‘Out of context statements made years ago’

A statement from the Trudeau campaign in response to this story.

“The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years ago in a long interview. They are clearly concerned that they are losing the by-election in Calgary Centre and are resorting to smear campaigns to stop their slide.”

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




Browse

‘Out of context statements made years ago’

  1. Which provinces are not at the heart of Canada’s future? Be specific.

  2. Except, presumably, the damn albertans he was talking about in the clip

  3. What effing bs. If he does not resign from the leadership contest, the party should kick him out.

    • Why? That has been official Liberal policy for years. Remind me of an election where in the last few days the polls tighten and Liberals bash the west to win Ontario.

      • Not saying I expect the Libs to do the right thing, just saying they should

    • He is not only not going to resign but will be the new leader and Loyal Opposition next election. I am a Conservative, wouldn’t vote for him but silly people do, they believe in the land of Narnia.

      • Silly people also believe the universe is only 6000 years old, and were able to become cabinet minister.

        • Silly people denigrate Christians at every opportunity but vote for an Islamist because its the progressive tolerant thing to do.

          • Who is denigrating Christians? I recently read the Pope doesn’t believe that and I’m pretty sure he’s a Christian. And what Islamist did anyone here vote for?

        • People would vote for him because of star power not because he has good political chops and that’s unfortunately.

          • I would hope that people would vote for a candidate for their competency, policy positions and honesty. Not saying JT has those, but I am sure you could think of a number of CPC cabinet ministers that struggle to achieve even one . . . unless the ability to recite ludicrous talking points is considered competent.

  4. Pretty sure anyone by the name Trudeau has only one provinces best interests in mind.

    • Pretty sure any one named Harper has only one provinces interests at heart…oh look, we almost snapped!

      • The thing is, kcm2, that having Alberta’s interest at heart equates to having the whole country’s interest at heart given the massive amount of equalization payments flowing from Alberta to the rest of the country. Not to mention the jobs, manufacturing and intellectual capital benefitting Canadians across the country.

        • having Alberta’s interest at heart equates to having the whole country’s interest at heart … because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda.

          • What is a socio-democratic agenda? And how do you control a community?

        • Wow. It’s like no one in the rest of the country is contributing their talents, labour or capital to AB at all.
          When ON was saying pretty much the same thing, and carrying the load with EQ payments i wonder if you were so happy bout that?

          • “Wow. It’s like no one in the rest of the country is contributing their talents, labour or capital to AB at all.”
            I’m guessing you stopped reading before you reached the last sentence.
            When Ontario was being run in a relatively fiscally responsible manner I had no problem at all. In fact, I have no problem with economically advantaged provinces giving a hand up to any province in need as long as the aid is used responsibly as opposed to frittered away on gratuitous and unsustainable fiscal black holes. It’s quite likely that the wasteful flow of billions of dollars of equalization payments serves as an enabler for Quebec to continue it’s insane economic policies instead of growing up and joining the real world.
            Newfoundland, for the record, was a province that benefitted greatly from equalization for many years (no surprise given it’s geography and the decimation of the cod stocks). It is now, you will note, a net contributor and a have province, an admirable situation of which neither Ontario or Quebec can lay claim to.

  5. How is showing a clip of someone a ‘smear campaign’? Trudeau is a gaffe machine. The ConBots have terabytes of video like this on him.

    • It is if it is out of context. That much should be obvious to all.

      • What part is out of context?

        • That remains to be seen. You’re simply assuming it is. Let’s wait and see, shall we?

          • In what context do you think Harper’s firewall papers have been set? In the right or wrong context? That story is a very old one, and has been an open story too, so we shouldn’t have to wait much longer for the right context to fall into place on that one.

          • I know how out of context quotes are used. Partial sentences, or half an explanation. I’m asking how this clip is out of context?

            I listened to the whole interview. What he said was in context of the difference between his approach and that of the separatistes. They want to build walls, he doesn’t, rather he wants to conquer Canada. He says it’s hard because Albertains control the agenda.

            Then he says that the best prime ministers are from Quebec.

            He goes on saying that Canada should imitate Quebec by protecting and nurturing it’s culture. A good Liberal. The discussion goes onto his election in Papineau, he says he is more at ease in English because it is an easier language to express yourself in. Then he falls down the stairs.

            No, the quote is in context. He really feels that an emergent Alberta is a threat to the country. Again, a good Liberal.

          • You say ‘out of context’. I say: how to fit this square peg into the circle:

            During a 16 minute radio interview in French with Radio-Canada
            broadcast Sunday, the Montreal Liberal MP was asked if he currently
            recognizes Canada under Stephen Harper. Mr. Trudeau’s answer clearly
            caught the host off guard.

