Trudeau hangs out around the White House

The Liberal leader leaves the Senate scandal in Ottawa

How Trudeau can avoid getting stuck in the middle

Mike Cassese/Reuters

“The one thing I’m not going to do is air the many grievances I have with the Prime Minister when I’m on a foreign visit.” —Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, on a trip to Washington, D.C.

Yesterday, Tom Mulcair had a field day in the House of Commons. Stephen Harper had a respectable day. The two men traded attacks during Question Period, zeroing in on the Wright-Duffy affair, which has more or less preoccupied their exchanges since the spring. The Liberals, tucked away in the far corner of the Commons, barely mattered. Ralph Goodale and Dominic LeBlanc*, a pair of hardened political hands who understand the cut and thrust of Parliament, were nevertheless helpless to the main event.

The prevailing consensus: Mulcair looked good. He was smiling, pouncing, confident. He managed to catch the Prime Minister changing his story ever so slightly on the Wright-Duffy cheque exchange. The old line was that Nigel Wright, the PM’s former chief of staff, acted alone when he covered Sen. Mike Duffy’s expenses with a $90,000 cheque. Yesterday, ears perked when Harper said Wright told “very few” people. Mulcair continues to build his case, day after day, perfecting his lauded prosecutorial style.

Meanwhile, Justin Trudeau was in Washington, D.C.

The Liberal chief, who spent the first few days of the week in Ottawa, was nowhere near the madness yesterday. He ceded ground to Mulcair, and the NDP won a bloodless victory. No question about it, the New Democrats relished the opportunity.

If all the attention in the Commons pays off for the Official Opposition, good for them. But the Liberals know well that for all Mulcair’s dominance in the House during the spring session, his polling numbers were perfectly middling. Mulcair didn’t emerge a hero. Trudeau, who’s spent plenty of time away from the Commons and suffered partisan attacks because of it, spent the summer at the top of the polls. His crew is well aware that part of former leader Michael Ignatieff’s downfall was his absence from the chamber, which Jack Layton masterfully used to his advantage during a crucial election debate in 2011. But, nevertheless, Trudeau went to D.C.

While he was there, the Liberal leader shared a stage with a former Australian prime minister and a former U.S. secretary of state: Julia Gillard and Madeleine Albright, respected leaders in their own right. His staff tweeted photos of him being interviewed by reporters. He refused to trash Harper from afar. This morning, The Globe and Mail‘s photo played it just right: Trudeau, buttoning up his suit, gazing into the distance, the White House shining in the sunny background.

As the Senate eats itself alive, and our elected politicians bicker about it in the Commons, Trudeau’s doing his best impression of a future prime minister. That image could do wonders. If anyone notices.

CORRECTION: This post fell victim to bleary eyes in the early morning. With a single typo, I inadvertently elected Globe and Mail journalist Daniel Leblanc to the House of Commons. Of course, the object of my fascination was actually veteran Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc. For my next trick, I’ll appoint Aaron Wherry to the Senate. Seriously, though: I regret the error.


What’s above the fold

The Globe and Mail Embattled senators are receiving support from Conservative colleagues.
National Post Reporters trusted Sen. Mike Duffy after he broke his months-long silence.
Toronto Star Ontario is doling out more money for animal protection.
Ottawa Citizen Sen. Don Plett opposed a motion to suspend three colleagues.
CBC News Stephen Harper‘s story on the Wright-Duffy cheque changed slightly.
CTV News The PM now claims “very few” people—not none—were aware of the cheque.
National Newswatch Some senators are nervous that suspending colleagues sets bad precedent.

What you might have missed

THE NATIONAL Emissions. A new report released by Environment Canada increased its estimate of 2020 emissions by two per cent over last year. The report says oilsands emissions will triple between 2005 and 2020, but also that emissions will drop in other sectors. The feds could still meet a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.
THE GLOBAL Kim Jong-un. HELP University, a private school in Malaysia, decided to bestow an honourary doctorate on the leader of one of the world’s poorest and most isolated nations. School president Paul Chan said the degree was an attempt at “building a bridge to reach the people.” he hoped the gesture would “contribute to peace and prosperity for all.”
THE QUIRKY Mink killers. After animal-rights activists freed 500 mink in British Columbia, nearby farmers were horrified to find dozens of ducks slaughtered by the roaming animals. The duck carcasses exhibited telltale signs of mink attacks—the animals suck the blood of their prey and move on, neglecting to eat the victims. Local chicken farmers are on the lookout.


