of the “Alberta Agenda,” we propose that our province move forward on the
      following fronts:
      • Withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the
      same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions
      are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867; and the
      legislation setting up the Canada Pension Plan permits a province to run its own plan, as
      Quebec has done from the beginning. If Quebec can do it, why not Alberta?
      • Collect our own revenue from personal income tax, as we already do for corporate income
      tax. Now that your government has made the historic innovation of the single-rate personal
      income tax, there is no reason to have Ottawa collect our revenue. Any incremental cost of
      collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility
      that Alberta would gain, as Quebec’s experience has shown.
      • Start preparing now to let the contract with the RCMP run out in 2012 and create an Alberta
      Provincial Police Force. Alberta is a major province. Like the other major provinces of
      Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force. We have no doubt
      that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can – one that
      will not be misused as a laboratory for experiments in social engineering.
      • Resume provincial responsibility for health-care policy. If Ottawa objects to provincial
      policy, fight in the courts. If we lose, we can afford the financial penalties that Ottawa may
      try to impose under the Canada Health Act. Albertans deserve better than the long waiting
      periods and technological backwardness that are rapidly coming to characterize Canadian
      medicine. Alberta should also argue that each province should raise its own revenue for
      health care – i.e., replace Canada Health and Social Transfer cash with tax points as Quebec
      has argued for many years. Poorer provinces would continue to rely on Equalization to
      ensure they have adequate revenues.
      • Use section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to force
      Senate reform back onto the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal
      government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform
      endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum. You acted
      decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is the time to drive the issue
      All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In
      addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to
      reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. The most
      recent Alberta Treasury estimates are that Albertans transfer $2,600 per capita annually to other
      Canadians, for a total outflow from our province approaching $8 billion a year. The same federal
      politicians who accuse us of not sharing their “Canadian values” have no compunction about
      appropriating our Canadian dollars to buy votes elsewhere in the country.
      Mr. Premier, we acknowledge the constructive reforms that your government made in the 1990s
      – balancing the budget, paying down the provincial debt, privatizing government services, getting
      Albertans off welfare and into jobs, introducing a single-rate tax, pulling government out of the
      business of subsidizing business, and many other beneficial changes. But no government can rest
      on its laurels. An economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the
      government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta’s prosperity, to redistribute
      income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power. It is
      imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an
      aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction.
      Once Alberta’s position is secured, only our imagination will limit the prospects for extending
      the reform agenda that your government undertook eight years ago. To cite only a few examples,
      lower taxes will unleash the energies of the private sector, easing conditions for Charter Schools
      will help individual freedom and improve public education, and greater use of the referendum and
      initiative will bring Albertans into closer touch with their own government.
      The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate
      provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada. Starting to act now will secure the
      future for all Albertans.
      Sincerely yours,
      Stephen HARPER, President, National Citizens’ Coalition;
      Tom FLANAGAN, professor of political science and former Director of Research, Reform
      Party of Canada;
      Ted MORTON, professor of political science and Alberta Senator-elect;
      Rainer KNOPFF, professor of political science;
      Andrew CROOKS, chairman, Canadian Taxpayers Federation;
      Ken BOESSENKOOL, former policy adviser to Stockwell Day, Treasurer of Alberta.
      * This letter represents the personal views of its authors and not those of any organizations with
      which they are or have been connected.
      (As published in the National Post on Jan. 24, 2001, headlined “An open letter to Ralph Klein”)

      • Do you believe that most Albertans have watched the entire interview re: the Trudeau remark?

        • No, I don’t believe that. But members of the media should have read the letter. And misinterpretations could still be corrected.

          There was not much to be misinterpreted when the media relayed the message of Trudeau and his preference for Quebec Prime Ministers.

          A long letter written needs carefull scrutiny before understanding it. A few sentences uttered will be much easier to re-lay. People don’t take the time to read long letters and so members of the msm and opposition party members understand this all too well, therefore a long letter can be misinterpreted easily, for lack of personal reading, but a short interview, and this one in particular, could not be so easily re-interpreted.

          • So are, we have had one Alberta prime minister. And I, among several, loathe the guy and his mean-spirited policies. In my life, we have had several amazing prime ministers, and all but one have come from PQ, Mike Pearson.

            Nothing would hurt harper more than to lose to the son of someone he is so keenly jealous of. And when that happens, and at this point, I do believe it will happen, I will be very happy knowing that not only did harper lose power, but he lost it to a Trudeau.

            And then I hope someone starts grooming either Xavier or Emma to be PM Trudeau Future.

          • Because a three generation dynasty screams democracy.

          • It does if they get voted in by a majority of Canadians.

