The Commons: Retroactively outraged

by Aaron Wherry

The Scene. Jason Kenney walked out into the foyer, towards the appointed microphone, perhaps appearing not quite as ashen as he was supposed to look.

“Why are you smiling, Mr. Kenney?” a TV reporter quipped.

“Because it’s lovely outside,” the Immigration Minister responded cheerfully. “And I’m always glad to see you, Bob.”

Then it was time to get very serious.

“I’m very disturbed to see comments that were made by Liberal leadership candidate Justin Trudeau two years ago that have just come to light and completely contradict his criticism of his Liberal colleague Dalton McGuinty’s attack on Alberta and Albertans.”

He meant David, of course.

A generous member of the Conservative staff had just been by to hand out copies of Mr. Trudeau’s remarks—in the original French and helpfully translated into English—but in case anyone was unable to read, Mr. Kenney proceeded to reenact the instantly infamous exchange.

“Justin Trudeau said two years ago that ‘Canada’s in bad shape right now because Albertans are controlling our community and social democratic agenda. That’s not working,’ ” Mr. Kenney reported. “He was asked if he thought that Canada is better served when there are more Quebecers in power than Albertans, and he replied, ‘I’m a Liberal so of course I think so.’ ”

Lest there be any confusion about the awfulness of these words, Mr. Kenney then interpreted their profound meaning and significance. “This is another reflection of the arrogance of the Liberal Party, its divisiveness,” he explained. “This is the worst kind of divisiveness, the worst kind of arrogance of the Liberal Party and it brings back for many Westerners the kind of arrogance of the National Energy Program which of course devastated the Western economy.”

He then repeated his testimony en francais.

The first question for Mr. Kenney was somewhat sarcastic.

“So how afraid are you of Justin Trudeau?”

“Not very,” Mr. Kenney responded simply.

Another reporter suggested that it was a “little desperate” to be digging up two-year-old quotes. Mr. Kenney moved to put these comments in context.

“You know, what these quotes refer to, which I’ve seen for the first time, is a willingness at the drop of a hat to attack Canadians based on where they come from, to divide rather than to unite,” Mr. Kenney explained, “completely contradicting what he has been saying about the nature of his leadership campaign and indeed reinforcing the idea that David McGuinty’s comments yesterday were not an aberration but rather reflect the real attitude of the Liberal Party towards the involvement of Westerners in Canadian politics.”

It was suggested that it was a bit odd to be going after a third party’s leadership candidate like this. “Well, we’ll let Liberals decide who to choose as leader; that’s their business. I hope they choose someone who has a solid track record, is seeking to unite the country, not divide it along regional grounds and I hope they’ll demonstrate to us that the comments of Mr. Trudeau and Mr. McGuinty don’t actually reflect a kind of a divisive approach,” Mr. Kenney offered.

So apparently there is still some chance that the next Liberal leader will win Mr. Kenney’s vote. But it will apparently be very difficult for the Immigration Minister to overcome the hurt he still feels over the National Energy Program.  ”Here’s their record when in power,” Mr. Kenney continued. “They did divide the country. They did alienate large portions of the country. They did bring in the National Energy Program which devastated the economy of the West. And this reinforces why in fact the Liberal Party, while it has a self-conception as the party of national unity, in fact has a track record reflected by these comments of division.”

Of the National Energy Program, Mr. Trudeau is probably not to blame (no matter who his father was). But of his comments in 2010, he is entirely responsible (even if it does appear to be his evil twin doing the interview). And it is difficult at the moment to imagine any easy explanation or excuse. He might have his spokesperson declare that “that’s the past,” but it is obvious now that the line between history and the present is currently situated somewhere around January 1, 2010—shortly after the Harper government last openly celebrated its pursuit of cap-and-trade, but a full 11 months before Mr. Trudeau went and, both literally and figuratively, fell down a flight of stairs. He might hope that somehow the Liberals manage to win Calgary Centre on Monday and that, in doing so, his apparent sin is at least indirectly absolved. But should the Liberals now lose, whatever the actual cause of the result, it will be simply too easy but to blame it on him.