Trudeau hangs out around the White House

  1. I thought he was banned from entering into the United States after admitting to using marijuana unless he got a waiver? Did he get a waiver? Or did he get special treatment at the border regular people wouldn’t?

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Under US law you don’t have to be convicted of the drug crime, admitting committing one is enough to bar you from entry. This was in the news at the time Trudeau made the admission, but you missed it like many of the low information supporters of Trudeau.

        • Sure. So can you provide a link to the story that said he was banned and requires a waiver to get in?


          • I can’t post the regular news link here, but you can search and find the first story about it easily by searching for a September 2, 2013 story in the Surrey North Delta Leader where a long time immigration attorney in Washington State explained the laws affecting Trudeau and other politicians who have admitted past drug use. The story was by Jeff Nagel and the lawyer’s name is Len Saunders.

          • sure….

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Wrong story, wrong issue and frankly, wrong country, sharkyshark.

          • Not to mention s/he is just wrong.

          • Obamacare is a roaring success, or have you not heard about how many people want to sign up?

            And the fact that you bring Obamacare into the argument only shows your far right bent. Blind to any argument that doesn’t fit your own. Incapable of any critical thought or analysis.

          • OMG! You idiot Liberals have been comparing Harper to Bush for over a decade! My Christ you losers sure can dish it but can’t take it.

          • Well both have no ethics Bush went to Iraq and Harper wanted to and if Harper had a majority we would have been there.

          • Why is this mindless swearing tolerated by MacLeans and its readers?

          • Let people write what they want and judge them accordingly! This isn’t elementary school and we don’t need someone to protect us from 4-letter words. When the cons get personally offensive — and they always do — just let it stand and show what kind of people vote for the likes of steve harper.

          • Yes it is which is good for canadians
            Because this may force HARPER
            To reconsider taking Canadian health
            Care away from us !

          • If it happens to one regular citizen, why doesn’t it happen to a 3rd party politician?

          • Ask the USA

          • Gayle, there was NEVER a story saying Trudeau was banned. There were many articles that discussed the possibility that he and other politicians who admitted to smoking pot COULD be denied entry into the US based on their admissions that in the past, they “possessed cannabis”, which was a crime. For the record, one cannot hold a joint, a pipe or any other device for smoking cannabis between one’s lips to ingest it with out being “in possession” of the drug. Should a politician be denied entry for having admitted to breaking a law, said politician would then have to apply for a waiver which costs $600.00 and allows them entry into the US. If you want to read any of these articles, just google the query.

          • You just confirmed my point.

          • What`s the point? If Trudeau needed to get a waiver, a whole bunch of us would have to, including many politicians.

          • The point is that the news articles do exist confirming that the US does exercise their right to deny people who ADMIT to breaking the laws of their OWN country from entry into the US. Those news articles did speculate that Trudeau and other politicians who opening admitting to possessing cannabis which is illegal in Canada put themselves in jeopardy of being denied entry to the US. Period. You, Jan would only be in jeopardy if you actually admitted to having broken a Canadian law in the past. If you have an ounce of sense and have not gone on record as admitting to having broken a law and you don’t have a criminal record you won’t be needing a waiver which let’s face is a cash grab for the US government.

          • Ya, but who cares?

          • Apparently the media cares because they did the news stories on the possible “what ifs”. Now, why don’t you go badger them because really I don’t care.

          • Well actually one reporter did the story, and people here are posting about whether or not Trudeau got a waiver like it actually means something.

          • Global news did a story as well. That is where I read about it.

          • They did a story that Trudeau must have got a waiver before going to the US on this trip?

          • No, they did a story pondering whether Trudeau and other politicians would be denied entry to the US based on the story of the woman who was denied entry to the US when she admitted to smoking pot after being asked by border agents.

          • OK. So my point is that why would anyone care if Trudeau got a waiver for this trip. What possible relevance is it to us what the US does? The suggestion here (not by you, but from others) is that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot.

          • Gayle, it is all political posturing.

          • It’s not even that. This must be the most meaningless criticism of Trudeau possible.

        • Speaking of low information, you are mistaken or untruthful when you say that Trudeau admitted a drug crime. It is not a crime to smoke dope, and never has been, in Canada, or in the USA.