      • The first 3 points are things Quebec has been doing for a long time now. And the 4th point is apparently partially unnecessary for Quebec to do because there seems to be a hands-off approach by the federal government re Quebec and at least some health care issues (private clinics being an example). And re the 4th point, Quebec does argue for more power over health care whenever the opportunity arises.

        So in many ways, the “firewall letter” appears to be about employing methods that Quebec has been successfully employing for years.

        • Exactly! Are you, or others, starting to see the irony in all of this, when comparing Justin remarks about Quebec Prime Ministers to the remarks made within the ‘firewall letter”?

          Here is the irony (and I really think the msm should have picked up on this one): when Justin insists that what Quebeckers, as a people, propose to be good (or to be ‘working’ for Canada), and when we look at what Harper proposes within his firewall letter, than we will see that what Harper proposed within that letter has already (for the most part) been reasoned into and implemented by Quebeckers! They do prefer to have those provincial powers in place and in fact have them in place!!!

          So if Justin, and Justin supporters for that matter, were really honest about all of this comparison being made about Justin’s remarks and Harper’s firewall letter, they should have known that what is in the letter is exactly the substance existing about which Justin complains NOT to be existing! What a farce!

          Harper is much more in tune with the workings of this country than Justin is. Only if one looks at things deeper, when one takes the time to really understand what has been said and written down, can we see the irony of it all.

          I strongly doubt if Justin is aware of what he had said then and what he tried (unsuccesfully) to apologize for this morning. He (and many, many others including members of the msm) doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    • That’s not the worst I’ve heard from Harper. My all-time favorite is him going on Fox News to apologize to America on behalf of Canada for not taking part in the Irak war. And this man STILL got elected.

    • Well Harper’s “firewall” letter wasn’t written a “few years ago”, it was written in 2001, over a decade ago.

      Another important difference is that Harper was not a sitting MP at the time, nor trying to become Prime Minister.

      As Francien points out, the “firewall” letter isn’t at all damning when read in full. He was actually asking for Alberta to become more like Quebec. I fail to see why Easterners would be appalled by a Western province utilizing it’s constitutionally mandated powers.

  15. Justin! Justin? Where are you? I, for one, am really waiting for a heartfelt apology coming directly from you.

    I do not care so much about theatrics, like draping oneself over a coffin, roses in hand, although others might find it attractive. What I do care about is substance. Either you believed what you’ve said then, or you don’t believe it no longer. Tell us who you really are.

    • Ah yes, mocking a very young man’s emotions at his beloved father’s funeral. Stay classy, Francien. Bet you found it hilarous when Duffy made Margaret drop to her knees.

      • I am not mocking anyone. I merely stated that I do not care so much about that kind of theatrics. I’ve been to many funerals where people were effected as much or more so than in the Trudeau case. Trudeau Sr. did die at an old age after all, something many of us will wish for and will be happy with.

        You know what I found un-classy? The msm replaying such theatrics over and over again.

        Do you find it classy enough when people refer to Harper as Hitler? I have not read anywhere that you find such comparison un-classy……..

        • I think anyone comparing anyone to Hitler is asinine. And nowhere have you ever seen me compare Herr Harper to Hitler.

          • I am not saying. nor have I said, that you have compared Harper(most knowledgeable) to Hitler. I said that I’ve not read anywhere that you find such comparison un-classy.

            But you think I should stay classy when stating I have no respect for theatrics?

            You can’t read, or won’t read, my short post properly and we wonder why this country is practically ungovernable. Man, do we liberals have an up hill climb in front of us!

          • You are not a Liberal, Francien. Just. Stop.

          • He said “liberals”, not “Liberals”.

          • He is a she, and she’s not liberal or Liberal in any way.

          • You see Jim_R, it’s all about score keeping here. You will notice, as the debate on these comment boards heats up, that the more silly things one writes, the more points will be scored. They like that sort of game. As for others: they come here to have a real discussion and don’t worry about the score keeping much. :)

          • Discussions like demanding people give their real names on this gawd-forsaken comment board? It is always delightful when the guilty parties start pointing fingers.

          • I don’t demand people give their real names on this comment board. I demand that people don’t make a mockery of these comment boards by stating that ‘having run for elected office’ without mentioning under which name such electoral office was won. If one claims here on these boards, that one has held an elected office but is not willing to put a real name to that, than any such person is mocking the comment board on its entirety. We might as well all pack it in if everything can be said without any substance attached. Might as well play video games all day and shoot at moving things on another screen.

            Like I said: a steep hill to climb for the liberals if they want to make a difference in the world.

          • You really need to learn how to read! I’ve never said I am a Liberal. I have voted for the Liberal Party in the past. The last election I voted CPC but I am still a liberal. I was a liberal human being when I voted for the LPC in the past and I was a liberal human being when voting for the CPC.

            I am a liberal human being now and have been as long as I could manage to reason properly. When were you thinking of becoming a liberal human being?

          • I won’t be joining your particular club any time soon, Francien. You are the most unliberal liberal I have ever come across.

          • I’m not surprised that you won’t be joining ‘my particular club’ any time soon. As a liberal, I do not believe in belonging to any club for finding liberalism.

            You may think I am the most unliberal liberal you have come across, but tell me, have you read the so-called “Firewall letter” I posted a while ago, for everyone to read so that further misinterpretations can be avoided when having an open discussion on the matter?

            Tell me: do you find it acceptable that some people might not much appreciate theatrics?

          • You need to stop assuming that the Liberal party has anything to do with actual liberalism defined as “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”

            The Liberal Party of Canada has become decidedly illiberal over the last decade. They’re sole reason for existence seems to be to continually argue for the status quo.

          • Except for right there. No need to add the Herr.

    • I think this is a reasonable expectation. Not sure why people are harping on you over this comment.

  16. His pandering is as immature as his politics, a damn shame that the LPC will elect him leader.

    • You mean you have never seen a politician attempt to ingratiate himself with his constituents? Shoud JT become leader of LPC, despite the misgivings of you and other conservatives, what do you think would happen after that?

      • Nothing, he will be leader of LPC (for all the wrong reasons) unseat Mulcair AND make a laughing stock of LPC onece again, he is not the one who is going to unseat Harper.

        • I appreciate your response, Claudia, and always enjoy bantering with you, but you forgot to answer my question re: have you ever seen any other politicians ingratiating themselves to their constituents.

        • I honestly think that if Trudeau IS LPC leader, that harper will step down before 2015 because he would likely rather die than lose to a Trudeau.

          • No one hates that much.

    • Maybe, but remember, in politics its only the comparison that matters. People vote for the least of all evils because that’s what they have on offer.

      Since Trudeau doesn’t even approach the degree of pandering we see in the others… I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on the result.

      I will point out however that at the time he made these statments, he was not even considering becoming leader and had repeatedly said he wouldn’t run. He wasn’t even in the mindset of someone who would represent a nation, but only someone who would represent his Quebec constituency.

      Different considerations cause people to think differently in a corresponding fashion.

      • As long as we have a “Quebec nation” we will always have this kind of pandering, it’s part of who we are, I personally don’t mind pandering BUT smart pandering, JT has no political insights all he has is a healthy ego, famous name and good looks, but he will be elected leader (which is a shame) unseat Mulcair (the NDP has to know by now they are done) but he is not the one to unseat Harper, LPC will make that same mistake again, choosing a leader for the wrong reasons.

  17. Am I the only one that thinks the LPC powers-that-be are stark, raving, insane to be ready to coronate Trudeau when they have candidates of real accomplishment and substance like Martha Hall Findlay and Marc Garneau?

    Just wondering.

    • They’ll make great cabinet ministers when Trudeau wins. Good, smart soldiers who can handle the files they’ll be given. His cabinet’s already better than what Harper can offer and he hasn’t even won yet.

      I’ve always believed that the traits you want in a Prime Minister all relate to management style skills like team building, vision and motivation.

      The worst trait possible in a Prime Minister is someone who honestly thinks he has all the answers.

      When running in elections you want a good communicator who can both make his points and be inspiring in some way.

      Harper has managed fairly well because he has tight control of his communications, but up against someone who can honestly inspire? He’s screwed in that regard.

      Polls only give a general sense of things, but that the polls should be so crazy when Trudeau hasn’t even won anything, should be extremely worrying for the other parties.

      The guy hasn’t even done anything and he’s already siphoning votes.

      Doesn’t speak of great confidence in our existing leaders does it?

      • Phil King says: “The guy [Trudeau jr] hasn’t even done anything and he’s already siphoning votes”

        But THAT is the problem, isn’t it. He hasn’t even done anything! But people are giving him the vote regardless. Such action speaks of many empty heads to be mined for votes. And the mining is well on its way when listening to Trudeau this morning. If people fall for believing that his address this morning was a heartfelt apology, they must be deaf, blind and have empty heads on top of it.

        • First of all, I think people are making a comment on the other political leaders as much as they are Trudeau. So not all his support is a result of him so much as an indication of people running away from what they previously perceived as the least of evils.

          In regards to Trudeau himself, so far he has a reputation of speaking without a filter. While you or I might cringe at this, the fact is that a lot of people consider that a breath of fresh air.