Eventually a reporter suggested to Mr. Kenney that that was what this was really about: the surprisingly interesting by-election in the capital of Canadian conservatism. “What this is about is a long track record on the part of the Liberal Party of dividing the country on regional grounds and particularly—and let’s face it, this is not new,” Mr. Kenney ventured “This is a long track record of often using coded language to marginalise one particular part of the country rather than embracing Canadians from all regions participating in the governance of this country.”

Indeed, if one is to marginalise a particular part of the country, one should at least be explicit about it. But one should also be smart enough to pick a place that everyone has agreed it is okay to disparage.




Browse

The Commons: Retroactively outraged

  1. Another reporter suggested that it was a “little desperate” to be digging up two-year-old quotes.

    It was suggested that it was a bit odd to be going after a third party’s leadership candidate like this.

    Name and organization of these reporters please. Please ensure that any of their future earnings are properly expensed as Trudeau leadership campaign expenses.

    • Clearly this guy doesn’t read the Sun Media or the National Post which have columns praising the Harper Government and propping up its talking points on a regular basis.

    • I have to wonder what you think of the Economic Action Plan ads that the government is still paying tens of millions to run.

    • Hmmmm, I was thinking how amazing it is that reporters are actually asking real questions and not just feeding into the Cons talking points! We should have their names and organizations just to congratulate them for not falling for this obvious attack on a front runner.

    • I believe they were John Ivison and Ezra Levant.

    • OMG IT’S A TOTAL CONSPIRACY BIASED LAMESTREAM MEDIA ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG

    • Watch for it. It is going to happen. Reporters asking questions directly from the Liberal talking points rather than asking substantive questions about what was said. It matters not the motive. Trudeau said what he said and like all politicians needs to be held to account. No less is expected of all Conservatives.

  2. “You know, what these quotes refer to, which I’ve seen for the first time, is a willingness at the drop of a hat to attack Canadians based on where they come from, to divide rather than to unite” says the Conservative MP. Now please excuse me while I die laughing.

    • deleted.

    • LOL yeah, something Cons have been doing all the time….!

  3. Oh puh-leeze, let’s not keep dredging up old quotes attributed to one’s adversaries. Otherwise, we’ll all be forced to re-visit Harper’s disparaging comments about Canada being a socialist backwater, the Maritimes being dependent on welfare, Alberta needing to wrap a firewall around itself, etc. etc. etc….

    Enough sanctimonious finger-pointing, already.

    • This is only the start. Let’s hope the Liberals are smart enough to fight back this time around.

  4. Actually, when the Liberals were in power all regions of the country prospered economically. Harper’s plan to build a firewall around Alberta and bet everything on dirty-energy exports is not only causing division, it is destroying the economy.

    We have lost 500,000 export-related jobs; $20B trade surpluses have turned to $50B trade deficits; GDP growth is anemic; private sector employment has stalled; and productivity growth is at all time lows.

    • Who was it that was claiming not to dig up past information, and faulty at that?!!! This is nothing less than picking out information out of context and believing it so strongly that we have to hear it here! No mention whatsoever that a few lost jobs in one area are not completely made up in other sectors. That in fact is how economy works! And the trade surplus? Give us all a break! That is fallacious. And by the way, if there was a trade deficit where do you think it came from? The Liberals who were in power! Hello?!

      The facts are that the whole world is looking jealously at the Canadian economic growth and that is completely due to the Conservative work, and no thanks to the bullying and stalling tactics of the opposition parties, who despite their own numbers were being led by Conservative minority that lead this country through the downturn and now leads on to better economy. Let’s remain with the true facts and those that count!!!

      • According to The Economist in 2010: “Much of the country’s resilience stems from policies—such as bank regulation and sound public finances—which predate Mr Harper.”

        Also the Liberals and NDP were responsible for forcing Harper to adopt a stimulus package that boosted GDP growth in 2010 and cushioned the blow from the recession of 2009. Harper planned on spending cuts in his fall 2008 economic update.

        It’s also a lie that the whole world is looking jealously at our GDP growth. Germany had stronger GDP growth coming out of the 2009 recession. Same with Sweden and many other countries. Our recovery from the 2009 recession was the weakest since the Great Depression (actual and forecast starting with 2010): 3.2%, 2.5%, 2.1%, 2.3%, 2.4%.