        • More tory bullshit perhaps?

        • Since when is smoking marijuana a crime?

          • Posession of marijuana is a crime. You can’t smoke it without possessing it, can you now?

          • You can only be arrested for having it in your possession, not having smoked it.

          • Lorraine, pray tell HOW can one have smoked or ingested cannabis without having possessed it? Surely you do not believe that if you are with a group of people who are all smoking that when the cops come only one person is going to get busted for possession. I am here to tell you from experience that if anyone is charged, everyone is charged. It doesn’t matter who owns the house or the vehicle because you are all in possession of the pot together.

          • Do you have any cases you can cite where the police enter someone’s backyard where there are a number people sharing a joint, and the whole group was charged with possession?

          • You cite a case where police entered a backyard and a there were a number of people smoking dope and ANY ONE person was charged in CANADA and I will be happy to cite a case where a bunch of people were charged. Facts are it will be hard to find any cases within the past 30 years where anybody has been charged period. The case I know about involved a group of people in a vehicle, 4 young men and one young woman with a pound of cannabis. All five were charged and taken to court. All were found not guilty.

          • Oh for God’s sake, you’re treating that as an equivalent? The fact is, the police couldn’t even get a warrant to enter someone’s property based on the suspicion that a joint was being passed around at a dinner party.

          • No, they couldn’t. However, the point is still that if they got a noise complaint and busted up a party and everyone there was smoking cannabis, they could arrest everyone on possession. Just as they can arrest and charge everyone at a house party on drunk and disorderly and disturbing the peace. This belief that only the owner can get charged is a complete fallacy. If you have the cannabis or the alcohol in your hand, you are possessing it and to smoke or ingest cannabis you have to have it in your possession at some point.

          • So Trudeau wouldn’t be charged alone, he and his guests would be? That’s kind of watering down Trudeau’s criminal folly isn’t it? If you’re trying to nail him, wouldn’t it be smarter to say that he, as the home owner is the guilty one?

          • Only if he were smoking with all children would he alone be charged. If he is with adults and not a bunch of minors than everyone is equally responsible. Otherwise he is contributing and gets charged for that too.

          • You don’t seem to realize how the criminal justice works. There is no obligation for the police to make charges. There is no obligation on the Crowns to proceed with police charges. So, the black and white picture you paint bears no resemblance to what actually happens. Do some reading on drunk driving charges and how they’re disposed of.

          • I am NOT in anyway suggesting that there is any requirement for police EVER to lay charges at anytime. What I am saying is that if they do lay charges, they can lay charges for possession of cannabis against everyone, not just the driver of the car or the owner of the house. As for my not understanding legal procedures, you have no idea how wrong you are. I have within the last year year become intimately aware of exactly how the crown works as I have had the opportunity to study forensic psych up close.

          • Well you are wrong though. They cannot charge people unless they have grounds to believe that person is also in possession of drugs/ Being with someone who is committing an offence is not an offence.

          • Gayle, in the case I am familiar with ALL of the one pound of cannabis was in the possession of the only female in the car (who was neither the driver nor the owner of the car) and yet everyone got charged. Now do you care to tell me AGAIN how the police can’t charge the people with someone who is in possession of drugs. They can and they did because they refused to believe that the drugs were all hers and they were right. The police CAN charge people with whatever want but it doesn’t mean the charges will stick. Charges and convictions are two different things.

          • The charges did not stick because they could not charge them. The fact that they did was wrong – they did something they were not authorized to do. I mean, if you use the term “can” to mean anything you are physically capable of doing, I guess you have a point. But if you use it to mean what they are permitted to do, you do not.

          • No, the charges did not stick because the girl changed her story several times about who the drugs belonged to.

          • And there was no way for the crown to prove they belonged to everyone because there was NO EVIDENCE they belonged to anyone but the person actually in possession.

            Hence, the police could not charge the others. If you now saying there was evidence against the other people in the car then you are changing the story.

          • Gayle, the police believed the girl was a “patsy” and they were right. She was the only one in the car who didn’t own any of the drugs. The guys actually owned the drugs. There was no evidence but I personally know this to be true. The crown charged them all but the one guy had a very good lawyer and the girl had given changed her story a few times so the guys got found not guilty.

          • Well it is not particularly relevant whether or not they were guilty. What is relevant is whether the police had grounds to charge them in the first place, and clearly they did not.