          Moreover, their impressions so far are based on image of him as a plucky young guy who hasn’t become as cynical as so many other in his line of work have. He’s likeable, a fairly good speaker and is more capable inspiring of people than anyone else around right now.

          On top of this, people also realize that Liberals tend to have a better slate of ministers to handle things and the predilection to actually let them exercise their authority. Liberals don’t put all their eggs in one basket like the CPC does.

          So while I agree that he is cornering the vacuous pop-vote, its not by far the biggest draw he has.

          • Phil King says:” what they previously perceived as the least of evils” Who are they, and what ‘evils’ are you referring to? Me? I found the adscams to be most evil. I found the Green Shift to be most evil.

            ” the fact is that a lot of people consider that a breath of fresh air.” including me. I welcome all Justin has to say. The more he says, the more we get to know the real man in the becoming, so to speak.

            Justing isn’t cynical? Did you watch his address this morning?

            But how do you know that the vacuous pop-vote isn’t by far the biggest draw he has if he has done nothing yet? On what, which, why, do you base the none-pop vote to offer support for Justin?? What basis is there?

          • What I’m saying is that a lot of people don’t vote for someone because they’re super happy about the person, but because they think the other options are worse.

            In terms of cynicism, Justin isn’t nearly as cynical as the others in many regards. So it’s a comparison thing, not an absolute measure.

            Unless you’re prepared to believe that the “vacuous” vote is entirely in Trudeau’s camp–which I can’t possibly buy–and unless you think that the 42% support he scored in the last poll includes more than 21% vacuous people, then obviously he’s getting the majority of his support for other reasons. I happen to think that as many people are running away from the CPC and NDP as are running to Trudeau for his sake.

            As fas as the Greenshift: Unless we institute some form of carbon tax, we’re seriously all screwed. Ever googled the paleocene-eocene thermal maximum? Want to see a modern version of it? Then do nothing about CO2 pollution.

          • I don’t want to expand on the CO2 pollution at this point. Perhaps worth discussing further when Justin has made his environmental policies public!

            As to your other remarks: sure voters have a variety of motives when voting for (or against?) particular parties or leaders. I voted for Harper because I think the other choices available were substandard to Harper. My reasoning was not wrong in that; just a different yet reasoned outlook on life than you perhaps hold. Nothing wrong with that.

            I just find it odd that you seem to say that others (the non-pop voter) are inclined to vote for Justin if in the very same sense you declare that Justin hasn’t said anything yet! So what then draws those people towards Justin? I would have liked a more defined explanation.

          • I’m not questioning your vote. That’s your business. Let’s leave that there. I note however that you implicitly point out that you voted for the least of all evils, ie because “the other choices available were substandard”, NOT because Harper is so super-awesome-by-gosh. LOL
            Now to Trudeau:
            The fact that so many are gathering around Justin is really and truly strange, and trying to chalk it all up to vacuous pop-culture just doesn’t account for it. Sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me.
            I have to assume there are multiple factors at work with such a massive and unprecedented swing. I’m taking a quick stab at listing them based on my impressions at this point. My views will likely change with more information, but then maybe not.
            For example:
            People know that Liberals can form productive and useful government. Right off the mark this makes things harder for the NDP if the Liberals find a leader to whom people can relate.
            People know that Liberals tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This describes the average Canadian quite well. When they have a good leader, they can therefore pull votes from all other parties. This is already evident.
            So those two factors work in Justin’s favour simply by virtue of the fact that he’s likeable and a Liberal. There are likely others I’m missing, but in a nutshell he’s partially riding on the Liberal brand of old.
            As far as Justin himself, he comes off an earnest and hardworking. He’s intelligible, speaks to people’s better natures generally, and has a strongly stated intent to follow the principle of equality of opportunity. That speaks to people. Especially now.
            Then there’s how he compares to the others leaders. It’s not hard to understand why people like him more. He’s more likeable!
            In fact he seems like the kind of guy that will actually become more popular the more you beat at him. People will root for him. They already are, and the attacks of the other parties are likely to backfire here as they did against Cretien. People root for a perceived underdog they like.
            Justin has also stated a desire to make policy based on facts and good advice. That makes him very different from our current slate of one-sided ideologues.
            I mean honestly I could go on and on.
            As much as I believe Harper benefitted enormously from Adscam and the political disorientation of his competition over the past few years, I equally believe that Harper is not prepared for what’s coming now. All his tactics are suited to a different reality, one as different as the previous era was for Paul Martin and his string of succesors.
            Mostly I could care less who’s in government. Generally conservatives are no better or worse than liberals. I’m not particularly fond of the current version of conservatism though. They’re a bit too deliberately obtuse for my liking.
            In any case, I fully expect the Liberals to make a strong showing in the next election, but it’s far too early to say whether that really means they’ll form government. I suspect it will be the case however, which is something I would’ve laughed myself silly over the mere contemplation of not six months ago.

          • Any reasonable person would never be go gullible as to ‘gosh’ over leaders of any stripe. Reason tells us that although perfection is something we seem to strive for, it is, within reality, not attainable. Harper isn’t perfect, because thinking that he would or could be perfect would draw the mind out of the realm of being reasonable.

            You seem to want to indicate that there are other reasons for wanting to support Trudeau, but in essence, what you have given me are just your opinions. And those opinions you are certainly entitled to: you have every right to think Trudeau is more ” intelligible, speaks to people’s better natures generally, and has a strongly stated intent to follow the principle of equality of opportunity”.

            I happen to think otherwise. It just depends on what one looks for in life. It’s a matter of coming from and into perspectives held. The way I see it, when analyzing Justin Trudeau, is that he is not capable of thinking things through deeply enough. Especially when it comes to considering the make-up of this country (something of importance when running to become PM I would think).

            Let’s see how Justin reasons. He’s stated in the video that because of Alberta being in charge, the (Quebec?) community as such would not work. And again he has stated within his so-called apology, that the only difference to his video statement is the fact that whatever he said about Alberta must now be understood as to have meant “Harper”.

            In other words, Justin had reasoned then and has reasoned now that either Alberta or Harper, whichever you wish to choose, does not include the wants of Quebec, yet, the firewall letter which Harper wrote even BEFORE he became PM was full of demands which are precisely held in high regards by Quebeckers! So, Justin reasoning does not really hold up at all, not within the video and not within his apology of today.

            Had he managed to think reasonably, he would have to admit that most which was demanded by Harper (and others) within the firewall letter, has in fact already been granted to Quebeckers. Within the very firewall letter, Harper was not going against the grain of being Quebeckers; he wrote a letter demanding the very same thing for Albertans!

            How then can Justin believe, or reason into the facts, that with an Albertan outlook, or within the mandate of an Albertan PM, the Quebec interests or Canadian interests are not being met, when the firewall letter contained most of the things Quebeckers have held for being of importance for so very, very long?

            Justin’s video remarks are wrong not only because he was the one being divisive within his remarks (pitting one region against another); his remarks were also wrong because he accuses Albertans first and Harper now, to be standing in the way of what Quebecker want if in fact Harper was demanding exactly that for Albertans what Quebeckers had already choosen to be of importance for themselves. If anything, Harper (or Albertans) wanted not to ‘take’ from but to ‘add’ to.

            Perhaps you hold no stock in what I am trying to tell you, but when reason is allowed to surface, over time and within msm parameters, Justin Trudeau will have a hard time staying on top.

          • Green Shift is a policy difference; not sure it qualifies as “evil”.

            But if you want to talk corruption and lawbreaking, the CPC has been convicted of breaking one electoral law (In and Out), and is under investigation for voter suppression (Pierre Poutine).

            They have siphoned millions for blatant pork-barreling (e.g. Gazebo Tony).

            They are the only party ever found guilty of contempt of Parliament.

            And on and on…

            And you find none of this “evil”? You think this is acceptable behaviour?

            The Liberals responsible for Adscam are long gone. People tend to vote against the party in power once the shit pile gets so high, as long as they see a potential alternative.

            Is Justin a potential alternative? We’ll see. He hasn’t even won the leadership race yet – and front-runners fall fairly regularly to the dark horse on the convention floor. Most recently, Dion came from behind (though I’m sure the LPC regrets that one).

          • I have always thought the Green Shift to be evil.

            When was this conviction of the electoral law (In/Out)?

            Contempt of Parliament? But win a majority government right after that one. Perhaps the voters saw it differently than did the opposition parties, the contempt that is.

            The Liberals responsible for Adscam may be long gone, but did anyone actually get punished over it, or has any of the money been repaid?

            At least the Gazebo is there to keep for the taxpayers. That much cannot be said about the adscam envelopes of cash. That cash had been stuffed in private pockets, Liberal pockets at that. Evil, yes.

            Don’t worry too much: Justin will be crowned – with the msm doing the defending for him, what’s there to wonder about?

            One day, Justin Trudeau will be PM. Then we will have to worry.

          • “Speaking without a filter” is something that nobody should do. I’ve often begun to say something that seemed extremely satisfying to me, but, upon quick reflection, decided that it would have only negative results. Most of the time, I’m glad that I’ve held my piece. Everyone needs a filter, including Mr. Trudeau.

    • The campaign hasn’t truly begun… the obvious front-runner is not always the winner in these things. Ask Dion.

  18. Of course we would certainly expect a Quebec reporter to virtually dismiss what Trudeau said. Pandering? You bet. However, he is now running for leadership of a federalist, national (?) party and wants people from all over the country to vote for him and his party. Everyone knows Trudeau wants Quebec to conquer Canada. He said it in his interview. You can dress it up and call it what you want but a pig is still a pig no matter what kind of lipstick you put on it.

    • Oh my god, a Quebec politician said things to pander to Quebecers! Stop the presses!

      Or not. Yawn.

      Seriously bud, the irony of your statment is so thick, I don’t think an industrial blow-torch has a chance of cutting through it.

      Helmet head and his firewall did quite well getting elected in the european welfare states of Canada, so I’m guessing the real import of your point here is precisely zero.

      Thanks for coming out though!

      • Of course he is a Liberal he is entitled to say anything he wants no matter who it offends even better if its the West.
        Watch Chantal Hebert on th At Issue panel. Instead of inserting Alberta. Insert Quebec and see the reaction. The comments were dispicable for one who supposedly wants to lead the country. You can sugar coat it but it is not acceptable for any leader to pander to one part of the country in favour of another.

        • Well of course he’s not entitled to say anything he wants without limit.
          However you seem dedicated to ignoring the fact that so far he’s not been one tenth as insulting to Canadians as Harper’s been.

    • Do you realize what you just stated about Martin Patriquin’s journalism is much more offensive than what Trudeau said re: Albertans?

      • Give me a break! The intent was to simply say that a Quebecer would always defend a Quebecer. if offended you that’s not my problem.
        To suggest it compares to what Trudeau said is foolish.

  19. If this is the best the conservatives can do in terms of digging up dirt, they’re in serious trouble.

    So Trudeau doesn’t believe that a party essentially based on the Albertan perspective does well for the majority of the population. And?

    Harper’s said far far worse than that.

    In fact, as far as I can tell, all the CPC has really done by harping on this… is reinforce to Quebecers, Ontarians and Maritimers just how much he is in their corner.

    Think about that for minute. Where are the majority of seats in this country?

    • What did Harper say that was worse? Genuinely curious.

      • Google Harper and “culture of defeat” as a start…

          • So you took that as them agreeing instead of simply choosing from three lousy alternatives? Good lord…

          • The discussion is about politicians who say offensive things, and whether or not they apologized. I for one found that particular statement offensive in the extreme, and as far as I know Harper never apologized. It’s not the only offensive thing he has ever said – but as someone born and raised in the east, it is the one in particular that stuck with me. So yeah, I think that was worse than what Trudeau said.

            And there are plenty of other examples from a wide range of CPC MPs. I’m still waiting for Toews to apologize to all us child pornographer supporters (as far as I’m concerned, he slandered half the nation with that line).

          • At the top of the page is says that the discussion is about this:

            Justin Trudeau apologizes after one pander too many.

  20. I’m reading this post and am having flashbacks of Harper declaring Quebec to be a nation. So that flashback also leads me to add Michael Chong to your list of non-panderers, Martin. A rare breed indeed.

    • Chong’s a great MP. I hope he runs for leader one day.

      • Chong is a great MP; he’s from Quebec, I think. So he should make a good pm too.

        • He’s from Ontario actually. The Quebec connection comes from his resigining the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio in protest to Harper declaring Quebec a nation within a nation. He was against the policy change because 1) Harper hadn’t bothered letting him in on the planned change and 2) he viewed the change as meaningless pandering that devalued the other ethnic groups within our nation and damaged the idea of equality and unity. Stand up guy that Michael Chong.

  21. Furthermore, if Quebecers – a notoriously fickle electorate – could overlook Harper’s past comments on La Belle Province, I’m sure Calgarians can do the same. If the Libs come in close second on Monday, it won’t be because of this comment.

  22. Uhh, I don’t get it. The article claims that the following quote is pandering:”I always say that if ever I believed Canada was really Stephen
    Harper’s Canada — that we were heading against abortion, against gay
    marriage, that we were going backwards 10,000 different ways — maybe I
    would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.” Well, if you change ‘Quebec’ for ‘Ontario’, quite a few million English speaking people would agree. If I wanted to live in a redneck bible thumping dinosaur preserve, I could move to Texas.(or maybe Alberta?) I am quite happy living in a country that does not persecute gays, or ban abortions, and I would not stick around if what was said in the quote came to pass. Must be a slow news day if Macleans is regurgitating the CPC talking points, and passing it off as news

    • Alberta and Texas have completely different political cultures. And if you want to find the provinces with the greatest histories as bible thumping places, look no further than Ontario and Quebec.

  23. Albertans weren’t necessarily insulted, just reminded of why we don’t elect Liberals.
    The REAL damage to Trudeau is the number one ingredient to being seen as a potential Prime Minister : trust
    If he was banking on winning back red Tory voters, he blew it

    • Albertans will vote for Harper and the Conservatives no matter what. You could put a donkey in that position and they’d still vote Conservative.

  24. This discussion represents nearly everything that is wrong in Canadian politics. Seriously, this is the stuff of grade school.

  25. Justin’s non-apology ‘apology’ just doesn’t cut it. Keep smiling Justin, the girls will believe you because your hair is so convincingly attractive. Wotta shmuck.

  26. “…we are all in this together.”
    Did Justin Trudeau poach a line from The Red Green Show? Did he end with “Keep your stick on the ice?”

  27. If we all agree pandering or demeaning other’s choices in one place but not another is not good for the country, we should be able to say if it’s wrong for JT it’s equally wrong for Harper.

    JT got caught. He needs to remember his father’s words.

    “I know that not everybody thinks the way I do on this topic. I know
    that some people prefer ambiguity because it is more comfortable. Some
    choose ambiguity because they believe that it is the fate of Canada to
    live in such ambiguity. There are those, finally, who, motivated by
    some “strange conception of professional ethics”, would like to see
    politicians place “cleverness” higher than “truth” in their scale of

    • It’s almost as if Trudeau senior knew someone like Harper was on the way.

  28. No way in hell, do you apologize to a Traitor, selling our country out to Communist China

    Do people not remember what Harper and his ranting raving henchmen called Canadians? We were called, pornographers, terrorists, the Taliban. Harper called the NDP Nazi’s. The nasty vile things Harper said about Ignatieffs family, were disgusting. I’m not a Liberal, however, I was really disgusted and ashamed of Harper. Where are their apologies?

    McGuinty should have kicked the Tory’s in the @$$, to hurry them back to Alberta.

    I could wring Justin Trudeau’s neck for apologizing to that outfit. For What? Justin only said, what we all thought.

    Do not include BC, in with the Westeners.

    • Hey DA Trudeau likes trade with China…time for you inbreds to catch up with your own heros comments.

      • Actually we all do, either directly or indirectly, given how much of our manufactured items are made in China.

      • Trade with Communist China is just fine. However, giving Red China our resources, plus all of the jobs, is just plain asinine. Harper has permitted all company’s to hire that cheap labor. Who gets the jobs twit, Canadians or cheap Chinese labor? There are Chinese workers being brought over to work BC mines.

        China has hacked into other country’s secret files. Red China sold infected electronic components to other country’s. U.S. missiles and other weapons had, infected components purchased from Communist China. China has been nasty and aggressive to other country’s. While they kick China out of their territories, Harper brings that country onto our Canadian soil.

        Murray River is going to court, to have Chinese miners removed.

        Ghana has detained Chinese miners. They were caught mining illegally. China takes other country’s mine claims.

        South Africa workers, were being cheated of their wages, by China

        So you tell me twit? How does this help Canadians? You had better be careful what you wish for. Be very damned careful.

  29. I can’t believe that the stupid liberal appoligists missed what Trudeau said about the Nexen/Chinese deal…time for you clowns to read your heros own comments. HE IS ALL FOR IT>>>LOOK IT UP .

    Are you all illiterate?

    • Yes, we are all stupid, and also illiterate. You’re a little late to the party, but since you’re so much fun and so respectful of others, come on in.

  30. Ah, yes, “young Trudeau”. Gosh, he was only approaching his 39th birthday when he did this interview. Practically in diapers.

  31. “How to counteract this stubborn sentiment? Why, trash Alberta, of course!”

    Some people have integrity. Some don’t.

  32. A politician pandering to his constituency, big deal.

    So who was Harper pandering to when he said this:

    “You have to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada; people who live in ghettos and are not integrated into Western Canadian society.”

  33. Again Macleans is apologizing for JustinT. First they publish a shameful 23 page homage to him promoting his political future. Now, as he sits in slop of his own making, they strain the limits of credibility and try to rationalize his attitude towards the rest of Canada, and specifically to Alberta. Like father, like son. There is a reason why Liberals don’t get elected in Alberta and it is in JustinT’s DNA.

    • Oh please.

      He wasn’t talking about the rest of Canada, just Harper and Alberta. And the reason why the Libs don’t get elected in Alberta is because Albertans vote Conservative no matter what. Why do you think the Fed Tories never have to campaign there? If I were him I wouldn’t waste my time there. Alberta will only have 34 seats in the next election compared to Quebec’s 78.

      • Ha! So you’re arguing that Junior *should* pander to Quebec because it’s politically expedient? Seems to me that you’re putting the good of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of what’s good for Canada.

  34. comments by a southern Albertan Municipal politician overnight about the LGBT community only confirm why comments are made, even at the expense of the good people of Alberta… “those who throw stones should not live in glass houses”

  35. Trudeau will always be condemned, in whatever he says or does especially
    from people his age and older, whose careers has been stagnant all their lives
    where opportunities for gaining further experiences and promotions are limited.
    That is no body’s fault but the victims.As Shakespeare once said: “Jealousy is
    the green monster, which mocks the meat it feeds on”.

  36. Trudeau the Younger has nothing to offer Canada (or even Quebec). If he is elected leader of the Liberal Party, it (the LPC) will be wiped out in the following election.

  37. Regionalism is a political touch point, who cares. I am out west and don’t care. Harper’s policies are not healthy nationally they bring up regionalistic politics as a shell game. I don’t care. You suck harper so I will vote anyone not you who I think will win. And I am out west and I don’t feel like a traitor one little bit.

  38. I’ve heard decades of westerners, especially Albertans, complain about “Eastern Canada”. Or “Toronto”. Or “Quebec”. Everyone knows what they meant, and it wasn’t denigrating the average Easterner. Harper made political hay raging against the “Eastern elite” of which he was part of. I’m not a Liberal, but I see this as a tempest in a media teapot. Don’t worry; we won’t have Stephen Harper to kick around for much longer. 34% isn’t a government, and the right traditionally eats their young. Without mustard.

  39. I’m born and raised a proud Albertan. I’m an even prouder Canadian. I’m also under thirty years old. My generation sees things a little differently. In time you will see a change of attitudes coming from Alberta. Most of my friends ( me included ) are NDP voters. We see Harper as a real threat to what Canada should stand for. We’ve seen the results of a poor neo conservative adgenda. The USA is going broke from GWs policies and unpaid wars. And Harper is racking up debt faster than any government in our history. We see the oilsands as the double edged sword it is. A tremendous opportunity for financial gain as well as environmental disaster. We care deeply what happens to Canada, we see Alberta as part of a great country. None of us want Alberta to be its own country. And none of us hate people down east just because they from down east. What I’m saying is this, don’t paint us all with the same brush. There are just as many people here who hate Harper as everywhere else. The problem is that to many people don’t pay attention to the fact that Harper isn’t even a real conservative. Hopefully the by election in Calgary today proves me wrong.

  40. Quebec should separate, print it’s own money, issue it’s own passports, set up its own border control and elect Justin as King. Then they will have their own country.

  41. Quebec is welcome to walk away together with Mr. Trudeau. His dad was one of the worst leaders in history. Why do we even have French as a second language? Why not Dutch, Ukrainian, Chineese or any of the native Indian tongues? Because these losers had lost a long forgotten war a long time ago. As far as I concerned, Mr. Trudeau can get lost…. Why do we have fund that famous scan called “Franko-Feds sending money back to Quebec”?

  42. What Qualifications does Justin Trudeau Have, because he was a Prime Ministers Son? I’m so tired of Kids, thinking they can feed off they’re parents successes, he’s a flake like his mother. We need someone to lead the Liberal Party back to the greatness it was, not some over privileged man child.
    Kris Morrison

  43. It’s shocking that any adult Canadian could take Justin Trudeau seriously. He behaves as though he’s running for student council president of some high school.

  44. Well my thought on this is that all politicians will beat around the bush,tell us what we think or they think we want too hear.
    My point is that Justin Trudeau is young,he is a true Canadian that wants the best for his country & all Canadians.I think a great many politicians are scared of Justin,mainly PC’s,Harper & his goons.
    I give the advantage to Justin,he has the right ideals,been raised around politics,has his fathers mind-set & drive too make Canada a better nation for it’s people.I think personally that Justin has not been corrupted by the political hyarchy,his innocence is pertrayed in some of his comments but this is good in my opinion.
    I feel our young people are this countries future & Justin has a very good connection with this age group & us older or shall I say seasoned Canadians,lol.Justin Trudeau is a breath of fresh air for us all,we Canadians need inspiration.We do NOT! need cover up governments that ply themselves in secrecy & cloud over the real issues by putting important laws in Omnibus packages,shame on Harper & his goons.
    I support JT as hopefully the new Leader of the LPC! & PM in the 2015 federal election.
    I hope the majority of Canadians can see the real man,true leader,honest,integrity & compassion in Justin Trudeau.This is something we are not used to,but it personally feels good too believe once again.

  45. The article makes no mention of Trudeau’s support of the Nexen deal. He has done this to counteract the bad things he said about Alberta in Quebec.
    I do agree that Alberta is running the country right now. He should have stuck to his guns.

Sign in to comment.