        Harper has brought in no policy of his own that did anything for the economy. (His big corporate tax cuts, for example, haven’t created a single job.)

  5. “the National Energy Program which devastated the economy of the West”

    That’s a fallacy. The economy of *Alberta* was propped up by very high oil prices in the early 1980s. It’s economy was devastated when the price of oil crashed in the mid-1980s.

    It’s true the NEP allowed Canadians to buy Canadian oil at a discount. But Alberta only had itself to blame for banking everything on oil exports.

    Clearly the province has learned nothing from the experience and is presently banking everything on bitumen exports. The difference now is that oil only has to stay below $80/barrel to destroy Alberta’s economy anew. (In fact, oil prices slumped this year and Alberta’s deficit tripled…)

    • Well if Ontario has to pay world price for Alberta oil….while Americans get a discount…then we might as well buy world oil. Less hassle too.

      Ontario….and the federal NEP ….and Trudeau….had nothing to do with Alberta oil crashing….world oil crashed.

      Yet all these years later they still blame everything but that. Whiney clueless bunch.

      And now they have a deficit….and no market.

      • Or we could let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark. Right Emily.

        • Yeah, that’s worked out well for you this past 40 years of lost oil revenue eh? We bought it elsewhere.

          And now in the end it’s your only option. LOL

    • @facebook-630635489:disqus
      I’d like to argue the validity of your argument. I have two graphs that I believe support the argument that the NEP hurt Alberta’s economy.

      http://edmontonhousingbust.com/files/091107-1.jpg
      The first graph is of Alberta’s unemployment. As you can see it went from 4% in 1981 to 12% in 1984.

      http://www.tradersnarrative.com/price-of-oil-manipulation-bubble-supplydemand-1753.html
      The second graph (scroll down a bit in the link) is of the oil price from 1976 to 2008. It shows that the oil price didn’t have a significant drop until 1986. There’s a corresponding jump in the unemployment rate at this same time on the chart, but it’s not nearly as large as the jump after NEP was implemented.

      I won’t disagree with the statement that Alberta should diversify away from oil (71% of exports are from energy and about 10% are from petrochemicals) but that does not imply that NEP didn’t hurt Alberta’s economy.

      *Please pardon the random sources for the charts, just found them using google images*

      • Unemployment jumped across the country (in fact across the world) due to a massive recession in the early 1980s which was manufactured by central banks (aka “Volcker Shock”) to break the back of high inflation. (Interest rates went as high as 22%; they are now 1%.)

        The whole gripe Alberta has with the NEP is that it lost GDP and royalties on oil exports because the program made Canadian oil cheaper. There is no other way it affected Alberta’s economy.

  6. Come on Wherry: you’ll have to admit that this one is a difficult one for Trudeau Jr to wiggle himself out of.

    I’d say: report some more on what Justin really thinks………………………

    • Trudeau was right. Our country is a mess in the hands of the Reformers. If he was smart he would not waste any time trying to get Harper-worshipers to vote for him. Iggy made the same mistake and went down in flames.

      BTW, here’s how Harper really thinks:

      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.”

      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.”

      • Agreed….only talk to rational Albertans….not the yahoo crowd. The Yahoos are ruining their province, and attempting to ruin Canada

        • And EmilyOne invents stuff and tries to blame it on others. EmilyOne, the inventor!

          • Not going to work Francie, sorry.

          • You’re a fraud!

          • Still ranting Francien
            I’m surprised you’re engaging with Emily, she’s not using her full name.

          • Generally speaking, I find it a sign of insecurity when people aren’t willing to post under their real name, and such would apply to EmilyOne. However, I find EmilyOne an interesting commentator. I find her to be an example, of sorts. She hasn’t got much of value to offer, if any. In fact, she seems to go out of her way to be as ignorant and evasive in her commenting as she possibly can. She does not stand for anything in particular, yet comments as if she has something of value to offer.

            EmilyOne is not alone in doing this. There are many, many such commentators around on the comment pages all over the web. I happen to think that such value-less commenting is on the increase.

            And so I am interested in finding out why EmilyOne behaves in such a way because for me she serves as an example of people like her.

            Does she comment the way she does on purpose? Does she comment the way she does because she really doesn’t know any better?