          • Grounds or not, they did charge them and it went to court.

          • No, they really cannot do either of those things.

          • Gayle if the drugs are found in the possession of the group of people who are smoking it, how is one person in possession of it while the rest are clearly merely “with someone who is committing an offence”. Duh! The entire group is in possession of the drug and enjoying mightily I might add. Further, an entire houseful of people at a party disturb the peace, not just one person.

          • Unless they are all holding on to the joint at the moment the police walk in, it is pretty hard to say they are in “joint” possession.

            And actually, you do not seem to understand the law on disturbing the peace, which relates to public spaces, not private.

          • Thank you for the information on disturbing the peace. As for the possession, I was talking about the big bag of cannabis sitting there while they pass around the joint. Nobody is going to get charged for one joint.

          • Who really cares.

          • It’s all they have so MUCH has to be made of it, whether it makes any sense at all, I assume they will ban Obama from entering the country now.

          • Canada has no such rules and the US can’t keep their own citizens out of the country, only foreigners. They do this all the time. It is a cash grab.

          • And how many people have been prosecuted for this?

          • Can you suggest how someone who self reports the consumption of marijuana sometime and somewhere in the past would be prosecuted?

        • There was a woman from B.C. who was barred from entering the States because she said she had smoked marijuana. It happened just before Trudeau went to the States. That is why this is relevant.

          • The border guard asked her if she had….the woman said she’d smoked it for years…..the border guard refused her entry…..even though the state had just legalized pot, and the woman owns property there.

            One minor functionary does not a law make.

          • I don’t see it. If you have a problem then take it up with the US government.

          • U.S. border guards have more or less unlimited arbitrary power to refuse entry. It doesn’t mean they are basing their decisions on a particular law.

    • Why on earth would you believe something like that?

      • That’s the law in the US. He had to get a waiver from Homeland Security to enter the United States. If he didn’t, he broke the law in the United States.

        • You simply asserting this is the law does not prove anything. My understanding is that if you are asked upon entry if you have ever used drugs and you answer you have, you MAY have to get a waiver.

          But first you have to be asked. In the many times I have crossed the border I have not been asked that question. Have you?

          • So when a visiting politician comes to the USA he’s treated just like anyone else at the border? No preparation on the USA side or threat accessment – they just wing it.

          • The point is that there is no requirement for a waiver if there is no conviction.

          • The lawyers who handle these cases say differently. Who promoted you to legal expert?

          • You are making it up as you go along. Must be a Conservative.

          • Again, you find me a link, any link, that supports your claim.

          • PS, I have read your story. It does not say it is mandatory – says they can be barred, not that they must be barred.

            I am not sure why we are arguing about the decisions made by the US immigration. What can that possibly have to do with us?

          • I told you the newspaper, the author, the date, and the headline, but as you already know, the disqus comment engine being used here does not allow you to post links.

            However, just look at the logic of it all. Trudeau himself may be a dumb as a sack of hammers but would his presumably smarter handlers risk the possibility of Trudeau getting arrested at the border or refused entry because of his marijuana history. No way would they risk everything on the random chance a Customs officer asks the wrong question. No possibility whatsoever.

            Trudeau absolutely, positively, without any doubt whatsoever did get a waiver to enter the United States and had it before he entered. If he didn’t then Ezra Levant is absolutely correct in calling him dumb.

          • If you want people to think you are a logical person, then saying “Trudeau himself may be a dumb as a sack of hammers” is not making your case. Whatever else you think of the man, he is not stupid.

            Also, if you had bothered to read you would have noted that I did read your article, and that it does not say anything about it being mandatory.

            And in any event, why should Canadians be concerned about the decisions made by the US border guards? I fail to see why we should be concerned.

          • I did say “may” didn’t I? What are his major claims to great intelligence? What are his accomplishments? Has he written anything? Laws? Books? What are his views on the issues other than marijuana? There’s a good reason to believe that if you scratch the surface on Trudeau you’ll find more surface.

          • Seriously. You say he is stupid. I say he is not stupid and now you demand that I prove that? Why don’t we start again – you prove he is stupid.

            Hint” Your opinion and the opinion of Ezra Levant is not actually proof.