            “I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was
            really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against
            abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going
            backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting
            to make Quebec a country.”

            So, Canada only counts if Canada has a leader to Trudeau’s liking, otherwise this country isn’t worth fighting for? It all makes things very, very clear.

          • HAHAHAHA. What’re you waiting for, him to do a live re-enactment? This is about the worst defense I could possibly imagine!

        • Let me put into context for you. Justin Trudeau clearly stated that he thinks Canada is better when it’s being run by people from Quebec. He said Alberta should not run the country that it should not be in charge of Canadas Social agenda … whatever that is supposed to be. i always though the social agenda of a culture comes from whatever the people want it to be by their actions and desires. Not from the grand design of some little hair-flipping Marxist twit.

  6. Damn. For half an hour there he had my vote.

    Cons sure are worried though. LOL

    • Worried about what? Be more specific EmilyOne. I know you can do it. Just try.

      • That they’d lose her vote, obviously. And she’d announce it here.

      • English must be your second language.

        • Yup it is. But I can read numbers in any language. Can you?

          Nik Nanos digs beneath the numbers with CBC News Networks’ Power & Politics to get at the political, economic and social forces that shape our lives.

          This week: Which federal leader do Canadians believe is the most competent?

          The number:

          17

          The
          percentage point gain by Stephen Harper since April, when it comes to
          who Canadians would describe as the most competent leader.

          Source: Nanos Research, national random telephone
          survey between Nov. 9 and 15, accurate to +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19
          times out of 20.

          In a new tracking poll, Nanos Research asked Canadians what federal leader they would describe as the most competent leader.

          Here are the results:

          Conservative Leader Stephen Harper 41%

          Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae 13%

          NDP Leader Tom Mulcair 12%

          Greens Leader Elizabeth May 5%

          Bloc Québécois Leader Daniel Paille 2%

          None 7%

          Undecided 19%

          The most striking thing about the results is the trend since April, says Nik Nanos.

          • Actually you can’t. You just cherrypick.

  7. They should get that guy who wrote the widely regarded Justin CNOOC/Nexen op-ed to also do the press releases.

  8. He brought his best substitute teacher skills to the table with that one.

  9. Is Wherry on JT’s leadership election squad and using Macleans to further his message, just getting back at his arch rivals over at Sun Media, or both.

    • No, he’s just posting the news…his job…is that so difficult to comprehend?

      • Gosh you are so astute it is mind boggling. Are you a Wherrry acolyte sticking up for him?

        • Now, why would you think that?

        • You’re silly bugger approach goes over much better at Sun News.

          • It sounds like you are true Liberal, thinking that Sun News is beneath you. What’s that word we use for folks like you. Gosh it escapes me just now but it’s right on the tip of my tongue. David McGuinty is a good example, Please help me out! :>)

          • Beneath contempt. That’s what should be on the tip of your tongue.

        • Duh…do you suggest macleans don’t post the Trudeau rebuttal?

          • Not at all but Wherry has posted it without any attribution of his own and used a headline ” Out of context statements made years ago”.

            He is known as Macleans resident Liberal and all this does is reinforce it.

            The statements are not out of context because that is what JT believes and I guess he thought he was safe using a french language station. In fact we are having fun with the time line on Twitter with the following hashtag and previous utterances by JT.

            I once wished Quebec would separate if Harper was reelected #ButThatWasTwoYearsAgo #LPCldr

          • I thought he was known as the resident NDPer?

            And what does “without any attribution of his own” even mean?

            Oh dear, hereis Wherry simply reproducing Baird’s speech without comment. Is Wherry on Baird’s reelection squad and using Macleans to further his message?

          • Wherry is so lucky to have you folks stick up for him. LOL

          • What Lenny said.

        • No, he’s a french language activist, who believes he’s entitled to other peoples money to support his manufactured tribalism.

          • The real trolls have finally arrived.

      • “Waah, waah, waah”… The “Liberal” battle cry.

        • Mike’s is more of a nursing/soother cry. Doubt he’s got a battle cry.

  10. 2010 was “years ago”? Wow…seems likes only 2 years to me…

    • The firewall letter was written much, much longer ago, and see how fresh it still seems to be.

  11. I hope it really is out of context. Because it is possible that saying it is if it clearly isn’t, just might be a bigger sin than the original remarks.

    • Not out of context at all. This is just like Mid East terrorists saying one thing in english to the western press, and the oppostie in Arabic to the locals. He was pandering to the locals, and saying what he really thinks.