            Or are we to believe that people like her are constantly trolling around the web, trying to find out who will be irritated more than others? Are people like EmilyOne getting some sort of kick out of doing what they do? And if so, why are they in need of this constant kick?

            I don’t know!

            All I know is that it is happening all over the web, thereby making it almost impossible to have a decent adult discussion about topics at hand. People like her throw discussions off the rails, again and again. Yet, people like EmilyOne are usually the ones spelling out that we should all grow up and stop the ‘high-school’ mentality.

            So I am confused about EmilyOne’s behaviour and I am trying to decyfer what is going on with people like her by taking EmilyOne as an example.

            Now you know my reason for being engaged with EmilyOne.

          • So you see yourself as some sort of internet comment watchdog?

          • Politics is people. I am people watching.

          • Aren’t we all.

          • I’m not convinced that we are all people watchers to the extend I am explaining it within my above post.

            But let us say that we are all people watching, you included. Do you find it of value when people keep throwing emptiness and wild unfounded accusations around on commenting boards? And, perhaps more importantly, do you want to understand why they do that?

          • I can’ think of a bigger waste of time.

          • And so we differ. Each to their own choice. I’m interested in why people make certain choices.

          • ZZZZZZzzzzzzz

          • That’s what you do to the rest of us with your silly comments.

          • Tsk tsk…soooo bitter, hollinm

          • Not at all. Just read your own comments to learn who the bitter one is.

          • LOL I’m not bitter, I’m delighted.

            Now stop wasting space.

      • “There’s not a lot of oxygen in these stories. They might be important
        for political operatives and pundits, but the thing is there’s nothing
        new in these stories…. as a result we’ve seen Stephen Harper’s numbers
        go up,” Nanos told Solomon.

  7. What a joke, oh sure they just came Kenney’s attention. B.S. Con boys gotta a big file of these they keep and chortle over until the right opportunity to be used … Because that is how these boys roll … It’s not about public policy, it’s not about “peace order and good government” (ha ha ha ha ha …) … No its about who can do a nasty in QP and beyond and the smug self-satisfaction of rubbing in a zinger … Ooohh … you so smart …. so proud you run my country ….

  8. Cons are never happier than when they’re attacking people, and thinking they’re being clever.

    The frat jokes are why Cons are so unlovable, and are viewed with distaste.

    • Spellcheck is your friend. You misspelled fart jokes. ;0)

  9. i would suggest the cons go easy on all this glee,because the east may rise up and say,we like justin and may just elect him with ontario and quebec.the atlantic would be a bonus.quebec are known to turn on a dime to protect one of there own(jt)75 seats,ont.75 seats and maybe about 20 seats in the atlantic.that should work out to about 170 seats.that looks like a majority to me.so walk slowly cons,cause this could backfire.

    • And let’s be honest — even Albertans don’t really like Alberta all that much.

  10. Interesting how so called reporters repeat the mantra offered by the Liberal party. Yet they have no trouble repeating comments made by Harper, 10 or 20 years ago. Hypocrites.

    • Equally interesting how, in your lexicon, the Libs are eternally “arrogant” and the media are unrepentant “hypocrites”. So what are the Cons in your impartial assessment?

    • And yet you expect us to forget Harper was pro cap and trade in the very recent past. Can you guys make up your mind?

      • I don’t have to make up my mind about anything. It is one thing to talk about a policy and another to actually implement it. He rejected it. Your guy of course would implement it. It would result in inflation with higher interest rates, lost jobs and economic opportunity and of course the sacred cow of the socialists….higher taxes. You see in the end its not about the environment as some foolishly believe. The NDP are looking for more cash to spend on their beloved big government plans. There will be little impact on the actual GHG’s spewed unless of course the economy goes into a tailspin and then there will be a reduction in GHG as we go into recession etc.

        • Speaking of GHGs and so on, have you been able to find out how much the regulations that the government is enacting will cost the various sectors to implement? And who, at the end of the day, will pay those costs?

          • Its all in the timing. Regulations kick in over time. Many argue it is not fast enough. A carbon tax hits immediately and a cap and trade system throws industry into a tailspin as they try to adjust to the new rules. Anything can be done in the fullness of time. However, the lefties want it done today. There is no question we all pay at some point. Its how quickly the pain is felt.