          • Your inability to point out any accomplishment is a start. I cannot find any accomplishment in his past. He says stupid things and does stupid things and has not ever written anything published anywhere or written any laws or produced any policy papers. Analyzing every public statement he’s ever made reveals that Trudeau speaks in platitudes exclusively. Such a long track record of vacuous speech and a complete lack of published works and any tangible accomplishments speaks to his general lack of any identifiable talent or ability. I don’t think I said he was stupid, because that would mean there is not a glimmering of reason. He’s smart enough to know how dumb the typical low information voter is in Canada. Reading through your comments is a good example of the slavish devotion his followers have and how much they will rationalize to maintain the illusion that he has even some vestige of leadership ability. He has not shown any in any objective sense, thus the belief in his ability is illogical and irrational. No amount of belief establishes any fact. If a million people believe a stupid thing, it’s still a stupid thing.

            But believe at you will. Look up “confirmation bias” and this will explain why you believe as you do. Perhaps a critical thinking class at your local community college will assist you in the future.

          • No, you said he was as “dumb as a sack of hammers”. I shortened that to “stupid”. Maybe to you it means “not accomplished”, but I think to most people it means stupid.

            So maybe you can clarify that for me.

            I am not going to prove anything. It is your assertion that he is either “stupid” or “unaccomplished”, so it is your burden of proof. Nor am I going to believe you actually analyzed every public statement he has ever made, so the fact you are exaggerating tells me you do not have much to base your position on. The fact he has not published anything tells me nothing. I have also never published anything, but I have earned two university degrees and and have a successful career, so the fact I have not published anything does not equate to my being either “stupid” or”unaccomplished”. I will extrapolate from that and draw the same conclusion of Mr. Trudeau.

            Finally, anyone who worships at the feet of Ezra Levant has nothing to say to me about confirmation bias and critical thinking.

            Nice try though.

          • We get it – you don’t like Trudeau, but the scatter gun approach here reeks of desperation.

          • You mean the truth is desperate? You’re projecting.

          • Where was the equivocation in anything the lawyer said? So Customs can selectively apply the laws about who is prohibited from entering?

            So, let’s say the leader of the party faced a worst case scenario and was refused entry into the United States and or got arrested for not being truthful about his marijuana use to US Customs. No down side to that? He should not worry about and just wing it and take the risk and just say “screw it.” Wouldn’t that prove he wasn’t very smart or at the least very poorly advised.

            He got a waiver. I’d be shocked if Ezra Levant doesn’t rip him a new one again on “The Source” tonight on Sun News.

          • May does not equal must.

            It is not that hard.

            And who cares whether or not he got a waiver. Really. Who cares? Are people going to be shocked by that if they already do not care that he smoked pot in the first place?

            Well, Ezra cares I guess. But then who cares about what Ezra cares about?

          • You truly do not understand – or are purposely distorting reality here. Trudeau getting arrested by US Border Patrol Agents would be the end of his political career. It would make him ineligible for office. He could not serve if he was in Federal Prison. You may think risking his entire career is no big deal and that marijuana is a non-issue, but how does that effect the actual world we live in and the potential risks Trudeau faces?

            So, I repeat again. I am certain Trudeau did seek and obtain a waiver before entering the United States. Lots of countries have all kinds of crazy laws we don’t know about – the United States among them. Being ignorant of them obviously isn’t going to cut it when you are in the country with the crazy laws.

            Fortunately for Trudeau, the Canadian media never ask him the hard questions or point out anything that might be critical of Trudeau. Does that prove there is nothing to criticize? It only proves the media in Canada have no journalistic integrity.

          • Oh sidneyspit give it a rest. Trudeau is not going to be arrested by US Border Patrol. For one thing in flew into DC, likely on private jet owned by his friend Mr. Bronfman. His handlers would have ensured his entry requirements were in order long in advance.

          • And why is how he flew there, and on whose plane, actually relevant?

          • I am just guessing that he likely didn’t have to go through US customs in the normal way that the rest of us do. He probably had special VIP clearance. Stay calm, Gayle. It isn’t a put down of him but rather just an observation that he isn’t driving and getting stopped by a border guard like Sidneyspit is imagining. Further, the fact that the Liberal party doesn’t have the cash to fly him VIP is relevant so I just pointed out that his close colleague’s family would have a plane that they would probably lease to the party for him to use for special trips for cheap. I am sorry if you find every comment to hold some sort of underlying meaning but sometimes it is just a comment.

          • Again, simply not relevant. You would not have mentioned it unless you were trying to make some point.