      • Pandering, yes. The rest of your analogy is overblown, over the top rhetoric.

      • Comparing JT to a terrorist??? Nice CKM tactics.

        • He was not comparing the shining pony to a terrorist, he was comparing a tactic of the shining pony to a tactic terrorists use. I know it’s hard, but try to pay attention.

          • Conservative Kill Machine at work. Sry it is still transparent that there is an attempt at creating media buzz with terms like terrorist.

  12. Hmmm…Firstly, in commonly used English, two years a go does not qualify as “years ago”. Normally that would be how you describe something that happened at least half a decade ago and usually more like 7-10 years or more. It’s worth noting that the Libs and New Dem’s still often point to the “Alberta Firewall” letter of the late 20th century as being currently relevant.
    Secondly, this is just further illustration of the all too common belief amongst Central Canadian “elites” that westerners in general and Albertans in particular are to be accorded no particular value beyond that of boiler hands whose primary role is to shovel ever increasing heaps of money down the equalization memory hole.
    And you guys wonder why we question the value of Confederation…

    • Please….question Confederation. Promise?

  13. Yet there will be people who will gloss it all over and say, “Oh look at the shiny pony!” and vote for him. A grade school drop out who has read at least some of and understood most of John Locke’s enlightenment era writings is a better suited candidate for the office of the Prime Minister than Justin Trudeau is.

    • That’s your only requirement of a Prime Minister? That they’ve read John Locke? Because the pinnacle of Western thought still remains An Essay Concerning Human Understanding? Oh dear.

      • Does it trouble you too that the pinnacles of western thought begins with Plato? Oh dear.

        • The only thing that troubles me is the very low bar you have for entry to the PM’s office. I prefer my leaders a little more well-rounded, thanks. And your inappropriate pluralization of the word ‘pinnacle’ is also somewhat vexing. But I suppose that’s to be expected of someone who only seems familiar with the work of two philosophers.

  14. Well, we know from his words two years ago how Justin really feels about the rest of Canada. Just as we discovered how his father felt about the west.

  15. I’m not going to defend Trudeau for those remarks if they were in context. But i find it mildly amusing to think that some of these folks here who are now all over him probably responded in the main with a…hear hear, when certan other politicians chose to bash Quebec or ON and their place in confedration.
    If it is wrong for Trudeau it was wrong when Harper and other tories openly disparaged the east or Quebecers in AB…just say’n.

    • Why do you have to change the subject? it is on what Trudeau said, not any other person.

      • Sure. You object to a broader ethical context?

        • You don’t think that what Trudeau said is volatile enough and worth discussing as he is running for Liberal leadership? You have to link to what the tories have said in the past to try to weaken the impact of Trudeau’s partisan , narrow minded statements.

          • Yeah, sure i said all that.

    • But when have others done that? Just hoping on your part that others have done that doesn’t make it so. When has Harper made those sorts of comments about one province over another???

      • Well, Harper did once say that the Atlantic provinces had a “culture of defeat”, and on another occasion he referred to the “can’t do attitude” in said provinces.

        He also once said “You’ve got 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 ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society.”

        • Yes, Harper has made remarks about regions of this country. But Harper has never said that only one province of this country is worthy of producing Prime Ministers. Such belief belongs to the Trudeau’s, as is clear within the video clip.

          • you realize he didn’t actually say that, right?

          • No, Trudeau did not say those exact words. This is what he said: ”

            “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.”

            What does Justin mean when he says…’it doesn’t work”? What does he mean when he says:…”the ONLY ones that have held up…”?

            Now have a look at what Justin said this morning:

            “I’m sorry I said what I did. I was wrong to relate the area of the
            country that Mr. Harper is from with the people who live there and the
            policies that he has that don’t represent the values of most Canadians,”
            Trudeau told reporters in Vancouver. “It was wrong to use a shorthand
            to say Alberta, when I was really talking about Mr. Harper’s government,
            and I’m sorry I did that.”

            Does Mr.Harper not run in an Alberta riding? Is Harper not a PM from Alberta?

            What values is Justin talking about, according to you, or according to himself for that matter? Who are these ‘most Canadians” Justin keeps talking about? Do the votes Harper and the CPC get not count as Canadian votes? Only votes going to other parties are considered Canadian votes?

            I voted CPC and I am a Canadian and I hold Canadian values, as a liberal.

          • The Harperites are constantly telling us that they represent the ‘real’ Canadians – how is this any different?

          • Every party may point out that they want to represent the ‘real’ Canadians. However, Harper or any member of the CPC has never said that “the only ones that have held up” in regards to what works is their particular party. I thought people, including Justin, were calling for context. Well, the context is in regards to ‘the only ones that have held up” in regards to what works. In other words: Justin believes (believed??) that only Quebec PM’s have made Canada work.

            You believe that? Or are you still trying to take Justin’s comments out of context so as to make all other statements made by Harper fit your scenarios?

            Listen to what Justin has said, within context!!

          • Well. in the time frame he references I don’t value the Dief, Joe Clark or Kim Campbell. The one non-Quebec PM he has left out is Lester Pearson. Apart from Dief, the current Cons don’t have a lot of positive things to say about any of them.. Of course they hate the Lib PM’s but they don’t even like Mulroney. So the question is, what PM’s, besides Harper do they admire?

          • And what does your opinion on PMinisters of the past have to do with what Justin Trudeau has stated?

            Your given opinion (for that is what it is) does not make Justin’s remarks go away! You are confusing things here. Justin made his remarks and I, for one, is very curious about what he meant by them. So far, and it is now well past the time of his first try of making an apology (but failed), I haven’t heard Justin say that he does NOT believe that only Quebec PM’s or the Quebec mentality can make Canada work. Does he still think only Quebec PM are to be held up for making Canada work? Does Justin still think so? I don’t know.

          • Getting to the bottom of this sounds like a good project for you. Today I am finding this Redford/Marois working together to ship oil to Quebec more interesting.

          • The lack of wanting to go to the bottom of things had put this country in a mess. We should all want to come to the bottom of things because only then will positive change be possible. I want the Trudeau comment and apology fall-out to come to the bottom of things. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • Sure, and Harper didn’t win very many seats in Quebec. It took years for the east to accept a politician from the west. Western conservatives were in the wilderness for decades. Western politicians have had to change their approach to one where western values can apply everywhere and sell them as such.

      It has changed and now the Liberals are in the wilderness and still don’t know it. Over the decades they have lost one section of the country after another. Two years ago he said this. In spite of the very very recent overtures, I see no evidence that the Liberals have grasped that they have to change their fundamental view of the country. It has changed. They are not a national party. There are two and they aren’t among them.

      I’m in BC and the federal Liberals are almost non existent outside some city centre ridings. They are from somewhere else, and his words in this clip are what I expect him to say if he figured he could get away with it.

      • Conservatives had a couple of the largest majorities in Canadian history with QC help. Tell me again how why they had to be resold on Conservatism?

        • You are being obtuse. The Progressive Conservatives did under Mulroney, but that party essentially disappeared and the remains joined the Reform to form the current Conservative party.

          • I’m just saying that QC values aren’t necessarily inimical to western ones. As you point out Harper has had to tone down some of the reform stuff in order to win vote within QC. It is his gaffes and general ignorance about QC that has put the CPC where they are in Quebec right now.
            Trudeau appears to have made similar gaffes in the recent past. I’m sure he’s kicking himself right about now.
            Or you could take the view both men are simply saying [ or have said] what the feel, they’re both right and there’s no hope for one Canada? I don’t feel that way.
            My only real point throughout this blog is that both Harper and now Trudeau have pandered to their home provinces, with predictable results probably for both. But most of what i presume are fans of the Sun pov only want to see it one way.

          • I would tend to agree with you. I want politicians who divide the country to be slapped down really hard. Corrected, forced to change their tune. Harper and western conservatives have been forced to tone it down and have gained power to the extent that they have convinced people. And lost it as well.

            I want this stuffed down Trudeau’s throat. I want a star Liberal to have his campaign knackered because of saying something that intends to divide. Pour les autres. Maybe, just maybe we won’t see these divisive tactics used to gain power.

            It says much about how far the Liberal star has fallen that they are more divisive, more parochial and less inclusive in the opinions of voters than the western conservatives. And openly unapologetic about it.

            It is really ironic that this statement comes in an interview where he just finishes talking about his previous verbal gaffes. And particularly enlightening that when he said it no one blinks an eye. Almost like the east truly hates the west and would stomp it down if they had the power.

          • He’s not “the east”, he’sJustin Trudeau. And he was talking about Alberta(and obviously Alberta Conservatives in particular), not “the west”.

      • What are these “Western values” you’re talking about? If you’re talking about conservative values they sure aren’t representative of the values of the majority of British Columbians.

    • Of course we disparage Quebec. There’s a reason. Quebec routinely chooses more socialism, but guys like me are the ones who get to pay for it. FTR- My 2012 household contribution just to equalization is better than $20K. That’s real money last time I checked. I, and many others, disparage Quebeckers because they continually harangue us for more money so they won’t leave, and we keep asking if we get to keep our money if they go. BTW- There’s flights leaving for France every day. We could probably fly every separatist out on AC business class for less than it costs to keep them here. Let’s see, at $2500 one way, times, what, a million of ‘em? That’s only $2.5 billion. Quick, call Air Canada for a group rate!

      • I’m not defending the way Quebecers do politics or pay for it [ i'm a westerner myself] but they’ve been here around 400 years. They aren’t going anywhere. How is telling them to get on a plane to France any better than McGuinty’s remarks yesterday?

        • The people telling them to get on a plane aren’t running for Prime Minister.

          • Right, i’m with you.That makes it ok i guess.

      • Bill,

        You have a choice. Stay in AB and make so much money that you pay more than the national avg in income taxes, or move to Quebec and enjoy the “largesse.”

        It seems to me staying put and griping about your good fortune is hardly bold or warrants sympathy.

        • Those are the only choices ? Really? How about if we advocate for Quebec to get it’s fiscal house in order and reduce it’s socialist and profligate spending before asking other provinces to perpetually shovel billions into the economic anti-growth sinkhole that is Quebec’s economy? Perhaps that might be a legitimate choice also?
          Surely we can be more creative than limiting the choices to working hard so you can shovel money at Quebec or move to Quebec and live off the toil of others.

          • No, do whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

          • the siren call of socialism. Most lazy people opt for voting entitlement to other people’s money. The rest are to lazy to vote.

          • Your comment is too deep for me. But, as an aside, I could just as easily claim that Bill and BoomBoom’s higher income taxes are funding increased military spending and international interventions. They all end up in general revenue.

            Why cherrypick a particular province where you don’t live? Feel strongly about the issue? – move there and participate and run for politics and change from within. Otherwise you just reinforce or perpetuate stereotypes about the ones complaining.

          • Dot,
            I think you miss the point. Alberta sends billions to Quebec. The Quebec government then uses the money to subsidize the lowest tuition fees in Canada, the lowest daycare fees in Canada, and the highest social services spending in Canada.
            We merely point out the absurdity of the fact that Quebec can afford all of these gold plated social programs because of the equalization payments and the provinces sending the money cannot. A hand up is one thing but this situation is just bizarre.

          • Alberta sends billions to Quebec.

            The Federal gov’t collects revenue from Alberta based companies and individuals (as it does throughout all of Canada) through:

            1) GST
            2) Fed Income tax

            There is no direct transfer between AB and QC.

        • I stay put because I make more money here than I can elsewhere in Canada. The question is “Why should I pay a 40% premium on my federal tax funded services, while those who choose more socialism receive those same services at a 40% or greater discount?” Keep in mind I’m not talking about tax rates, I’m talking about how much of my federal tax bill goes towards funding services elsewhere, while someone in my tax bracket in Quebec receives federally funded services for considerably less than what he pays for them. It’s all well and good to be “your brother’s keeper” but it’s another thing to make that choice and then hand the entire bill to someone else who may have another opinion on the matter. It’s a question of fundamental fairness, and at some point, those who are tasked with paying the freight must be given a voice at least commensurate with their share of the burden. It is fundamentally undemocratic to suggest that one group must always pay more to fund the kind of govt. that another group wants but is unable and even worse, unwilling to pay for. The right to decline ever increasing amounts of taxation needs to be accorded to those who are expected to pay. The leaders of our Confederation ignore that at the very peril of our nation.
          In simpler terms, I’ll make the sacrifices to help my country, just as long as the beneficiaries of my sacrifice are willing to make similar sacrifices themselves. Fair enough?

          • Bill, I’d like to carry on this conversation further, but it requires a bit of narrowing what we agree/disagree about.

            First off – definiing the source of revenue for the Fed gov’t. As I listed below in response to BoomnoZoom ((s)he can join in here too if (s)he likes):

            The Federal gov’t collects revenue from Alberta based companies and individuals (as it does throughout all of Canada) through:

            1) GST
            2) Fed Income tax

            The equalization formula (as I generally understand it) is designed to allow provinces to essentially provide an equivalent level of basic services across the country. Obviously, the disparity between provinces (ability to pay) can be skewed by a number of factors – GDP per province/prov revenues being the most significant.

            AB has the highest GDP per capita, and the highest avg income per capita, so, under the equalization formula, it is considered a “have province”. And its booming economy (taking trained and educated individuals from other provinces) can put upward pressure on local costs (Drs, nurses etc).

            Now, as far as I know (and I stand to be corrected) if a province spends money irresponsibly (through the funding of day care etc, subsidizing education) this does not directly affect its level of transfer payments.

            The only area, I believe (again I stand to be corrected), that can affect/increase the level of transfer payments would be a given province’s debt servicing (interest on accumulated debt) which I believe is used in the funding formula. What pct of the total amount, I couldn’t tell you.

            I’m not sure I follow, though, your 40% premium in AB, 40% subsidy in QC comparison. Can you elaborate?

            - Enough for now.

          • Dot- Albertans contribute some $4000 per capita more in GST/income tax revenue to the national treasury than we receive back in federal spending, or about 40% more going out than comes back. That’s a lot of cash, and I can look at my pay stubs and calculate quite easily my own personal contribution to national unity. Sure, our provincial GDP is higher, but that’s a dodge after a certain point. We are reaching a point of entrenchment, where some provinces are permanent recipients of equalization, and some are permanent contributors. This alone is untenable. It’s exacerbated by the fact that those who are forced to pay have no more say than those who get to be on the receiving end of equalization. In essence, voters in Quebec, the Maritimes, and Manitoba vote for so-called “national programs” knowing full well that they and their neighbors won’t be paying their full share of the cost, if any. Worse, because of the way equalization money is doled out, it often goes towards tax funded programs that the people in the paying regions have chosen to do without. A classic example is the Quebec tuition debacle, but every single province that receives equalization has some form of this going on.
            Just because we have oil doesn’t mean our good fortune is free. We still have to work hard for our money and take risks. Meanwhile, we have a number of provincial governments (and their citizens) who behave like the rude brother-in-law who, when invited out to supper to celebrate the fact that you’ve earned a big promotion and raise, takes it upon himself to order steak and lobster even though you only order the steak for yourself, and then complains because you didn’t spring for the drinks, too.
            That’s where Trudeau (and McGuinty) comes in. We have a genuine fear out here, not without justification, that many or most in Central Canada wish we would simply just hand over the money and stay quiet. My feeling is that, if we are going to have the greatest burden of funding Confederation, then we should at least have a greater say in how it’ spent.
            Maybe equalization should carry certain restrictions such as a requirement of routine contribution in order to receive funding, or limits on government spending after a certain number of years on equalization. I ask you this, how would such limits not be fair?

          • Bill, what you are advocating is a restructuring of the equalization formula. Look, whatever formula you come up with (in the absence of eliminating it completely) it will have an average, and there will be provinces above the average, and provinces below the average – just how these things work.

            Now, if in the formula, one province takes off and booms – what happens? In the absence of inter provincial migration, the funding capacity of the booming province goes up (more GDP to tax). And if the spillover effects are minimal, or negative (manufacturing declines etc) then the disparity increases. So, it would seem to me the per capita funding gap would increase. This is as much a result of the rich province boominng.

            I`ve seen Stephen Gordon tweeting that $4k different per capita. If I`m not mistaken, this includes all gov’t spending (not just equalization). But so what? Why is per capita the appropriate measure (it includes business tax revenue, no?) Why not make it per moose, or per tree? Per square foot?

            As I tried to argue earlier, how a given provincial party wishes to spend and tax is up to them. If the taxes are too high, businesses will relocate elsewhere, such as to AB where taxes are low. It seems to me a number of head offices have relocated to Calgary from other parts of the country over the years. This increases AB tax collected (and reported federally) at the expense of the province where it came from , affecting transfer payments.

            I live in AB with an O&G background. And have done so on and off again over the past 30 yrs. I personally think that development is out of control, and that royalties may also be too low (they are related). This places me in a different position in terms of offering criticism of how this industry develops. But, I sure feel different about criticising Quebec, BC, the maritimes, etc. on how they run their internal economies.

            Again, I think you are mixing up transfer funding formula with provincial spending.

          • The problem lies with how equalization transfers find their way into provincial spending. The feds largely use what are basically unlawful intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction- resources, health care, education, for example- and thus provinces with a lousy tax base get to spend excessively on things that they don’t have to tax locally for. My pet phrase for that is “offshore taxation”. Why bother to raise school taxes locally to overpay the teachers union, when you can dodge the issue via the equalization shell game and stick Alberta or BC with the tab. It’s a great gig if you can get it, and why would any Quebec or PEI politician take a chance on having that gravy boat get tipped over?

            If we were to demand that the feds stay out of areas where they have no constitutional jurisdiction, and force the provinces to look after that stuff themselves, we could probably cut the equalization burden by half, which is the crux of this whole deal.

            Look at Quebec, for example (I pick on them simply because they are an egregiously offensive target). Do you honestly think they could carry on this endless and senseless idiocy over their stupid “culture” if we weren’t paying the freight on that oxcart? Starve them of offshore taxation, and a little hunger will get them a bit more focused. If more Quebecers didn’t know where their next paycheque was coming from, they would spend considerably less time navel gazing on the state of linguistic purity. Why move out to Alberta and work in a car dealership or at The Brick, when you can saunter down and get a job as a language cop? Or, if they want to continue a war that’s almost as full-blown stupid as the Palestinians running gunfight with the Jews, then pay for it themselves.

            Is that really too much to ask?

            We have to remember, the money that people earn is theirs, and theirs alone. It doesn’t belong to the government. The $4K per person that Albertans give to equalization is real money that they don’t get to save for retirement or their children’s education. It’s money that businesses don’t get to keep and spend on re-investment or bonuses for employees or shareholder dividends. It is confiscated at gunpoint.

            I have little issue with much of what we as a people collectively spend our taxes on, but, I do believe that governments have a moral and ethical duty to be parsimonious to the point of penury. Equalization has given several governments, all on the receiving end of equalization largesse an ingrained ability to be profligate with monies confiscated from those to whom they have no account, and Trudeau and the McGuinty brothers have simply reminded us that the desire to shut those who pay the taxes out of the taxation discussion is still alive and kicking.

            They simply forget that a thousand years of British legal tradition gives precedence to the rights of the taxed over the rights of those who would tax.

          • I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

            Thx for the discussion.

  16. “The Conservatives are using out of context statements made years
    ago in a long interview. They are clearly concerned that they are losing
    the by-election in Calgary Centre and are resorting to smear campaigns
    to stop their slide.”

    The second bit seems a stretch, but the first accusation…nah the CPC would never do that now, would they?
    Clearly though it is incumbent on the Trudeau campaign to to show how the remarks are out of context.

    • “Clearly though it is incumbent on the Trudeau campaign to to show how the remarks are out of context.” Thank you, kcm2. Well said.

      • They are not. Listen to the whole interview. He is very clear that he regards Alberta as a threat, a tough obstacle to overcome as he ‘conquers’ Canada.

  17. How can you possibly take these types of comments out of context ? With all of the advisers currently surrounding Trudeau you would think they could have come up with something better then that….

    • You can’t.

      So passionate Justin learns the lesson Harper learned long ago: control the message at all times.

      Where will this take us?

      We will get politicians that say as little as they can get away with. Soundbites that pipe shrill talking points, but deliver little substance. Lemmings that toe the party line and dutifully read aloud the script, but ultimately contribute little else beyond putting nodding heads in the seats.

      A road not laid by the Conservatives, but certainly one carried to the next shrewdly logical step.

      But tides eventually turn and the next government inevitably replaces the last; dynasties won’t survive in this garden. Blue, red, orange green, purple, they’ll all take a turn: each one a highly controlled partisan message whose relevance ultimately matters less and less.

      Strong parties help to deliver good government through competitive innovation. How much brainpower will be siphoned away by the demands of a 24/7 message control campaign? Will government resources dwindle as the cost of delivering a partisan message takes up more and more manpower salaried tax revenue? Where will it go from here?

      This political climate will make a bed that delivers not the reason borne of a good night’s sleep, but the frantic mood swings of endless tossing and turning.

      Yes, Justin has shit the bed. But make no mistake, sooner or later we’ll all be lying in it.

      • Justin has simply given voice to the Liberal Party’s id.

        • Go ahead. Jump on the we all hate liberals cuz deep down they really hate Canadians moronic bandwagon. Feel better yet?

  18. Trudeau is your typical liberal snob and now it is problem because people are paying attention – is Alberta at he very heart of Canada’s future or not, Justin? Trudeau parochial Que xenophobe and it is going to be problem for him and liberal party. Trudeau has divisive opinions for someone who claims to want to bring Canadians closer together.

    Globe Sept 2012
    Did Justin Trudeau really say he would support Quebec separating from Canada? Maybe, in the most hypothetical of hypothetical situations.

    During a 16 minute radio interview in French with Radio-Canada broadcast Sunday, the Montreal Liberal MP was asked if he currently recognizes Canada under Stephen Harper. Mr. Trudeau’s answer clearly caught the host off guard.

    “I always say, if at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper – that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways – maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country.”

  19. A question for the Liberal intelligentsia. Is using a direct quote of a candidate a smear? Just asking. :>)

    • Just when using the word “racist” or “racisim” cannot be applied.

        • “Nous sommes la génération victime de celle de Mai 68. De celle qui prétendait vouloir nous émanciper du poids des traditions, du savoir, et de l’autorité à l’école mais qui s’est d’abord émancipée de ses propres responsabilités.”

          Exactly. It is not the youth who are at fault for their cynicism. It was the likes of the ’68ers who delivered it to them.

          John Locke in a nutshell: “Sovereign individuals greater than the sovereign. Karl Marx in a nutshell: “People are objects. Submit.”

  20. This is red meat for Colby. And with the by-election looming Monday, I see his recent twitter activity nill.

    Hmmmmm

  21. Well … I think somebody should tell Trawna to eff off and then somebody
    should tell somebody else they have a culture of defeat and then somebody
    else should declare no more PM’s from Quebec ! Who’s with me ?!

    • Too late, already done. And Manning just got a lifetime parliamentary achievement award. Seems these ‘divisive’ remarks pay off bigtime.

  22. I’m just taking Justin’s words IN CONTEXT.

    Does that make me wrong in thinking he hates anyone outside of QUEBEC, or more accuratly FROM ALBERTA?

  23. That sounds sincere.

  24. Nik Nanos digs beneath the numbers with CBC News Networks’ Power & Politics to get at the political, economic and social forces that shape our lives.

    This week: Which federal leader do Canadians believe is the most competent?

    The number:

    17

    The
    percentage point gain by Stephen Harper since April, when it comes to
    who Canadians would describe as the most competent leader.

    Source: Nanos Research, national random telephone
    survey between Nov. 9 and 15, accurate to +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19
    times out of 20.

    In a new tracking poll, Nanos Research asked Canadians what federal leader they would describe as the most competent leader.

    Here are the results:

    Conservative Leader Stephen Harper 41%

    Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae 13%

    NDP Leader Tom Mulcair 12%

    Greens Leader Elizabeth May 5%

    Bloc Québécois Leader Daniel Paille 2%

    None 7%

    Undecided 19%

    The most striking thing about the results is the trend since April, says Nik Nanos.

  25. Another saga dug up out of the Justin…..oracle archives,,,///

  26. So, according to shiny pony, previous, old statements are not in context. So, can any of his previous criticisms of PMSH’s statements be invalid also, because they were “previous statements.” Do as I say, not as I do?

    Again, we see another facade from a Qbec politico, say one thing in English, say the opposite in mother tongue. Layton was famous for that too.

  27. I’m suprised Komarade Wherry isn’t gushing over thde petite Dauphin’s lushes hair….

  28. This was a mere 6 months before the last election, where the leader he’s replacing had his posterior handed to him.

    Out of context. Nice of you to say. What then was the context? Or is Warren Kinsella still drafting that spin?

    • That’s what I find so priceless. They say the comments were taken out of context, but don’t tell us what the effing context was. Gee, I wonder why?

  29. Tell you what Justin, you round up those in Quebec and Ontario for that matter that agree with you, throw those that don’t agree out. Build a wall around Quebec and you can be one big happy circle jerk. Believe me you won’t be missed.

    • Build a wall?
      You mean, like a firewall?
      Something like that?
      Do you have a brain injury that makes you blind to irony? LOL

  30. Given that the progressive’s darling south of the border is a “community organizer” with zero experience or qualifications for the job…it’s not surprising that Canadian progressives would opt for a substitute drama teacher as their Dear Leader.
    One constantly wonders at the thought process that results in ” Hmm, Canada has weathered the economic storm engulfing most of the industrialized world better than almost every country in the world….what we need now is a substitute drama teacher to lead us further into the light.” Justin Trudeau…sigh…he’s so dreamy.

  31. I would not call 2010 “years ago” like it is some long lost quote from when he was in his 20′s. This was Trudeau the liberal MP talking during his current term in office.

    As for out of context, tired of that lame excuse – its all there for us to see in its full original context.

  32. ‘That’s a message he has taken to every part of the country,’.
    Well now we all know he is lying. Before this all we had to go on was his mouth moving. You know what, that was enough, really.

  33. Kenney might not be able to contain his glee, but that’s a genuine, splick-flettled, redlining rage-gasm from “Trudopian”. Don’t have a jammer lil’ fella!

  34. Regardless of what you think of the tories, how can he get away with calling the Conservatives “devisive” when his devisive comments started this whole issue. Come on man.

  35. Yea we all know where this country is going if Trudeau is elected… economic hell. Goodbye recovery, hello recession

    • Your tax dollars at work, citizens.

    • So no new recession under Harper, that is such a relief to hear.

Sign in to comment.