          • But for now, you can just let others pay for your emissions. It’s the conservative creed of “personal responsibility”!

          • The oil corporations are asking for a price on carbon…

          • Absolutely agree that timing (ie gradually implementing a new cost over a few years) is always something that should be considered. A carbon tax could easily be implemented in just such a manner, so that feature is not unique to the regulatory approach that is currently underway.

            Also important, however, is to know the ultimate cost, after any phase in period has occurred – how many extra dollars are consumers (after all it is always consumers who ultimately pay the extra costs) going to pay for every tonne of CO2 emitted. And I’m wondering if you have access to that number.

          • I agree when major changes to the economic structure of a country are considered costs should also be discussed. Frankly I am not into the global warming scaremongering that is going on. I think it is a phoney excuse for politicians to raise more money (extract)from taxpayers. There would be little change in GHG’s being put into the atmosphere but there should be a wonderful lot of new social programs unless of course we are thrown into a recession.

          • Couple of follow-ups come to mind, but I’ll just start with this one: Do you think that Canadians, in general, are aware of the eventual costs associated with the regulatory approach currently being implemented in Canada?

          • I have no idea. I do not work for the government. Perhaps you could ask them. You know this is not about regulations that are being introduced gradually but the socialists who want a carbon tax/cap and trade system which will drive up inflation increasing interest rates, loss of jobs and higher direct taxes for the middle class. Now deal with those issues instead of creating a straw man.

          • Is it the eventual costs associated with the regulatory approach that you’ve got no idea about, or something else?

            Regarding strawman arguments, you’ve got it backwards – I’m trying to determine what the current government is actually doing as it relates to reducing GHG emissions and costs thereof, whereas you are talking about what a possible future government might do.

          • For your reference.

        • Oh my God. you’re never to admit it was once Harper’s policy. You will be put into the naughty corner for this bit of talking point freelancing,

  11. Trudeau was trying to get elected in his riding in 2011, so he went on tv in late 2010 and blamed Alberta for, well, everything,
    said more Quebecers and less Albertans would be better….. because Canada belongs Quebec/Liberals.
    I believe he meant that, and still does.
    Fast forward to kissing up to Albertans Nov 2012, (he wouldn’t be in Alberta if it weren’t for a by election in Calgary)
    instead of standing behind his comments or apologizing for them, he blames Conservatives for trying to smear him…. with his own video….with his own words
    Welcome to the real world of politics Justin, you said it, you live with it.

    • Most Albertans are Tea-Bagger Republican social cons. Or as Woody Allen put it: crypto-fascist zombie airheads. Trudeau’s only mistake was wasting time on them in the first place. The province is full of cranks eager to fly off the handle. The worst thing he could do is take them seriously.

      • Indeed.

        And the proof of this would be the election of the Wildrose Party as the new government earlier this year.

      • Disagree. My family is from Alberta and (mostly) vote NDP, and never had any time for Ralph Klein and his ilk. It helps that two of them live in Strathcona, I suppose. It’s not a lost cause!

        • YOu make a good point and I would like to see Trudeau start on an “Alberta, not as bad as the harper CPCs make it look” tact.

      • You have no idea what you are talking about. You need help buddy.

    • Exactly. This is not going to go away. The media will try to bury it but it will come back with a vengence in the next election if Trudeau is appointed leader of the Libs. It will not only impact the West but Ontario will pay close attention as well.

      • Really – you mean the Libs would have won a lot of seats in 2015 in Alberta if Trudeau hadn’t said this?

        • No but it would ensure Alberta remains a wasteland for Liberals on Monday and in the next election. As well, it will send a message to the rest of the country and remind them of what they don’t like about the Liberal party. The toll is incalculable. However, continue to feel comforted by the fact it is only Albertans who are insulted.

  12. I have just watched the video of Trudeau when he made those disparaging and divisive remarks about, not just any part of Canada, but the fastest growing and most prosperous. This is really damaging for him and his Party—you guys are trying to turn this on the Conservatives, but he did this all by himself—just him and an interviewer in a room.