            We go through customs in Canada, before we get on the plane by the way.

          • Gayle, feel free to erect your own “mythical conspiracy theory” based on my passing comment about how Trudeau might have arrived in DC. Meanwhile, a great number of readers are too bored to debate whether I meant anything whatever when I mentioned it. A word to the wise though, if you are planning to scrutinize EVERY WORD in EVERY COMMENT for an underlying meaning or possible disrespectful dig to your candidate, you are in for a very long haul between now and the federal election in 2015. Maybe you should just take people at their word when they say they meant nothing by it and move on. Yes, we go through American customs in Canada when we are travelling to the the US. However, I am sure those who aren’t leaving from a main terminal don’t clear the same customs the rest of us do.

          • The fact you are so defensive is all I need to know.

          • Oh my…..

          • And if he got a waiver, what does that mean to Canada?

          • Harper had Carson going to Washington and negotiating for him. He’s got fraud convictions – so how did he get in? Do you think they went the waiver route, or did they rely on border services not asking if he had any fraud convictions?

          • Read the article I linked and that is explained. Anyone on either side of the aisle should be treated the same at the border. Pointing to other bad conduct is never justification for bad conduct.

          • So take it up with the US border.

          • Incorrect

          • In other words Trudeau is a liar.

          • Gets complicated when you’re from a state
            With legalized pot use.

          • The fact that you re lucky doesn’t mean the law doesn’t exist. Your experiences are not all that counts.

          • My experience does not count at all.

            I am still waiting for someone to explain why any of this matters.

      • Because its a fact

        • Yes – just saying stuff makes it magically come true.

          Apparently, the immigration officials at the US border disagree. I will take their word on it.

    • Perils of relying on Sun media for your info I guess.

      • I can’t post the regular news link here, but you can search and find the first story about it easily by searching for a September 2, 2013 story in the Surrey North Delta Leader where a long time immigration attorney in Washington State explained the laws affecting Trudeau and other politicians who have admitted past drug use. The story was by Jeff Nagel and the lawyer’s name is Len Saunders.

        • Why can ‘t you post the link here? Because it is lost somewhere with your point?

        • I saw it too, probably in the VS. I guess you shouldn’t believe all the news or legal opinion that’s fit to print?

          • i guess you should believe only the news that are good for the lefties.

          • You know what. when i feel the need to fill my time with something less then intelligent i generally scratch my arse, pick my nose, anything to avoid empty vacuous rhetoric.

          • What a fine display of your incredible intellect.

          • Glad you approve. Would you rather i go on about your right wing obsession with putting childish, simplistic labels on everything that moves?

          • Some small time lawyer in Blaine, Washington who makes his living waiting for someone with problems at the border at 2:00 a.m.

          • Ambulance chaser eh.

    • How on earth does that fat a$$ running Toronto get through?

    • See my post above to clear this up.

  2. Oh people have noticed. Above the fray and looking after foreign relations instead of being involved in the ugliness of the Con mud wrassle is a good thing.

    • You mean looking after his own interest. Trudeau can’t do anything about Canada’s interest, he has no power.

        • That’s funny. He doesn’t do that in Canada.

          • Yeah he does. Said long time ago he was big on Athabasca.

          • That’s not Keystone. He likes to play both sides. Doesn’t want to offend the fanatical environmentalists in case he loses their votes!

          • It’s all oil, boyo.

          • Good thing environmentalists can’t see Trudeau when he’s in the U.S., or read the Toronto Star.

      • Of course he has power! Waay ahead in the polls, Leader of the Liberal Party just waiting for the passage of time to take office as Prime Minister. He probably has about the only name in Canadian politics that pretty well all Americans would know. I bet there are an awful lot of power brokers in Washington very eager indeed to get on his good side. He has the power of the ascendant politician, as opposed to the setting sun of the current Government. Guaranteed he is more influential than any number of desperate; ‘won’t take no for an answer’ politicans on their way out.

        • LOL ya, I’m sure every American knows his name! Have you sent him flowers yet?

          • You of anyone should know that when politicians travel they partly do so to send messages to those following at home. Some of them even use the opportunity to make major changes to their country’s pension plans.

    • You must be as proud as punch of “our Justin” even though he is shilling for that detestable pipeline from that shit-hole Alberta. Or has your opinion of the project changed now that Justin seems to want it to go ahead? Who will you rout for Justin or Obama? You must be really torn on this one.

      • You were one of those girls in high school that went along with the in-crowd thinking everyone would like you better……they didn’t.

        • You are projecting again, Emily. I went to a high school with less than 100 kids. There was no “in” crowd or “out” crowd for that matter. There was no crowd at all.

          • So you did it at nursing school….big whoop.

          • My nursing class had no ‘in crowd” either. It had less than 70 students and I was 30 years old and a mother when I started. No wonder you are constantly belittled on these threads. You are 67 years old and you are still believe you can impress people using terms like “big whoop” and “partay”. You think you can intimidate me by using “mean-girl” highschool barbs. For gawd sake you are a senior citizen, grow up!

          • Well you learned the sucking up and the bad manners somewhere

            [I say this as she goes on to do both. LOL]

          • Nothing you’re guilty of, St. Emily.

          • Oh gee, I learned all my best habits from Emily…the sucking up and the bad manners.

          • Stay away from her, she’s a bad influence. I will now be accused of sucking up. It’s always fun on here, isn’t it?

          • Oh I know how it is. I am finding it less and less fun.

          • It’s just the internets(s) – not to be taken too seriously.

          • That is true.

  3. “That image could do wonders. If anyone notices.”

    Hey, Macleans, I guess you qualify as “anyone”. What a silly hook to base your article around. Duh!

  4. If we are real lucky Hollywood might known his resemblance to Johnny Depp and cast him as Jack’s brother in the next Pirates

  5. “The one thing I’m not going to do is air the many grievances I have with the Prime Minister when I’m on a foreign visit.” —Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, on a trip to Washington, D.C.”

    Nice shot Justin.

  6. I think this was a smart move on his part. He cannot outshine Mulcair in QP, and if he was in the House he would suffer from the comparison. Instead he takes this opportunity to get media coverage of him meeting with foreign officials, and that helps him look prime ministerial. Since one of his weaknesses is that people are not sure he has the chops to take on this role, coverage like this is necessary.

  7. He’s publicly admitted to smoking weed on national television…why then, was he given permission to enter the US? I don’t get it do you? Probably just more of the liberal cabal criminality at work for the people.

    • Dunno — maybe Americans prefer dope smoking liberals to corrupt shit-slinging conservatives?

      • You are very naive if you think shit-slinging conservatives aren’t smoking any dope.

        • So why the double standard?

          • Political strategy. There are a lot of senior senior citizens (older seniors in their 80’s) religious types and immigrants who don’t think it is okay for a politician to smoke dope so they don’t admit to it.

          • There are more I’m guessing that don’t think it’s a big deal. It’s them he needs to appeal to, so the reefer madness silliness doesn’t help him.

          • Oh yes of course but it will be fascinating to watch and see how they try to balance it. My guess is they will go with decriminalizing and handing out tickets as a campaign strategy…it’s a solution that kind of sits on the fence.

    • SAme reason so so so so many others who have admitted to smoking marijuana but have not been convicted can enter the United States.

      have you considered the possibility you are a troll or an idiot?

      • GFMD: I am disappointed by your post especially your poor choice of a coordinating conjunction for the last question.

        • I am duly shamed.

    • Why do you care? It is not like Canada, or any Canadian, has any say over this decision.

      What the US border officials do at their border is the business of the US government and its citizens.

      • Sharknado may be an American. Many from that country express much concern that Canadians will infiltrate illegally and bring BC gold with them. Some are so concerned they want to build a wall along the northern border. They are okay with having lots of guns but terrified of the devastation caused by smoking up.

        • The Americans are not noted for their border control prowess.

          • No but they get big points for their ability to peddle fear to paranoid.

          • Meanwhile literally tons of dope gets across the northern border and millions of Mexicans sneak in via the southern one.

          • Hence the demand for tall walls on both borders.

    • I believe the president of that country has also admitted to smoking weed on tv. Nobody cares but you.

      • Obama dope joke – ‘I remember when BuzzFeed was something I did in collage at 2:00 a.m. (or words to that effect). Cons act as if they were raised in convents and never did anything to rest of us did.

    • Another thing he has in common with the current POTUS…

    • Brain dead liberals/NDP/enviro-nuts.

  8. Obviously the tory mudslinging was as usual

  9. Nice quote from Justina-a perfect case of overtly & superficially saying something while covertly delivering the deeper meaning-and then the follow up foolish comment from NTV kowtowing triumphantly by stating “He refused to trash Harper from afar”.

    Wow, I smell a nasty liberal brown noser & his name is NickTailerVaisy.

    Basically, Justina’s statement is loaded with the subject matter that he SAYS he wishes to avoid talking about-it serves as a covert instruction to the media to keep pressing him on it until he feigns subjugation & of course being the leftist you are Nick, you played right into it.

    • Yes, a “covert” instruction, as part of that mythical media conspiracy so many conservatives desperately latch onto when things are not going well for their guy.

      Why bother making Harper accountable for his decisions, when you can fabricate a massive conspiracy, involving hundreds of people, to explain it away.

    • Justin-a…heehee~! That’s like so *clever*!

      I suppose feminizing a guy’s name is one way to justify a secret man crush…

      • That explains would explain that didn’t end when Weepy Pete refused to fight him, and he finally knocked the tar out of the Conservative wife-beater.

      • This comment was deleted.

        • So by feminizing his name, you suggest that women have empty heads under our pretty hair?

          Here’s hoping you don’t have any daughters to raise in a world where there are still knuckle-dragging Cons like you around.

          • Wow, talk about seeing red-you must be a true leftist.
            You ask a question, don’t wait for a response & then instead lay judgement-how intolerant of you.

            Here’s a question-do females generally care more or less about their hair than do males?
            We all know the answer, possibly with exception of people like you so that’s the analogy I was going for-in HIS case, he really seems to care more about his hair than his platform & real issues-like the fact his loser party is in 3rd place.

        • 1) How’d you guess? It’s almost like you’re psychic or something

          2) Sorry…there really was no point responding to your comment, so the only thing left is to mock the pasty jelly fleshed man-boy that you are.

          3) Can you be anything but repetitive? “leftie”? “Justina”? harharharhar~!…the incisive wit there would astound any 6 year old.

          But that logic:

          “his lack of substance as a politician proves his empty head is there simply to hold up his mop”

          Boy. I am in awe. In AWE. Harper! Give that man a Senate position.

        • Wow – clever use of the traditional gay slur. Of course, it doesn’t help you out, but at least you put some effort into it. I find it amazing that such a supposedly empty head, Trudeau was asked to be on a panel with Madeline Allbright and the former PM of Australia. I guess they were just looking for eye candy eh?

      • Most of these guys probably keep pirated copies of those in over his ads in their basement. The ones where he strips off for the ladies. Only in this case it’s the “boys” turn to ow and ahhhh….

      • Useful for the ones that can’t spell dauphin.

    • Maybe he simply meant exactly what he said. Remember Occam’s razor. Some cons spend almost as much time as Dan Brown looking for hidden meanings when none are there.

  10. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/24/justin_trudeau_pitches_keystone_to_us_antioilsands_crowd.html

    Apparently Trudeau was also up to this. Trying to sell the pipeline under enemy fire, instead of calling everyone names and setting RC on to them; how refreshing. I wonder if they’re noticing in Calgary at all?
    Meanwhile, back home, Harper flails under Tom’s lash. Almost like they’re tag teaming him eh. Not quite. But it still a good day overall for progressives.

    • I wonder what David Suzuki thinks.

      • I suppose he’s a bit disappointed. But it probably depends on whether he thinks it’s better to have someone like JT as a friend or an enemy. If it is the latter i think he would be making a mistake. I’m sure he realizes at his time of life that half a loaf is better then Harper’s crumbs under the table.

  11. The body language of Albright and and Gillard when sitting next to Zoolander was hilarious.

  12. This is funny. If anyone has any doubts that Trudeau is making Harper’s base afraid, the fact that some of his supporters are freaking out over whether or not The US let him into the country without a waiver should settle those doubts.

    Apparently, along with the media, the courts, Elections Canada, and the RCMP, US border guards are also biased for the liberals.

  13. Another photo shoot for Trudeau’s ego while the heavy lifting is done by the NDP.

  14. Trudeau has what’s called a Special Passport. All MPs do. It has a green cover, as opposed to a navy blue one US officials would not enforce their ‘moral turpitude’ exclusion policy on a visiting official from a close ally.

    Now as for Rob Ford.. he’s likely a US Citizen who they can’t keep out.

  15. Brain dead liberals/NDP/enviro-nuts!

Sign in to comment.