    Here`s what he should do tomorrow—I think it`s the only way out for him.:
    He did appear a bit wild-eyed in the interview, and he did fall down the stairs. He has to tell the people of Canada that he was blind drunk when he did the interview—doesn`t remember a thing—been drinking all day. As a matter of fact he should say he has a severe drinking problem—BUT, and here`s the hook—he`s getting help—he`s on the road to recovery.

    This is the best spin he can put on this whole thing—go for the pity vote. It might work, especially with the young girls.

    • Trudeau said Albertan Reformers were wrecking the country. Harper said Atlantic Canadians were “defeatist” losers. The only difference is that Trudeau was right and Harper was wrong.

      • All Conservatives hope your attitude is reflected through the Liberal Party.
        Here`s a hint:
        It`s not what Trudeau thinks, and it sure as hell isn`t what you think—it`s what voters will think of a leader that is willing to discard a large part of the Confederation.

        • Alberta might think about shaping up and doing better.

          • Of course they should because somebody I suspect from Eastern Canada doesn’t agree with them.

        • Still, it’s a much small part of Confederation than the Harper Government has dismissed as “radicals” or “standing with child pornographers”.

        • Harper has proven it’s a formula for success. Divide and conquer is hardly a new idea.

    • And the media would eat it up and say how refreshing for a politician to admit he made a mistake, saw the errors of his way and is getting help. His poll numbers would skyrocket (sarcasm intended).

    • Yeah, it used to work for Ralph Klein, so there is precedent for that kind of approach to “shooting from the lip” here in Alberta.

  13. I just love it when Jason Kenney clutches his pearls

  14. You can bet the Conservative/SUN TV group have dug up lots of old quotes from Trudeau and any other candidate who runs for the Liberal leadership. Personal destruction, and the sheer joy in doing it, witness Dion, Iggy and even Reform/Alliance/Cons who were in conflict with Harper, is the centrepiece of Conservative campaign strategy.

    • Yes those damn Conservatives using what Liberals have said in the past to show what there real feelings are as they run around the country misleading the public. You may not like it but that is politics. You talk about Sun Media. The Liberals have the rest of the media tied up in knots. Hence the positive coverage of the man-child as he spews his cliches, bromides and spin. If you don’t think what he said is wrong then you are truly a partisan hack.

      • You need to start buying Windex by the case, h.

        • Unfortunately for you it is Trudeau and the Liberals that need the Windex to wash away the comments made in that interview. You thought the Just Visiting ads on Iggy were bad watch this one play out in the next election. I know we Conservatives are so mean.

          • I’m sure the Cons have lots more. And if they run short, they will just manufacture stuff, as they always do. It will be interesting to see what they ‘dig up’ on Marc Garneau.

          • If he makes stupid comments like this they deserve to be exposed. Liberals have been feasting on Harpers comments when he wasn’t even a sitting MP for years. Have you ever heard of the ad “guns in the streets”. Talk about making things up. The Conservatives have no lessons to learn from the corrupt Liberal party.

          • And no lessons to give. But by all means, fill your boots, I would expect no less from your side.

          • Touchy! Touchy!

          • Just visiting was a lie. So you will be fabricating your campaigns against Trudeau as well.

          • So a guy who lives away from the country for 40 years, calls himself an American and then pops back in and say elect me leader so I can become prime minister was not just visiting. What world are you living in? Coupled with the arrogance, flip flops and basic lack of political skills most Canadians saw right through him. You can deny it but the majority of Canadians felt that way. An elitist snob saying I trashed the country while I was away but now deserve to become prime minister.

      • Uh, in the last election, 23 of the 24 largest newspapers in Canada were pro-Harper.

  15. Well, either these old quotes mean something, or they don’t. But you can’t have it both ways, partisans. You can’t say Trudeau’s comments are relevant on one hand and say old Conservative quotes — the oft-mentioned Firewall letter comes to mind — are irrelevant. Or vice versa. So, when Jason Kenney gets on his high horse, he better realize that ol’ girl’s gonna give out. And, when Trudeau and the Liberals slough this off as nothing, they better be prepared to stop banging the ‘Firewall’ drum. Whichever case you look at, it’s a matter of politicians telling a certain group exactly what they want to hear. It’s called pandering.

    If the firewall letter is any indication, my prediction is this story is going to go nowhere. That’s not to say it SHOULD go nowhere — playing one region off another is reprehensible — but if history provides some insight, it WILL go nowhere.

    • In the firewall letter Harper was standing up for Provincial rights in the face off an arrogant Liberal government—he said nothing to disparage PM`s from Quebec or Ontario or anywhere.
      Trudeau, on the other hand, said leaders from Alberta were bad for the country. He said Quebec leaders were the best we can have. Do you really want this fool leading the country in the face of Quebec separatists ?
      Can you not see the difference between these two stances ? Maybe you are too partisan to see the difference.

      • I thought I was being perfectly non-partisan, actually.

        Anyway, you can debate which is worse with a card-carrying Liberal. Rightly or wrongly, those without party affiliation will tune you both out.

      • How about ‘no more Prime Ministers from Quebec’?

    • What makes you say that the firewall letter “went nowhere”? If nothing else, it still gets brought up as a Harper faux pas, even after all these years.

      And how would we know, for sure, that those thoughts didn’t delay Harper’s acqusition of a majority?

      • Yeah, true enough. Maybe Trudeau’s comments will stick to him, too.

    • However, I did not see the firewall letter as a negative. The Harper haters railed about it but the fact is Harper et al werre advocating for the same powers that Quebec has had for years. If its good for Quebec why not Alberta.
      What Trudeau says goes to the heart of the Liberal party. There is evidence to support his comments with Chretien saying Albertans are different. Eleanor Caplan sayin they are from the dark side more recently McGuinty’s comments suggesting Alberta MPs should go home. Then we have old man Trudeau and his NEP and single finger salute. Now we have this man-child and his airy fairy comments about values, cliches, bromides and spin. Its nauseating. Then he suggests he would support separation if he thought Canada supported Stephen Harper’s values and now this doozy. It is the heart of the Liberal party and it is going to bite Trudeau in the ass come the next election. Trust me.

    • The firewall letter was a result of Quebec Liberal bigotry against Alberta. You have to be an Albertan to get it, to understand the history. Right or wrong that is how many Albertans felt at the time. The Liberals have not sloughed this off they are in full damage control. Even the lone Alberta Federal NDP has warned Albertans that they can’t trust Liberals.

      • As an Ontarian, why must I accept that Quebeckers are bigots? Wasn’t it your Reform Party that ran the ‘no more PMs from Quebec’ ad in 1997? If this sticks to the Liberals, fine. What Trudeau said was reprehensible. But you Conservative Albertans are making me sick with the holier-than-thou act. What do you mean ‘you have to be from Alberta to understand? That’s a bigoted statement!

        • Oh dear did I mispeak? I apologize, I meant to say the Quebec Liberal politicians are scoundrals that do not share the same cullture and social values as the majority of Canadians. I should not have used shorthand and said Quebec when I actually meant the PM’s that came out of that province.
          My bad, carry on.

          • Nah, it’s my mistake. I get it now. When a Quebecker says something anti-Alberta, they’re bigots. When an Albertan say something anti-Quebec, they’re just ‘telling the truth’ or ‘standing up for Alberta.’ I get it now. It’s so obvious, really. But, then again, I’m just from Ontario. How could I possibly understand?

    • Don’t forget that darn Harper pocketing the holy bread, that was worth front page in the G&M, NP and Macleans. Now that was news. Days of speculation did he pocket it , throw it away or eat it? The G&M got over 1000 comments dissing Harper for that. The Liberals wanted him to step down as PM and he should have, my good gosh, the Justin video is nothing compared to that scandal..

  16. Trudeau should double down and issue a “friendly challenge” to “the people of Alberta, going over the heads of the howlers like Rob Anders that have been put into office”, asking them to “send us your best in 2015, and put the CPC out to pasture.”

    • I like that.

    • I think the people of Alberta will choose who we think is the best to serve our province. Just as Ontario and Quebec and the rest of the provinces in Canada do. Pretty arrogant to suggest Albertans can’t decide what is best for them. Maybe that is why we continually vote conservative.

  17. The RoC needs to know that only Quebec produces the best MP’s and the best PM’s. Ontario you have nothing to offer so go sit down.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *