# Liberal Hypocrite



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Bottom of the barrel politics....i call upon our Liberal Kool Aid drinker.....SAGS....to explain the positions of Scheer and Goodale sharing same view of same sex marriage.....with Scheer taking brunt of political attack.

Sad indeed for Canada!!


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

If the best they've got on Scheer is a 15 year old political position, which was the mainstream position at the time, I'd say that he's pretty darn clean.

In 2005 Trudeau was busy dropping out of school.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wow........that video looks bad. It certainly doesn't help that Scheer was the only party leader missing from Pride parades. His views appear unchanged.

Scheer has been dodging reporter's questions on some ideological issues for some time. Election campaigns expose all the candidate's warts.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

So, if Sheer were to attend a pride parade, would you call him a disingenuous hypocrite just doing it for votes? 

Why are politicians even at these events anyway? What's their official purpose there? The role of government is to ensure that everyone's rights are upheld, and are treated equally, not to endorse any specfic culture/religion/race/etc over another. 

If they want to go as a member of that community and/or a representative of a political party to campaign, that's fine, as long as the individual and/or party covers the expense, not taxpayers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's good we get to see Scheer's conservative Christian beliefs showcased. This shows that these values will influence his government policies.

Scheer has tried to portray himself as a moderate, but now we know this isn't true. He is quite a strong social conservative, on the fringes of Canadian society.

In fact we knew it before as well. Scheer is anti-abortion, and obviously has strong prejudice against homosexuals.

I doubt that many Canadians want a conservative, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual leader. His beliefs are even fringe _within_ the Conservative party ... making him their leader was a big mistake.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

James, you are deliberately being inflammatory and you know it. I don't like Scheer's Christian and home schooling beliefs either but he knows full well where mainstream Canada is and won't upset that apple cart. 

I see him steering very much in the center and not like the Liberals who leaned so far left in the last election to destroy the NDP that he would made Ed Broadbent uncomfortable.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You think a guy who has repeatedly voiced such strong support for social conservatism is suddenly going to support all the progressive values that are now normal (and desired by) most Canadians?

I don't think so.

There's another important issue this exposes, which is that the modern Conservative party -- which let's remember, is based on Alberta's Reform & Canadian Alliance parties -- has strongly embraced social conservatism and even religious fundamentalism.

Stephen Harper was also an evangelical Christian. Stockwell Day was a creationist, another fundamentalist.

This aint your grandfather's Conservative party. Today, this is very much a party of the Christian right.

Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I have followed the Conservative platform and policy for a long time. True that the Reformers influence policy and position, but they are certainly not the voting majority. I am not even a Christian, nor a believer in any religion for that matter, and I don't have any fear of the party veering off in that direction. I fear some of our more progressive policies currently in play more, and I actually score slightly towards a social Liberal in those questionnaires that occur from time to time. 

You fail to understand where Canada actually sits vis-a-vis all the major G7 democracies. You can't be a vibrant economic entity and be a socialist at the same time. Socialists bleed economies dry. I find your rhetoric nothing more than irrational hyperbole.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> True that the Reformers influence policy and position, but they are certainly not the voting majority. I am not even a Christian, nor a believer in any religion for that matter, and I don't have any fear of the party veering off in that direction.


I am comforted to hear that you don't fear the party veering in that direction. I don't want the Conservative party to go in that direction either... we need a strong and broad based major, second political party.



> I fear some of our more progressive policies currently in play more . . . You can't be a vibrant economic entity and be a socialist at the same time. Socialists bleed economies dry.


I don't fear anything of this nature happening, and don't see this as a risk at all. We have some of the lowest tax rates in the developed world and some of the most pro-corporate policies.

AltaRed, is it possible you have some lingering "socialism" and "communism" fears from the USSR days, which might have aligned with your formative years? To me it seems like you have an unjustified fear of this kind of thing.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Politicians are hypocrites. The white hats belong to the party that you support. The black hats belong to the party that you do not support. Not really much difference between them. 

I would say that there is far more difference between the red tories and the reformers inside the Conservative Party than there is between those red tories and those within the Liberal Party. A number of years ago Joe Clark decided to get back into Parliament. The seat he chose was Calgary Centre. It was held by Lee Richardson, a Reform Party MP who was, to say the least, unloved by the gay population in the constituency. Joe and his campaign manger picked this riding for that very reason. Joe Clark spent two years attending every gay event he possibly could. Why? Because he believed that it was his path to defeating Lee in the upcoming Federal election. Lee Richardson was trounced.

The entire notion of same sex marriage was politicized. Not allowing same sex marriage is in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The path to get there at a Provincial level was straightforward but involved long court and expensive court battles that pointed to only one outcome. At the time of the Federal legislation I believe that three Provinces and two Territories had already made provision for same sex marriages within their respective jurisdictions.

In Alberta, as in other Provinces, we had (and we have) our share of hypocrites. Alberta was one of the six or seven Provinces that was actively lobbying, but very quietly, the Federal Gov't to legalize same sex marriages.
Why....it would get them out of a sensitive political situation and avoid the lengthy and expensive court procedure that would result in only one outcome. 

The Cabinet was briefed by a leading law firm that had been engaged on the matter. A few hours later the caucus was briefed. They were all told what the situation was and what the outcome would be. An election was called two weeks later. One of the first promises made by the then Premier was that there would be no same sex marriages in Alberta. The Conservative candidates all sang from the same song book . All the while knowing that it was a complete lie. The Premier of the day insisted that the law firm only present a draft report. He did not want a final report ever to be tabled, let alone obtained under FOI.

In politics, as in religion, there are plenty of hypocrites in all of the organizations. To think otherwise is more that a little naive.

Who else traded on this? Many other politicians of all stripes and many faith leaders who made the decision not to make the real issue known in order to further their own self interests. They decided to knowingly omit in their argument that the only way to prevent same sex marriages would be by amending the Charter. The deciding factor for many was the finger test. Put your finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing in your constituency. Then go with it to ensure your success and continued popularity. Some of worst nonsense came from faith leaders some of whom are still spouting the notion that his can be reversed by and Act of Parliament. These faith leaders know, or should know better.

Paul Martin's book sheds some light on this. He is a devout Catholic. In his book he states that one of his biggest disappointments in his political life was the pressure put upon him by the most senior members of his Church that included what he believed to be at the time, a veiled threat of excommunication should his Government move forward with the enabling legislation. Fortunately, as a lawyer and as a believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he could see no other course that the one that his Government followed.

My view is that politicians represent ALL of the people in their constituency and it disappoints me when they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as Scheer seems to be doing.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Wow........that video looks bad. It certainly doesn't help that Scheer was the only party leader missing from Pride parades. His views appear unchanged.


FWIW, Pride parades have become nothing more than opportunities for idiots of all stripes to look and do stupid things in the name of ....well stupidity. Mainstream Canada wouldn't participate in such outlandish behaviour either, and it has nothing to do with being homophobic. It is about retaining a bit of class by our species. No different than English football hooligans having no class?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The Conservative party is courting the evangelical, or more broadly the devout Christian voting groups in Canada. It's very hard to ignore the notable presence of religion in the Conservative party:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...home-in-conservative-politics/article4599598/
https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/harper-evangelical-capitalism/



> McDonald first raised such questions in an October 2006 feature article for The Walrus, “Stephen Harper & the Theo-Cons,” surprising readers by stating that there were “*an estimated seventy Evangelicals in [Harper’s] Conservative caucus*.


So you had 70 Evangelical Christians in the caucus... Am I supposed to believe that this party doesn't have a religious slant? And now their _new_ leader is vocally anti-abortion, and against the rights of homosexual citizens. In other words, very religious.

How can anyone look at that and not conclude that the Conservative party is heavily influenced, if not driven, by devout Christian ideology?

Even if I liked their economic policies, the heavy religious presence completely rules out the party for me. I want a separation of Church & state, not a series of fundamentalist religious party leaders (Harper & Scheer) who are surrounded by religious colleagues. _Totally unacceptable_.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

There is a difference between:

Pro / Neutral / Anti - If these are the best terms to use....

Trudeau appears to be Pro LGBT, but in reality has not done anything for the group other than go on walks with them.

Sheer appears to be Neutral, he does nothing for or against them. What his religious stripes are doesn't matter as long as his objectivity is not compromised.

I dont think anyone is actually Anti LGBT

Lastly, the LGBT position is pointless (IMHO) cause sexual orientation is a legislated Charter Right. So, Scheer alone cant change it anyways.... the LGBT political positioning is mere optics meant to influence voters. It has nothing to actually do with the leaders capacity to make legislative changes in their regard. Its not feasible to support every special interest group - Trudeau is trying, but maybe not totally succeeding and thus frustrating people. I prefer Scheers hands off approach - I dont want a leader that panders - that goes beyond LGBT.


----------



## STech (Jun 7, 2016)

None of this matters. None of it. 

At the end of the day, people will vote based on their pocket books primarily. Extreme social views will register with some, but not many. Ask random people on the street to sum up Trudeau's term, and you'll get this. 

1. He legalized pot
2. He was involved in a major scandal
3. He fired the women that stood in his way. 

Seriously, what else did the guy do? Most of us non hardcore political fans don't get involved in the minutiae.

I doubt it's gonna be a landslide victory, but Truedau is done.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It comes down to trust.

Does the Canadian public trust that Andrew Scheer will set aside his personal beliefs on abortion, gay rights, criminal justice, gun laws........if he is elected as PM ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree that pockebook issues will be most prominent in the election, and the increased child benefits will be at the head of the Liberal list of accomplishments.

When we raised our son we received $0 in monthly child benefits. Today, people receive more than $500 a month per child.

That is a huge benefit for a lot of Canadian families and the Liberals will remind Canadians in capital letters during the campaign.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer has no past record of leadership to run on. He surely doesn't want to point back at Harper as a good example of what he will do.

So, what little Andrew Scheer has done in the past becomes of much greater interest to the voting public.

His speech on marriage, attendance with an alt right extremist at a rally while refusing to attend gay parades or events..........isn't much but it is all Canadians have.

Scheer needs to stop deflecting journalist questions and answer them directly. His reluctance to answer is doing him no favors.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> It comes down to trust.
> 
> Does the Canadian public trust that Andrew Scheer will set aside his personal beliefs on abortion, gay rights, criminal justice, gun laws........if he is elected as PM ?


That's your narrative. 

Some voters like his personal beliefs and others aren't so concerned with regards to the overall direction Conservatives will take. 

IMHO its Mr. Trudeau who has raised trust issues for Canadians. There is much to consider with regards to his credibility, ethics, honesty, judgement and competence.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> It comes down to trust.
> 
> Does the Canadian public trust that Andrew Scheer will set aside his personal beliefs on abortion, gay rights, criminal justice, gun laws........if he is elected as PM ?


Well we know that Trudeau doesn't believe in criminal justice.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I agree that pockebook issues will be most prominent in the election, and the increased child benefits will be at the head of the Liberal list of accomplishments.
> 
> When we raised our son we received $0 in monthly child benefits. Today, people receive more than $500 a month per child.
> 
> That is a huge benefit for a lot of Canadian families and the Liberals will remind Canadians in capital letters during the campaign.


Yes the Child Benefit Harper introduced and the Liberals opposed. 
Of course Trudeau doesn't know, because again, he was busy dropping out of school when this happened.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> Well we know that Trudeau doesn't believe in criminal justice.


My fear is that Trudeau will find a way to welcome Jihadi Jack into Canada. It was Trudeau's change in the law that made this potential mess possible by not understanding that some actions are so heinous and treasonous that those committing them don't deserve Canadian citizenship. The solution seems quite simple if one doesn't want "two-tier citizenship" with dual-nationals - Just don't commit acts of terrorism. 

Going back 15 years, to when Sheer was 25 years-old is a bit much and just shows the amount of digging the Liberals are doing to find "dirt". If most Canadians were honest, they would admit that their views on the topic have evolved over the past 15 years. Nobody, even Maxime Bernier, is going to touch the gay marriage question. To imply such towards Sheer is scare mongering at it's finest.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trudeau bad.....me good, isn't much of an election platform.

The NDP said they won't support a minority PC government, so it is all or nothing for Scheer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

"Jihadi Jack" as the UK right wing media has dubbed him, has never been charged with any crimes, let alone stood trial and been convicted.

Andrew Scheer revealed his ignorance on the matter when he described "Jihadi Jack" as a "known terrorist".

Known to whom ? When asked to provide some evidence to back up his statement, Scheer has never done so.

The guy is a Canadian citizen. Canada shouldn't abandon their citizens even if it is to bring him back to Canada to stand trial.

Canada doesn't need Syria or any other countries to fulfill our responsibilities. We can handle it ourselves.

If Andrew Scheer would be unable to fulfill that most basic responsibility he should not be running for PM.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> "Jihadi Jack" as the UK right wing media has dubbed him, has never been charged with any crimes, let alone stood trial and been convicted.
> 
> Andrew Scheer revealed his ignorance on the matter when he described "Jihadi Jack" as a "known terrorist".
> 
> ...


He openly admits to joining ISIS.
I think that means he's entitled to a few million from Trudeau, fighting for diversity as he is.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I believe that Conservative Premiers like Ford and Scheer are doing there very best to make certain that Scheer is defeated in the October election. The very last thing that either of them want is a Scheer win. My guess is that they will not be overly supportive when it comes to plediging their resources to the campaign.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

ian said:


> I believe that Conservative Premiers like Ford and Scheer are doing there very best to make certain that Scheer is defeated in the October election. The very last thing that either of them want is a Scheer win. My guess is that they will not be overly supportive when it comes to plediging their resources to the campaign.


Maybe, I'd say that Federal Liberal governments in General are very good for Quebec and Toronto, they throw money and policy at those voters like crazy.
Politically there is an advantage to Ford taking the Federal money, but last time the Federal Liberals turned off the Taps, they did it to a Conservative Premier.

That being said, I don't think Trudeau himself is actually going to stop spending unless he absolutely has to. But if he's going to slash transfer payments, he'll do it to Ford, not the Liberal that replaces him.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

STech said:


> None of this matters. None of it.
> 
> At the end of the day, people will vote based on their pocket books primarily. Extreme social views will register with some, but not many. Ask random people on the street to sum up Trudeau's term, and you'll get this.
> 
> ...


Don't forget he also cured climate change. It cost us $45 billion but well worth it.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Our Premier in Alberta does not especially want Trudeau to win. 

It is just that this is eclipsed by his even stronger desire to see Scheer defeated. Of course...he is not telling the locals anything about that.


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> FWIW, Pride parades have become nothing more than opportunities for idiots of all stripes to look and do stupid things in the name of ....well stupidity. Mainstream Canada wouldn't participate in such outlandish behaviour either, and it has nothing to do with being homophobic. It is about retaining a bit of class by our species. No different than English football hooligans having no class?


The pride parades of today are family friendly, rainbow Care-Bear events; nothing like the raunchy events of years ago in places like NY and SF..... Balloon genitals, and men in Speedo's holding pump-action water guns at crotch level, squirting water into the crowd. You don't need to be Sigmund Freud to figure that one out. I cringe when I see politicians today doing that. They may think it's just good clean fun, and don't even realize they are symbolicly ejaculating on their constituents.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't criticize Scheer for not attending the parades -- which are actually meant to be protest events for those marginalized communities. It's fine to not go to the parade.

Rather, I'm distressed by Scheer's hardline Christian religious background, combined with the fact that other fundamentalist Christians are heavily represented in the party, ever since Harper deliberately made the Conservative party a home for the devout religious voter. And yes, I think it does affect their policies and their view of the world. (Supporting evidence in my links back in this post).

I don't think Canadians should hand over control of the country to a party that is driven by (or at least, panders to) religious ideology.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There is _one_ benefit of Scheer's devout ideology, though. This may actually attract fundamentalist Muslims (the Islamists) to the party -- they share many of the same values. For example, a fundamentalist Muslim who is opposed to the rights of women and opposed to the sins of homosexuality, and who laments the decline of religious presence in the world... might see a lot they like in the Conservative party.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not view same sex marriages as a faith issue. I view it as a way of dealing with relationship and household issues from a legal perspective/framework. No different than how we deal with common law marriages, divorce, etc. 

We view a person's faith as a very private matter. Not something to wear on one's sleeve or be so presumptuous and arrogant as to assume that everyone else should be forced to adhere to beliefs or followings of our faith.

I mean really ,why one earth would I care if a same sex couple living together decide to get married. What is the difference between these two situations...... a piece of paper. Or is really down to the financial considerations relating to job benefits, pensions, etc?

I certainly do not hear these evangelical leaders going on about spousal abuse, unfaithfulness in marriage, sexual abuse of minors, child poverty, racism, homelessness, or sexual abuse in a faith based setting as much as they do sexual orientation. I have often wondered why this is.

Could it be that the latter has the possibility of hitting too close to home with their followers and negatively impacting popularity and income. Safe whipping boy and a safe way of whipping up the adherents into a frenzy?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

ian said:


> We view a person's faith as a very private matter. Not something to wear on one's sleeve or be so presumptuous and arrogant as to assume that everyone else should be forced to adhere to beliefs or followings of our faith.


Yes, it should be private.

But what if faith impacts an elected official's perspectives, policies, and even impacts decisions to go to war? I think this is a big risk with the Conservatives.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...home-in-conservative-politics/article4599598/



> Recent speeches by Mr. Harper and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in New York were quite radical by the standards of traditional Canadian foreign policy, *although their messages would be compatible with evangelical Christianity's view of the world. In the speeches, they painted the world in good-guy/bad-guy terms*, full of threats and dangers, whereas as Steven Pinker has shown in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature, we live in a time of remarkable peace and relative stability. None of the great powers threatens the others; none wishes to change boundaries.
> 
> One threat is that of Islamic jihadism, a fringe group within Islam – albeit a dangerous one. A regional threat revolves around Israel's position in the Middle East. The Harper Tories have become the world's most unfettered *supporters of the Netanyahu government, a position that is deeply popular with evangelical Christian doctrine*. Outside Jews themselves, evangelicals tend to be Israel's most uncritical supporters.


^ Scheer is following in Harper's footsteps.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A case of intentional fearmongering is what I see here. Trying to drag up every possible angle over a period of 15 years for what? 

James, you've been responded to in very rational, measured ways. Perhaps you could show similar courtesies?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I'm sorry you don't like reading about the strong religious slant of the Conservative party, but this is hardly fearmongering. In fact it's a very important part of the Conservative party: it relates to their leader, other party members, and their financing.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I still think you are looking for spooks around every corner. I am about anti-religion as one can be and I don't see anything that would give me any significant cause for concern. The party knows they have to take centrist positions on such matters.

You bring up unfettered support for Israel but the only difference between the parties is degree of vocalization, rather than definitive actions. There are stronger views from some of the other OECD countries. Check the rhetoric yourself from both parties over the last several years.

Added: Let's put it this way. I am more concerned/interested in things that politicians can really do damage on, rather than 2nd or 3rd order things on the periphery. I'll put up with a tiny bit of social conservatism if I have too (even if I loathe it) in return for fiscal and civil conservatism that will halt growing debt. Increasing headwinds on our GDP and perennial deficits will cause a lot more damage in the long term, limiting financial capacity for more liberal policy. There are so many OECD countries that have had to constrain their social policies because they are spending way too much on servicing sovereign debt. As an example, imagine our federal debt approaching $1 trillion and interest on debt at 5%. Servicing it alone would be $50 Billion per year. Imagine what that could otherwise do on productive things like social policies, infrastructure, etc. 

Neither metric is out of the question, e.g. a current federal debt of $693B and growing by about $20B per year in the 10th year of expansion! Imagine the Liberals in power with a major recession looming. Annual deficits would likely balloon to $30B or more during that period. If intelligent people cannot see that train coming down the track and are not concerned about it, it is my view this country goes the way of socialist (leftist) regimes before it. Think Spain, Italy, Greece, etc, etc, and how many times South American countries have needed IMF intervention. Don't think it cannot happen here within 20 years at the current pace of irresponsibility.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer has the obligation to tell Canadians where he stands on important issues.

If he cannot do so he should resign and let another leader take the Conservatives into an election.

The Conservatives might even have a better chance with a different leader.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

HahHa! I'd rather he didn't say rather than lie. Your drama queen made all sorts of ridiculous promises and kept few.

OTOH, I agree the Cons could have picked a better leader. Scheer was way down the list on my ballot.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

sags said:


> "Jihadi Jack"... The guy is a Canadian citizen. Canada shouldn't abandon their citizens even if it is to bring him back to Canada to stand trial.
> 
> Canada doesn't need Syria or any other countries to fulfill our responsibilities. We can handle it ourselves.
> 
> If Andrew Scheer would be unable to fulfill that most basic responsibility he should not be running for PM.


Jack is a Canadian citizen in name only. Why should Canada feel any obligation to bring him to Canada and go to the trouble and expense of trying to prove whether he is or is not guilty of crimes. He is NOT Canada's responsibility.
Ralph Goodale needs to stick to his guns on this one.

I can see why he's a good fit for liberals though. His sense of entitlement is almost as massive as Trudeau's. _“If I’m really a Canadian citizen, why haven’t they taken me by now? __In the same way Britain hasn't helped me for two-and-a-half years, Canada has done nothing. I always thought Canada was a better country”_

What does Scheer have to do with this? Sags, if you think jack should be rescued why aren't you lobbying Trudeau and your own MP? Why aren't you offering to buy the airline ticket if 'your government' will get him to an airport?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

ian said:


> I do not view same sex marriages as a faith issue. I view it as a way of dealing with relationship and household issues from a legal perspective/framework. No different than how we deal with common law marriages, divorce, etc.
> 
> We view a person's faith as a very private matter. Not something to wear on one's sleeve or be so presumptuous and arrogant as to assume that everyone else should be forced to adhere to beliefs or followings of our faith.
> 
> ...


Married people qualify for many benefits from government and from employers. There are cases where someone marries a partner who has a child from a previous relationship, and that child receives medical, dental, etc benefits from an employer, even though he (or she) is not an employee and is not related to any employee except by marriage. 

Meanwhile there are gay and lesbian couples who have been in a stable relationship for 15 years who pay into such plans but get nothing. This is the reason for legally recognizing gay marriage.

In fairness you need to either stop benefits based on marital status, or recognize gay marriage.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> In fairness you need to either stop benefits based on marital status, or recognize gay marriage.


Gay or not, I can't figure out why couples get all the benefits they receive. Two people living in a house is half the mortgage cost for each of them, half the city taxes, half the Bell, Hydro, etc, etc. As a single person, it cost me the full freight for all those things - why don't they give the single people the breaks and stop it for couples, including gays?

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> Gay or not, I can't figure out why couples get all the benefits they receive. Two people living in a house is half the mortgage cost for each of them, half the city taxes, half the Bell, Hydro, etc, etc. As a single person, it cost me the full freight for all those things - why don't they give the single people the breaks and stop it for couples, including gays?
> 
> ltr


The Liberal concept of a universal income is focused on more support for single people, since couples, parents, and retirees already receive some benefits.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

What a mindless shill.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Jack is a Canadian citizen in name only. Why should Canada feel any obligation to bring him to Canada and go to the trouble and expense of trying to prove whether he is or is not guilty of crimes. He is NOT Canada's responsibility.
> Ralph Goodale needs to stick to his guns on this one.
> 
> I can see why he's a good fit for liberals though. His sense of entitlement is almost as massive as Trudeau's. _“If I’m really a Canadian citizen, why haven’t they taken me by now? __In the same way Britain hasn't helped me for two-and-a-half years, Canada has done nothing. I always thought Canada was a better country”_
> ...


Scheer labelled Letts a terrorist without providing any evidence. 

Would a PM Scheer presume to decide which Canadians should have rights and which ones shouldn't ?

Bring Letts to Canada and put him on trial if there is evidence. If convicted Scheer can call him a convicted terrorist if he wants.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

sags said:


> The Liberal concept of a universal income is focused on more support for single people, since couples, parents, and retirees already receive some benefits.


_Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos have argued that the Liberal-created Canada Child Benefit, among other measures, amounts to a guaranteed minimum income already.

But in an interview this week with The Canadian Press, Duclos said the current suite of federal programs could one day be enhanced to provide a minimum income of sorts to all Canadians, *particularly those without children who aren’t eligible for federal benefits for families, seniors or the working poor.
*
“Whether this is going to be enhanced eventually to a broader guaranteed minimum income for all Canadians, including those without children that are not currently covered by a guaranteed minimum income at the federal level, I believe the answer is yes,” Duclos said. “At some point, there will be a universal guaranteed minimum income in Canada for all Canadians.”_

https://globalnews.ca/news/4777313/liberals-national-guaranteed-income/


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Scheer labelled Letts a terrorist without providing any evidence.
> 
> Would a PM Scheer presume to decide which Canadians should have rights and which ones shouldn't ?
> 
> Bring Letts to Canada and put him on trial if there is evidence. If convicted Scheer can call him a convicted terrorist if he wants.


I already posted a link to a video of Jihadi Jack admitting he joined ISIS.
If being a member of a terrorist organization that is attacking Canada isn't grounds for revoking citizenship, what is?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> _Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos have argued that the Liberal-created Canada Child Benefit, among other measures, amounts to a guaranteed minimum income already.
> 
> But in an interview this week with The Canadian Press, Duclos said the current suite of federal programs could one day be enhanced to provide a minimum income of sorts to all Canadians, *particularly those without children who aren’t eligible for federal benefits for families, seniors or the working poor.
> *
> ...


They renamed the Conservative program they protested, and now they're the creators of it?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags should be complaining about Trudeau's inaction if he is so concerned about the jihadi. But of course just like Trudeau, grunting liberals are hoping this issue will fade away: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...udeau-jack-letts-is-an-inconvenient-canadian/


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Handing out taxpayer money is of course what the liberals do best. When you can't create a competitive investment climate, you are left as a tax and spend party. And you kick into high gear on the spend side when you have an election to buy.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> I already posted a link to a video of Jihadi Jack admitting he joined ISIS.
> If being a member of a terrorist organization that is attacking Canada isn't grounds for revoking citizenship, what is?


Folks who join a terrorist group like ISIS should just be left to rot in foreign prisons.... and accidently have an accident while there. There is nothing redeemable about spending more than 10 minutes thinking about it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Folks who join a terrorist group like ISIS should just be left to rot in foreign prisons.... and accidently have an accident while there. There is nothing redeemable about spending more than 10 minutes thinking about it.


Including the alt right terrorist groups ? White supremacy members ?

I don't believe any government should be able to strip away citizenship from any Canadian. 

We have a law enforcement and judicial system to deal with any such matters. 

It is fascist countries that strip away citizenship.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is a difference with those who become members of designated terror groups, and especially those involved in crimes against humanity. They are best eliminated in the war zone.

We are just wusses. Need some backbone like the Brits.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

British did something absolutely unforgiveable -- withdrawing citizenship from a citizen born in their country.

Absolutely a violation of one of the key rights in society. Citizenship is not up for debate; a citizen is a citizen. We have a justice system to deal with crimes... but revoking citizenship is an extra punishment method. This is not how democratic countries function.

AltaRed and the right wingers on this forum would change their tune if a liberal government started revoking citizenship for suspected right wing nuts and white supremacists. You guys should think harder before jumping to support non-democratic policies. These actions by the UK (and Australia I believe) help set very dangerous precedents.

Here's an easy scenario to illustrate this. Gavin McInnes was born in England and is also a Canadian citizen. Here's a far right nut, and founder of the Proud Boys gang. *Depending on who's in power*, his gang could easily be labelled a terrorist group with active operations in the US. His group already commits acts of violence. Now imagine that they make their way onto the government's terrorism list, and now Gavin McInnes is a terrorist.

Hypothetical: if the Proud Boys ends up killing people in the US... as they have gotten close to doing... now things are taken up a notch, and this guy is the founder/leader of a violent terrorist group who is killing our friends and allies (USA). By the way, the FBI is already watching McInnes. _This scenario is not very hypothetical._ His terrorist group is already labelled as an extremist group, and could easily be added to official lists. In fact, I already expect that Canada would have to arrest him upon return to Canada.

Should your right wing brother have his citizenship revoked? Maybe by both UK and Canada, to be made stateless.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

There are some people who actually believe that the Liberals are a bunch of complete hypocrites and the Conservatives are a group of people with the highest ethical and morale standards.

I could give them a great cash deal on the Lions Gate Bridge. Today only though.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> British did something absolutely unforgiveable -- withdrawing citizenship from a citizen born in their country.
> 
> Absolutely a violation of one of the key rights in society. Citizenship is not up for debate; a citizen is a citizen. We have a justice system to deal with crimes... but revoking citizenship is an extra punishment method. This is not how democratic countries function.
> 
> AltaRed and the right wingers on this forum would change their tune if a liberal government started revoking citizenship for suspected right wing nuts and white supremacists. You guys should think harder before jumping to support non-democratic policies.


Your views on citizenship seem a bit extreme. It hasn't been that long that Canada has even allowed 'dual citizenship' (which I've never agreed with - where are your loyalties in a conflict?). Certainly before the changes in 1977 when they started to allow multiple citizenships in Canada you could easily lose your citizenship for simply living too long overseas or just failing to claim citizenship by descent by age 21, along with many other reasons. This doesn't actually support your "a citizen is a citizen". It's really only a matter of the present day laws in a country.

Even after the changes in 1977, Canadian citizens born outside of Canada still had to apply to keep their citizenship prior to age 28 or it was automatically revoked. I guess a citizen wasn't really a citizen. If they did not apply, then they would have to become Canadians as if they were never a Canadian before, just like anyone else: by becoming a permanent resident and applying for citizenship.

In 2009 the rules were changed again allowing Canadians who had lost their citizenship between 1947 and 2009 could reclaim it. Since this change, only about 300 people have lost their citizenship. You basically had to falsify information about yourself on citizenship applications. The number actually increased drastically after the Liberals won the 2015 election, despite tabling a bill to change the law. (This bill passed in 2017.) Fewer than 70 people lost their citizenship through this new law between 2011 and 2014, but hundreds have lost it since the Liberals came to power.

You're young James. Accept that attitudes, rules and laws change over time. The ones you grow up with tend to stick in your mind. For you and your generation in general who say that something is 'unforgivable', or 'citizenship is not up for debate', and a 'citizen is a citizen' is simply in fashion today. Accept that it has only recently changed to be so and that _"AltaRed and the right wingers on this forum,"_ may have grown up in a different era. Trust that the standards you cling to, that are de-rigueur today will seem somewhat out of date eventually. 

ltr


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^Very well said ltr.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

ian said:


> There are some people who actually believe that the Liberals are a bunch of complete hypocrites and the Conservatives are a group of people with the highest ethical and morale standards.
> 
> I could give them a great cash deal on the Lions Gate Bridge. Today only though.


I'd say on here that's easily a two way street. But you didn't mention that. 

We have unprescedented levels of virtue signaling and promises by our current government. It hasn't been hard to find significant hypocrisy with this government and the leader especially. It exists in all governments but the degree to which is the question.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> You're young James. Accept that attitudes, rules and laws change over time. The ones you grow up with tend to stick in your mind.


Then I take it that I won't hear you complaining when citizenship is stripped from right wing people perceived to be dangerous radicals?

And remember, this is extra-judicial. There are no trials or evidence, of course. Apparently our existing legal standards are insufficient for the modern evil of terrorism... something so dangerous, so sinister (downright evil) that our legal system can't handle it.

I call bull**** on that. We have a legal system that is perfectly capable of handling all of this. If we start throwing away all our democratic and legal standards because of "terrorism", we're on a slippery slope to losing much of what makes Canada great.

Frankly I'm shocked at how many of you older, right-leaning people seem comfortable with getting rid of our well established Canadian values. We have rights, and due process for very good reasons.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Then I take it that I won't hear you complaining when citizenship is stripped from right wing people perceived to be dangerous radicals?
> 
> And remember, this is extra-judicial. There are no trials or evidence, of course. Apparently our existing legal standards are insufficient for the modern evil of terrorism... a shift in thinking, one of those "modern day changes" you think I should get comfortable with.


And here I thought you were a smart guy. Sigh......

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> AltaRed and the right wingers on this forum would change their tune if a liberal government started revoking citizenship for suspected right wing nuts and white supremacists. You guys should think harder before jumping to support non-democratic policies. These actions by the UK (and Australia I believe) help set very dangerous precedents.


You don't know much about history as LTR suggests, or to be able to differentiate between ordinary civilian crime (both civil and criminal) and war crimes and/or crimes against humanity as part of an armed group/militia, etc. Many countries now have Terrorism Acts on the books with some countries tougher than others. Anecdotally, I understand our Act is weak relative to others, so we are wusses generally speaking. 

Like LTR, I'd like to know WTF we are doing with permitting dual citizenship to begin with. Make a decision on where your loyalties are. I don't believe anyone should have it both ways, especially when they have the audacity to seek out Canada's help when they are in trouble of their own making.

And you continue to peg me wrongly James. I am a simple law and order guy tired of our court system and taxpayers paying for the 'rights' of scum who abuse us again and again.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

That the Brits stripped the British-borne jihadi of his citizenship and threw the p.o.s. over the fence to Canada is the real injustice IMO. 
Was this a total unannounced surprise to our Canadian diplomats - or were they just inept at responding and protecting Canada's interests?
This issue should remain squarely in Britian's court. Canada has no obligation to clean up their sh^t regardless of jihadi's so-called remaining citizenship.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> You don't know much about history as LTR suggests, or to be able to differentiate between ordinary civilian crime (both civil and criminal) and war crimes and/or crimes against humanity ... And you continue to peg me wrongly James. I am a simple law and order guy tired of our court system and taxpayers paying for the 'rights' of scum who abuse us again and again.


So then if Proud Boys becomes an official terrorist group, would you want Gavin McInnes's citizenship revoked? You are describing support for exactly this.

How about the various ex-Canadian military and do-gooders who went to the middle east to join Kurdish rebels. There are white Canadians who picked up weapons and went to kill people in the middle east, fighting those evil ISIS people.

If the Kurdish groups they fight with become labelled terrorist groups as well, perhaps after discovery of atrocities they have (undoubtedly) committed, should the full weight of Canadian anti-terrorism law come down on these members of our military? Would you want these men jailed, prosecuted in Canada, maybe have their citizenship stripped too?

See, it gets complicated. You're applying very emotional positions based on who is "scum" but you have to be careful about the implications of the policies you're endorsing.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So strip away citizenship from anyone alleged to be connected to any terrorist organization ?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I was surprised to read that their are 300,000 of us Canadians in Hong Kong.
What is Canada's obligation if things go sideways there and hundreds of dual Canadians end up detained?
I agree, it is dual citizenship that is problematic.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Members of an official military are dealt with under military code, or referred to the International court system as appropriate for crimes against humanity. In case you have not been following Syria et al for the last 8 years or so, the Kurds were fighting for their homeland against the 'invaders'.

Individuals who leave their countries to fight proxy wars in other lands are effectively mercenaries who should be left out to dry, and often are. James, your rhetoric is typical bleeding heart stuff that has plugged up our court system giving criminals more rights than victims.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> So strip away citizenship from anyone alleged to be connected to any terrorist organization ?


I don't recall saying alleged, but I do believe those actually belonging to an Internationally recognized terrorist group or militia should be left to rot and stripped of citizenship.


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

These arguments make me think about the Spanish Civil War (well actually about For Whom the Bell Tolls.) 

Let me quote from https://www.cgai.ca/may_2014_column

… in the ‘dirty thirties’ the Spanish Civil War pitted General Francisco Franco’s Nationalists against the Republican government of Spain. Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy supported the Nationalists, and the Soviet Union backed the Republicans. But so did at least 1300 Canadians who volunteered to fight against fascism and went to Spain to serve in what became the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion while another three hundred fought in the Americans’ Abraham Lincoln Battalion.
The government of Mackenzie King tried to stop Canadians from going to Spain, and it passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in April, 1937 to prevent men from signing up for foreign wars... These “premature anti-Fascists” suffered for their political sins in the Second World War and Cold War years.

I can also add that in 2001 the Mackenzie–Papineau Battalion monument was erected in Ottawa, across the street from the Dept. of Foreign Affairs.

So, you never know. Time will tell who is right.

BTW, the author, military historian J.L. Granastein, mentions several other examples of Canadians serving illegally in the other peoples' wars (US Civil War, the unification of Italy, Israel, Vietnam.)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I thought of the Spanish Civil War as well. Depending on who was in power and the political mood at the time, those Canadians who went abroad to fight could either be "freedom fighters" or "terrorists". You could celebrate them, or lock them up, or a bit of both.

I've been pointing out these cases to show that these are not black and white matters.

Personally I am disturbed by the civilian Canadian men in recent years who went to fight with the Kurds, against ISIS. All of those groups in the region are committing atrocities and it's not a simple of matter of joining the Good side vs Evil. The men who fought alongside the Kurds likely committed atrocities themselves and these groups are hardly angels.

But of course I would never say we should revoke those Canadians' citizenships. If there is evidence of committing crimes, then they should be brought to justice. I do not ever support policies to punish citizens for alleged, unproven crimes, without trials that meet our legal standards. *Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law*.

The presumption of innocence is one of our core values in this country. This isn't China, North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

Does that mean some bad people go free? YES. This is one of the costs in a democratic, free society. Live with it, AltaRed.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Personally I am disturbed by the civilian Canadian men in recent years who went to fight with the Kurds, against ISIS. All of those groups in the region are committing atrocities and it's not a simple of matter of joining the Good side vs Evil. The men who fought alongside the Kurds likely committed atrocities themselves and these groups are hardly angels.




canada's military sent squadrons of elite special forces to aid the Kurds in their struggle against ISIL. I believe canada also sent a medical aircraft field hospital. All the canadian forces were based in kurdistan.

the kurds were, in fact, the strongest ally the west had in combatting ISIL.

a key feature of the 1917 sykes-picot agreement was that kurdistan was supposed to get its ancient kingdom back. Instead britain & france reneged & the kurdish homeland got divided up among syria, turkey, iran & iraq. 

the kurdish people never gave up their dream for independence & have struggled/battled on since WWI. A small semi-autonomous kurdish state was carved out of northern iraq more than a decade ago. Since 2015, kurds pushed the western boundary of this state deep into syria as they advanced on ISIL headquarters in raqqa & oil-rich deir el sour.

this new kurdish province of rojava spreads along the turkish border & is not acceptable to istanbul. James4 is voicing the official turkish view when he refers to alleged kurdish "atrocities" & to the kurdish nationalist fighters as terrorists.

the canadian military special ops, on the other hand, saw those same kurdish fighters as brothers in arms.

i have read of a very few canadian civilians who voyaged to kurdistan in order to join the kurdish military. So few that i believe one could count them on the fingers of one hand. I know of no reason whatsoever to smear these canadians with wrought-up accusations of "atrocities."

.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie, those same groups were associated with groups known to be engaged in terrorist attacks in the region. This has been very well documented over a long period. The Canadian fighters joined the YPG militia. The YPG is tied to the PKK, a group that has committed terrorist attacks for a very long time, and officially recognized globally as a terrorist organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html



> The group has deep ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, also known as the P.K.K. Both Turkey and the United States consider the P.K.K. to be a terrorist organization for its violent separatist movement inside Turkey.
> 
> While Y.P.G. leaders play down their P.K.K. ties, areas they control are festooned with photos of the imprisoned P.K.K. leader, Abdullah Ocalan, viewed by Turks the same way Americans viewed Osama bin Laden.
> . . .
> ...


This is not a cut & dry issue, as this is a very messy region with tons of conflict. I am not talking about the actions of Canada's official military engagement; I'm talking about those lone wolf fighters who went into the region to start fighting. No oversight, no chain of command, no official oversight by Canada.

I understand you feel that this particular militia group (YPG) were the "good guys" but this is very much a matter of debate. It's really not _that_ simple and it doesn't mean an unsupervised lone wolf was being a "good guy" either.

Seen with slightly different eyes, by a different political party perhaps, these Canadians *could* be viewed as having joined foreign terrorist groups. Surely you can see how tricky it is if we start dishing out no-trial justice based on this dumb designation of "terrorism". Can't you see my point? It becomes somewhat arbitrary and subjective.

As pointed out by someone above, quite a few Canadians in Hong Kong are about to be called terrorists as well. There are terrorists everywhere, when you look hard enough.

Freedom fighters in the Spanish Civil War ... with the YPG/PKK ... with American far-right ... in Hong Kong ... who is guilty of crimes? One approach, which I would agree with, is outlawing any engagement with a foreign militia or overseas fighting of ANY kind.

If someone is really itching to go kill bad guys overseas, let them join the military and go through a proper chain of command, where there is responsibility and oversight. On the other hand if they're doing it on their own, then bring charges agains them when they're back in Canada -- based on evidence they were fighting overseas. Let the court convict them.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Well, of course I am living with it, James. I just don't agree with giving people an 'almost' free pass for a lifeline back to Canada, most likely at our cost no less. Talk about rubbing salt in a wound.

If they all knew they were entirely on their own once they left to fight for a cause, they might re-consider the weight of their decision in the first place. I am tired of spending taxpayer's money and court time on incredibly poor decisions.


----------



## hfp75 (Mar 15, 2018)

Domestic and International terrorism are indeed different animals....

Canada and England both just called 1-2-3 Not-It !

Gathering evidence domestically is relatively easy these days. Gathering evidence internationally in a war torn region is gonna be virtually impossible. To let him (Jack) into Canada then mandates a Canadian international investigation that might yield very little, not because he’s innocent, but because the evidence might not be obtainable. Then with little to no evidence, he’s found innocent and can just live life the same as me or you. 

This not-guilty outcome is inherently flawed and thus govts don’t want to be a part of it. It’s a huge burden and will have a fruitless outcome. So, why head down this road ? It’s obviously a fools decision in my mind.

Plus, after Kadar, if Trudeau helps out Jack he’s 2/2 - it’s no longer a matter of coincidence....


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james you should not attempt even for a minute to label kurdish history as terrorist atrocities while white-painting the turkish government. Turkish bombers have repeatedly struck the north slopes of kurdistan, for example, killing civilians indiscriminately. 

for that matter, why wouldn't turkey negotiate to release a small region of southeast turkey, bordering on the semi-state of kurdistan & entirely populated by ethnic kurds, who have lived there for thousands of years. The district is part of kurdish homeland, it was invaded by the Ottoman turks, why is modern turkey still occupying it?

i gather it's true that the turkish branch of kurdish nationalism, led by Ocalan who's been jailed in turkey for years, are more militant & more violent than kurds domiciled in kurdistan itself. And you haven't even mentioned the different acronyms for the famous womens' militias serving in each country. It's a real vegetable soup. Let's not go there. Total waste of cmf forum time.

plus there's a confusion in your post No 62 above. First you say the canadians who went to kurdistan to fight with kurds were volunteers. That, in fact, is what i've read. I've also read that they are so few in number you could count them on the fingers of one hand.

but then in the next paragraph you go on to insist that canadians fighting with kurds were all enlisted military forces.

it's true that canada sent special ops troops to train & support the kurdish army as it drove ISIL west towards raqqa in syria. Canada's deployment was an official allied presence in the anti-ISIL campaign, where the kurds played a leading role. There is no way anyone can twist this contemporary history into pretending that canada sent enlisted forces as terrorists.

i for one find it distasteful that you are fantasizing that canada's best-trained & most experienced soldiers "undoubtedly" "committed" "atrocities." This is melodrama running amok. It's a dishonourable disservice to good soldiers.





james4beach said:


> How about the various ex-Canadian military and do-gooders who went to the middle east to join Kurdish rebels. There are white Canadians who picked up weapons and went to kill people in the middle east, fighting those evil ISIS people.
> 
> If the Kurdish groups they fight with become labelled terrorist groups as well, perhaps after discovery of atrocities they have (undoubtedly) committed, should the full weight of Canadian anti-terrorism law come down on these members of our military? Would you want these men jailed, prosecuted in Canada, maybe have their citizenship stripped too?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The conflicts around the world are complicated, but this decision shouldn't be.

Canada has an obligation to protect their citizens and to judge them when the need arises.

We shouldn't expect other countries to do our duty for us. If Canada wants to sit on the G7 we should put on our grown up pants.

Return Letts to Canada and let him stand trial. If there is no evidence against him, why are the Kurds detaining him in the first place ?

The cost of an investigation, trial or prison shouldn't be a consideration. We detain people in prison all the time even before they are found guilty and awaiting a trial.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Personally, I don't like when we help retirees who get in trouble while living in foreign countries. 

I don't like spending the resources to help save people who climb dangerous mountains or do foolish things.

There are lots of ways we spend money because they are Canadians and like it or not, we don't get to pick and choose who is worthy of help and who is not.

Trying to pick and choose gets far too enmeshed in the politics of the day.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

IIRC soon after the 2015 election some liberal MP launched the issue of revisiting multiple citizenships as a trial balloon. The intention of the trial was to briefly float the idea of limiting citizenships to two for new residents who apply for canadian citizenship.

in other words, new residents with already two or more citizenships would have to renounce to all but one other if they seek to become canadians.

that trial balloon lasted overnight & then disappeared. I can imagine that there would be strong disapproval from some quarters but i think the issue should be revisited again.

multiple citizenships promote benefit shopping. They promote "canadians of convenience" who carry the passport but often live entirely abroad.

i came to actively dislike multiple citizenships when i viewed the antics in claiming benefits by a tiny handful of cmffers who had been adult immigrants & who were miserably unhappy with canada, or so they said.

the most shocking posts came from two who had brought aging parents & parents-in-law into this country & promptly put them on social assistance. Endless were the medical, housing & financial benefits being obtained by those seniors, who had never worked or contributed one iota to this country.

elaborately, our lovely cmffers - each with at least three nationalities - would explain how they hated canada so much, they were planning to move to yet another different country as soon as they could adjust their canadian pensions & retirement benefits.

but. they. were. planning. to. abandon. their. aging. seniors. here. in. canada. so. that. canadian. taxpayers. would. have. to. pay. for. their. old. folks. old. age.

whenever i'd mention this ugly scenario to my friends they'd react with astonishment & disgust. They couldn't imagine that anyone could be so corrupt.

before seeing such obscene violations of decent civic behaviour as the above, i'd never thought much about multiple citizenships. But those cmf stories made a vivid mark. I became opposed to anything more than dual citizenship & i could easily slip over into the camp that says Only One Citizenship Per Canadian.


.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> The conflicts around the world are complicated, but this decision shouldn't be.
> 
> Canada has an obligation to protect their citizens and to judge them when the need arises.
> 
> ...




i for one believe that costs are certainly a consideration. It wouldn't matter what the kurds say, canada would have to re-investigate & re-hear & re-try every single fact detail within its own court system.

let's have some common sense. Kadar was kadar, there were a few others with mega-million dollar settlements alongside kadar although kadar was the one who attracted all the media attention. But there should be no more.

let's consider how to put an end to rackets that benefit shop for citizenships. Disallowing multiple citizenships among new candidates for canadian citizenship is only a baby step.

as for Letts, does anyone know if canada is encouraging/arguing that GB should rethink its citizenship stripping decision on the grounds that Letts junior was born in the UK. IMHO ottawa should take a stand on this. Ottawa should force a physical refusal of jack letts onto a canada-bound aircraft back onto whitehall.


the hong kong situation with at least 300,000 dual canadian/hong kong chinese citizens is a formidable problem, as onlyMO has pointed out. How many of those HK residents could summarily be deported to china & jailed under the new beijing law? what would canada do to help them? 

canadians may not realize it yet but notices are being served not only to the canadian diaspora but also to canadian tourists. It's no longer an issue of Don't get caught abroad with Drugs. Now it's an issue of Don't get caught abroad with anti-Politics.

.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... How can anyone look at that and not conclude that the Conservative party is heavily influenced, if not driven, by devout Christian ideology?
> 
> Even if I liked their economic policies, the heavy religious presence completely rules out the party for me. I want a separation of Church & state, not a series of fundamentalist religious party leaders (Harper & Scheer) who are surrounded by religious colleagues. _Totally unacceptable_.


Let's see ... ten Roman Catholic PMs, four Anglican, three Presbyterian, three Baptists, two United Church and one evangelical. 


As for the public policy while elected being influenced - how's this article about losing abortion rights when a Harper majority gov't was elected work out?
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/harper-majority.html





james4beach said:


> ... I don't think Canadians should hand over control of the country to a party that is driven by (or at least, panders to) religious ideology.


Yet they did to Harper and some of the alleged issues were either dealt with or did not show up as was feared.


Cheers


*PS*



james4beach said:


> I'm sorry you don't like reading about the strong religious slant of the Conservative party, but this is hardly fearmongering. In fact it's a very important part of the Conservative party: it relates to their leader, other party members, and their financing.


So what's your theory for why Harper's majority did not result in the claimed demolition of abortion rights?
What makes you think that a Scheer majority would be unchecked and do what Harper's majority didn't do?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sags didn't read the posts about the difficulty of International evidence gathering that meet the test of domestic crimes. 

Canadians who behave as mercenaries overseas need to be dealt with either in the justice system of that country, or by International tribunals if the crimes are heinous enough. If citizenship needs to be stripped to make that happen, so be it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Scheer is Catholic and is heavily involved in the church. He is a member of the Knights of Columbus and could be considered a "devout" Catholic.

Justin Trudeau is also a Catholic and has no problem supporting many of the issues that would be contrary to the ideology of a devout Catholic.

Scheer has to make up his mind. Does he support the tenants of his religion or give them up to govern the country ?

Scheer says he supports the current law. He doesn't commit to not changing the law.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Sags didn't read the posts about the difficulty of International evidence gathering that meet the test of domestic crimes.
> 
> Canadians who behave as mercenaries overseas need to be dealt with either in the justice system of that country, or by International tribunals if the crimes are heinous enough. If citizenship needs to be stripped to make that happen, so be it.


I read the posts but I think Canada is perfectly capable of undertaking such an investigation.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Now Sags is fearmongering with conjecture and hyperbole just like James. There are many leaders who have personal views that are not reflected in acts of governance. No different from the CEOs of millions of corporations and other political leaders.

I object to any leader having strong religious personal views. So what?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Scheer has stated he believes private member bills should be allowed, which most certainly would happen under a Conservative government.

Documents from 2017 revealed that a PM Scheer would not stop individual members from reopening debate on any legislation.

Andrew Scheer should be honest with Canadians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn1ncOP46PU

In any event, Scheer is going to be forced to give a direct answer during the debates.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

So what? We should all support ANY MP's right to represent their constituency to propose legislation. Not just what comes out of the PMO. Just because a bill is proposed doesn't mean it is going anywhere. Really Sags!


----------



## chantl01 (Mar 17, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes the Child Benefit Harper introduced and the Liberals opposed.
> Of course Trudeau doesn't know, because again, he was busy dropping out of school when this happened.


I find it interesting that one of the banal critiques of Trudeau is always that he dropped out of school. In fact, he has a bachelor of arts degree in literature from McGill University and a bachelor of education degree from the University of British Columbia. Scheer, on the other hand, started his university studies in history at the University of Ottawa, dropped out, and eventually finished his BA at the University of Regina. His non-political professional experience consists of "worked as an insurance broker, a waiter, and in the constituency office of Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer" before he went into politics himself at age 25. Trudeau worked for a few years in BC as a teacher, "then later started a master's degree in environmental geography at McGill University, but withdrew from the program to seek public office among other reasons." Trudeau was 35 years old before he ran for and was elected as an MP.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Canadians won't elect any government that would introduce anti-abortion legislation, regardless if it comes from an individual member or the PM.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> i for one find it distasteful that you are fantasizing that canada's best-trained & most experienced soldiers "undoubtedly" "committed" "atrocities." This is melodrama running amok. It's a dishonourable disservice to good soldiers.


I said that I take issue with the freelancer, lone wolf Canadians or Brits who go overseas to fight; the non-soldiers making their own adventure. I have no problem with official members of the military, who are operating under a proper chain of command, with oversight. Our soldiers are doing their jobs in an honourable way.

You support soldiers right? Me too, real soldiers, acting on official assignments, with a chain of command originating in Canada.

These war zones are incredibly murky (same in Iraq) and someone who just shows up on a commercial flight, finds a local gang, then joins a militia and takes order from some Syrian warload is engaging in very questionable behaviour, IMO.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> There are many leaders who have personal views that are not reflected in acts of governance.


The reality is that Conservatives *do* let their religious views get into their policy decisions. That's the problem. Bringing religion into politics is explicitly part of the Conservative agenda, which started under Harper.

Scheer was standing in an official capacity, voicing his opposition to homosexuality. This isn't a man who is keeping it to himself.

Harper repeatedly let his personal views affect policies relating to women:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/harper-government-axes-funding-for-11-women-s-groups-1.508908
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...roving-maternal-child-health/article18917048/



> The funding cuts were revealed a day after Conservative Sen. Nancy Ruth advised a gathering of women's groups that they risk a backlash from the government unless they "shut the f--k up" on the abortion issue. She said she fears there will be more of an anti-abortion response from her party if women's groups continue to speak out.


Make no mistake, the religious zealots within the Conservative party are proud of their ideology and it absolutely influences their policy decisions. In addition to issues around women and gay rights, this also skews their opinion on other important topics such as immigration and equal treatment of religious minorities.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Canadians won't elect any government that would introduce anti-abortion legislation, regardless if it comes from an individual member or the PM.


I think we all know that NO government will introduce such legislation, and if ANY private member of ANY party introduces such a bill, it is going nowhere. The abortion issue is 'settled' and Scheer has said as much. Canadians have spoken for a very long time. Same as marijuana legalization. What is the fearmongering about?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Harper was also hindered by implementing his radical ideology because he only had a minority government for years.

Once he got a majority, he started to implement his ideology all over and the wheels started coming off his political wagon.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Harper was also hindered by implementing his radical ideology because he only had a minority government for years.
> 
> Once he got a majority, he started to implement his ideology all over and the wheels started coming off his political wagon.


Exactly. Once he got the majority, he started going absolutely nuts! And boy did it show up. It made many of our heads spin saying, what the heck is wrong with this guy?

People tempted to vote Conservative had better think carefully about this. This is a party who has religiously motivated leaders, very similar to America's Christian right. They do a better job at concealing their ideology than the Americans do, but the influence and bias is absolutely there, and it definitely enters policy.

Remember... this is not the traditional Progressive Conservative party. This is Reform/Alliance which took over the party and made social conservatism a key part of the party.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> The reality is that Conservatives *do* let their religious views get into their policy decisions. That's the problem. Bringing religion into politics is explicitly part of the Conservative agenda, which started under Harper.
> 
> Scheer was standing in an official capacity, voicing his opposition to homosexuality. This isn't a man who is keeping it to himself.
> 
> ...



Many people were against same sex marriage some 15-20 years ago. So were many members of the Liberal party. Why do you keep looking around dark corners for spooks?

Why do you keep going on and on and on about it? I am against all those same things to varying degrees. Why do you think religious zealots are any more than a minority of any party? Just because you support socialists and the far left, rather than the far right, shouldn't make any of these peripheral issues affect good judgement on key issues of good governance. At the end of the day, each of us SHOULD vote according to the pros and cons of policy from all sides, and the relative importance, to each of us.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Doug Ford revealed the conservative "strategy" for winning in Ontario.

Pledge to the people you won't cut jobs or benefits and then once elected start whacking jobs and benefits.

Fool us once shame on you. Fool us twice shame on us.

If Andrew Scheer revealed his true policy beliefs he would have no chance of being elected, and he knows it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Sags, and James, I suspect you believe your views of the past are absolute fact vs distortions, and it is pretty apparent you think you can predict the future with great certainty. Whoever is still torturing themselves reading this thread will have their own views of the past and speculation about the future. I guess we will have to just wait and see how the next 4 years unfold. The two of you are as repetitive as a skipping disc.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> I read the posts but I think Canada is perfectly capable of undertaking such an investigation.



the issue is not whether capable, the issue is the Cost.

all those challenging international investigative dollars for one poor lost misguided youth? dumb idea imho. Let Letts go.

look how much canadian taxpayers have had to pay already for poor lost misguided Joshua Boyle. But there was a difference. Boyle was born in this country, grew up in this country, lost a few screws in his upper storey in this country. So he's ours to look after, alas. Boyle is one who may require supervision all the remaining days of his life.

sags won't you give the jack letts issue a re-think? i don't believe the ROC is on board with you at all. I don't believe that canada needs to host Letts, he was born in the UK, held british citizenship initially, he's not our problem. 

everyone can see that these developments - kadar, letts - are problematic for a liberal prime minister who campaigned on keeping full civil rights for all canadians whether born here or not. I imagine that - if he's lucky - trudeau will put off the Letts case until after the october election.

but the steady groundswell of immigration concern, particular these past 2-3 years since the never-before-seen outbreak of illegal border jumping erupted in 2017, are clearly having an inhibitory effect upon classic open immigration liberalism in ottawa.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Once he [Harper]]got the majority, he started going absolutely nuts! And boy did it show up. It made many of our heads spin saying, what the heck is wrong with this guy?



jas4 your profile says you joined here in 2012. I was a cmf members years before that & i do remember your book.

in 2012 stephen harper was still in power. It would be 3 more long years before he would depart rideau hall.

not once do i ever remember you posting that your Head was Spinning or you were asking What the Heck is wrong with stephen harper .:biggrin:


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

What happened.....really...what happened?? I remember a time not so very long ago that professing to be a ...CHRISTAIN...was an asset in re-election and performance as an MP. Now all this vile twisting...snipping on anything related to decency and a just society. Is stealing..or commiting adultry not a Christain value? When you try to cherry pick items that are politically correct and leave out other items it undermines the fundamental fact Canada was built and modelled on Christain values...not Muslim values...Christain.
All of this trepetation on how a Christain might be part of an evil empire ready with stalags for re-education is insulting to my intelligence....indeed...there is certainly a lack of intelligence shown in this thread that i wish i would have never started.
Sad indeed...very sad


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> the issue is not whether capable, the issue is the Cost.
> 
> all those challenging international investigative dollars for one poor lost misguided youth? dumb idea imho. Let Letts go.
> 
> ...


HP, this and your earlier posts 73, 76,77 make sense to me.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Sags, and James, I suspect you believe your views of the past are absolute fact vs distortions, and it is pretty apparent you think you can predict the future with great certainty. Whoever is still torturing themselves reading this thread will have their own views of the past and speculation about the future. I guess we will have to just wait and see how the next 4 years unfold. The two of you are as repetitive as a skipping disc.


You are a patient and determined man. As a reader I can attest there was some torture involved. 

My views align more closely to yours, rather than those living on fantasy island.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> I said that I take issue with the freelancer, lone wolf Canadians or Brits who go overseas to fight; the non-soldiers making their own adventure. I have no problem with official members of the military, who are operating under a proper chain of command, with oversight ...
> 
> These war zones are incredibly murky (same in Iraq) and someone who just shows up on a commercial flight, finds a local gang, then joins a militia and takes order from some Syrian warload is engaging in very questionable behaviour, IMO.



no, you didn't say that. Your post # 62 was confused between canadian mercenaries who volunteered to fight in syria & canadian military forces who were posted to kurdistan to train & support the kurdish army as it led the lion's share of anti-ISIL ground combat.




james4beach said:


> How about the various ex-Canadian military and do-gooders who went to the middle east to join Kurdish rebels. There are _white Canadians who picked up weapons_ and went to kill people in the middle east, fighting those evil ISIS people.
> 
> If the Kurdish groups they fight with become labelled terrorist groups as well, perhaps after discovery of atrocities they have (undoubtedly) committed, should the full weight of Canadian anti-terrorism law come down on _these members of our military_?



i've already mentioned this confusion but perhaps to go over it again in order to clear up the contradiction. Fighting in syria/iraq during the recent anti-ISIL campaign were:

1) canadian special forces who were mostly posted to erbil, kurdistan. They played a crucial role in the downfall of ISIL-held Mosul during the latter days of the campaign. None of these forces committed any "atrocities." At their maximum strength, this squadron numbered roughly 120 of canada's top soldiers.

2) a very tiny number of canadian volunteer mercenaries who went to the middle east to join the kurdish freedom fighters who'd been enlisted to lead ground combat against ISIL, who were allied with the canadian special forces mentioned in previous paragraph.

i've only ever heard about one (1) such volunteer, am assuming there may have been a few more. The one i read about did not commit any "atrocities."

3) a somewhat larger but still very small number of canadian volunteer mercenaries who went to the middle east to join ISIL and to destroy legitimate governments throughout the middle east, in ISIL's brief campaign to build its so-called islamic caliphate across syria & iraq.

i have not heard about "atrocities" that were committed by this very small group of renegade canadian converts to radical islam. Jack Letts would be included in this small group. On the other hand, there were british youth who converted to radical islam, who joined ISIL & who became extraordinarily bloodthirsty. There was even a british woman who filled this role of radical islamic avenger killer.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The key takeaway from this thread is to vote for the Liberals to keep Canada moving forward in the right direction.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

We're not all going to see eye to eye on this. Some of you just lean conservative and due to priorities on taxation, oil & gas (or whatever) you'll vote conservative. I get it.

Here are the big turnoffs for me, that repel me from the Conservative party:

- the religiousness, and how it gets into their policies from women's rights to middle east wars
- there's a racist slant in the party. It attracts racists and people opposed to immigration
- Harper himself was an islamophobe, or at least acted like one (to win votes?)
- corruption by the oil & gas industry, doing whatever Big Energy wants
- corruption with large corporations in general, answering to corporate interests instead of citizens
- existing to serve the interests of the very wealthy and continuing to give them unfair advantages
- supposed "tough on justice", stupid policies which are anti-democratic and hurt law & order
- against fundamental Canadian values, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- general regressiveness; against process, against modern values and social justice

There is somewhat of an echo chamber effect at CMF as much of the participants are older and conservative. I understand that as well. You guys are welcome to keep reinforcing each others' opinions and views, but you don't represent the views of all Canadians.

If you want a future for your party, you'd better start understanding why people like me would never vote Conservative. That is, if you want a future for the conservatives in Canada.

Otherwise you're welcome to continue in your echo chamber, until your party disappears into oblivion


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> ... - corruption with large corporations in general, answering to corporate interests instead of citizens


I nearly choked on my coffee reading that one! 

Oh sorry, that's right, SNC writing their own laws and getting the Liberal Gov't to push it through, was about protecting Canadian jobs.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... Remember... this is not the traditional Progressive Conservative party ...


Makes me wonder what traditional liberals think of the Trudeau requirement to vote one way only on abortion to be a candidate. :biggrin: 

IIRC, something like 53% supported abortion in all circumstances so there's potentially a lot of people being excluded.
I have also heard from some traditional Liberals who weren't keen on all the apologies and payments as well.


Cheers


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

sags said:


> "Jihadi Jack" as the UK right wing media has dubbed him, has never been charged with any crimes, let alone stood trial and been convicted.
> 
> Andrew Scheer revealed his ignorance on the matter when he described "Jihadi Jack" as a "known terrorist".
> 
> ...


Stand trial? Unfortunately, Jack has not broken any Canadian laws; there's nothing he can be charged with here. As solely a Canadian citizen now, the governmant has a responsibility to re-patriate him ( *re-patriate* someone who never set foot in Canada ??? ). I see another $10 million terrorist lotto winner in the making.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... There is somewhat of an echo chamber effect at CMF as much of the participants are older and conservative. I understand that as well. You guys are welcome to keep reinforcing each others' opinions and views, but you don't represent the views of all Canadians.


Can't recall where anyone claimed they did represent all Canadians.

Question for you ... how did the CMF echo chamber twist the poll results to put the Conservatives ahead of the Liberals?
https://globalnews.ca/news/5502690/andrew-scheer-justin-trudeau-prime-minister-ipsos-poll/

I suspect the change is the more important part ... but we'll see what happens in the election.




james4beach said:


> ... If you want a future for your party, you'd better start understanding why people like me would never vote Conservative ... Otherwise you're welcome to continue in your echo chamber, until your party disappears into oblivion ...


Didn't the Conservatives already dive down to two seats in the 1993 election?

Are you predicting a similar result?


Cheers


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

Eclectic12 said:


> I suspect the change is the more important part ... but we'll see what happens in the election.


If the Liberals lose, they'll whine and moan about how we need election reform - until they win again, and then they'll say the system is fine as-is.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

James4deadhead is the perfect poster boy for everything that is wrong in this country..


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

condor said:


> James4deadhead is the perfect poster boy for everything that is wrong in this country..




proof positive that the country is going great guns, full steam ahead

if jas4 represents what is "wrong with this country" then everything else must be upscale from jas4, who as a matter of fact looks pretty good to me

simple logic dictates that everything else must, thereore, be looking unbelievably fantastic


----------



## Parkuser (Mar 12, 2014)

condor said:


> *James4deadhead* is the perfect poster boy for everything that is wrong in this country..


"Christain" values in practice. Flexible, as usual.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Trouble seems to follow Andrew Scheer around and stick to him more than the "Teflon Kid" Justin Trudeau.

First his different statements on abortion, and now he is taken to task by former PC leader Rona Ambrose on his statements on the trade deal with the US.

Did Scheer not know that Rona Ambrose, Brian Mulroney and other PCs were on the free trade advisory panel ? Is he saying they did a terrible job ?

Some Conservative pundits are saying there needs to be changes in Scheer's team. He is following bad advice and wandering off into the wilderness.

Scheer's credibility is being gobbled up by Liberals like a pelican swallowing a fish dinner.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yeah I don't think Mr. Personality is going to last.

Remember though, these new Conservatives don't feel much of an affinity with Mulroney. The Progressive Conservative (PC) party is gone. This party was taken over by Reform & Canadian Alliance a few years ago; different party, different values.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

With the post-Mulroney Kim Campbell Conservatives going from something like one hundred and fifty six seats down to two seats in 1993, likely as a backlash against Mulroney - a lot of people didn't have an affinity for him.

The 1997 election returned them to official party status with twenty seats elected then the 2000 election had twelve seats elected.


Taken over ... saved from the scrap heap - I guess it depends on how one wants to slant it.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Scheer and the Conservative's social conservativeness -- and support for religious fundamentalists -- has come to light even more. And this was only a couple years ago: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-abortion-same-sex-marriage-lgbtq-gay-lesbian-1.5264601



> In 2017, when Scheer was seeking the Conservative leadership, he was asked by an anti-abortion organization to explain how he would handle the issue. He insisted then that both backbench MPs and cabinet ministers would be able to vote freely on matters related to abortion and that he would support the "right" of MPs to "speak out and introduce matters that are important to them."


Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. Long ago, Harper described his ambition of making this the party of the "theo-cons" ... a party of social conservatives and the religious right. This is an important basis of the Conservative party, that I think the business-focused people on this board would rather have us forget about: https://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> This is an important basis of the Conservative party, that I think the business-focused people on this board would rather have us forget about: https://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/


I certainly would not vote for Harper again! However I am willing to give anyone a chance once. I did that with Trudeau and he failed to measure up. Now I have to try again...


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Trudeau confronted by First Nations mad at his broken promise

I like their chant. My feelings exactly! Coward!

Which news media covered this?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The issue sounds a little more complicated than blaming Trudeau for all the delays.

The problem has been known for 50 years, and successive governments have failed to get an agreement in place.

Jane Phillpot was the cabinet minister and along with her friend Jody Wilson-Raybould..........they couldn't get it done.

It sounds like Chief Turtle's demands are for the government to hand over $88 million and he will administer the funds.

The government offers to give the money on a contractual basis over time.

In any event, the project has halted because the two sides can't come to an agreement.

Trudeau should go ahead and order the government build the facility, regardless of what Chief Turtle wants.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It is time for Andrew Scheer to step up and answer the question directly.

_If you win the election and form a government, will you allow the government or any individual MP bring forward a motion that changes the abortion or gay rights laws?
_
_Yes or no ? _

Experienced Conservatives say Scheer is hurting the Conservative chances by refusing to answer.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

These are really pointless questions. They only pertain to politics within the divided Conservative Party. Scheer's own beliefs will not impact Canadians. Certainly, Scheer is as much a hypocrite as Trudeau. He is a politician after all. Anyone who doubts this simply has to look at his contradictory statements over the past 14 days.

There will be no change to the abortion laws. Politicians know this, the pro life people know it. There simply is not enough public support for it. The House would vote down any attempt in a heartbeat. Plus, no politician worth his or her salt want to re open this debate. It is a done deal.

It is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to make same sex marriages illegal. That is the real issue. The ONLY way that this can be approached is by an amendment to the charter. Many self interested politicians and faith leaders are acutely aware of this but continue to purposely mislead and misinform the public to their own benefit. Somehow, I cannot see any Government moving forward to garner the required Provincial support for such an amendment to the Charter. This also is a dead issue.

I with these politicians would start talking about some of the real issues and their proposals. So far....it has been a lot of hot air.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Agree with Ian. These are pointless questions with no substance or effect to Canadians. Continues to remind me of flawed LPs and CDs skipping tracks. 

Time to get to real issues, both economic and social. Economic issues are typically always in the forefront judged by the way politicians try to buy votes.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Growing up in Quebec there was a saying during the Quiet Revolution Lesage era. Roughly translated it was 'when the clergy and the politicians get in bed together it is the public that gets screwed' 

Granted it is a little coarse. But it was true then, and it is true now. You only have to look south to see it at work. Or perhaps in Ontario. And in Alberta from time to time.

And speaking of that, what ever happened to Don Meredith? That so called Pentecostal Pastor that Harper appointed to the Senate. You know the one, he had all the phoney degrees, the one that was unable to get some of his Senate expenses approved (remarkable in itself given other expenses that were approved). He is apparently no longer introducing himself as Dr. That is not kosher when you pay $300 for an on line PHD. He was forced to resign by his fellow Senators over a two year affair with a 16 year old girl. 

Was he ever charged? Is he still a Pentecostal Pastor or did they pull his ticket? Mind you....it did firm up some social conservative votes for Harper which was the whole reason for the appointment. Surprised that he did not appoint McVey or Bruce Carson at the same time.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> The issue sounds a little more complicated than blaming Trudeau for all the delays.
> The problem has been known for 50 years, and successive governments have failed to get an agreement in place ...


OOH ... JT has only been in power about four years or so so that fifty years isn't all on him.

OTOH ... didn't he say he'd do things differently?




sags said:


> ... Jane Phillpot was the cabinet minister and along with her friend Jody Wilson-Raybould..........they couldn't get it done.


Do you have references for Philpott was trying to get an agreement?

She became the inaugural Minister of Indigenous Services in August 2017 then announced in Nov that a specialised medical centre would be created. A feasibility study then design work/programming were listed as requirements before construction would being. She was shuffled out to Treasury Board in Jan 2019.

Seems strange that sweating Philpott's seventeen months in the job while JT is seemingly off the hook as the problem has been around decades.




sags said:


> ... It sounds like Chief Turtle's demands are for the government to hand over $88 million and he will administer the funds.


Seems like you want to put words in Chief Turtle's mouth to fit your theory.

Can you blame Chief Turtle for wanting the funding to be in a trust like the Ontario gov't setup for the mercury cleanup to prevent a change in gov't "reallocating" the funding? What do you think Ford would have done if the $85-million for the cleanup wasn't in a trust?

If it's all about him administering the funds - a trust seems a strange way to go about it.




sags said:


> ... Trudeau should go ahead and order the government build the facility, regardless of what Chief Turtle wants.


LOL ... O'Reagan who replaced Philpott is saying it needs the Ontario gov't to come to the table. Akers, a spokesperson for the Ontario Northern Development Minister Rickford says "There’s absolutely nothing stopping the federal government from fulfilling their commitment to the community. Any suggestion otherwise is blatantly false.”

Even if there weren't claims by different level of gov't that there is or there isn't a delay by the other side - there's this funky thing called an election that is likely more top of mind.


Cheers


*PS*
The concern seems to be more about making sure that after decades, a change in gov't won't open the door to losing the facility and/or it's operational funding. Given what's been hidden and lied about in the past, is it all that strange to want some guarantees?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I don't think Canadians care about Andrew Scheer's personal convictions on abortion or gay rights. 

They do care what he would do if he became the PM in a Conservative government.

He has pledged to the supporters who elected him as leader that he would allow private MP votes on everything.

All Scheer has to say is he won't table any legislation from anyone that conspires to change the abortion and gay rights laws.

Voters are wondering why that is so difficult ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Agree with them or not, the Liberals have achievements in the last 4 years, and they will be unveiling more pledges during the election campaign.

The Conservatives under Scheer have no record of achievement, and resurrecting Harper would be a big mistake, so they surely need a strong election platform.

According to riding by riding analysis, Conservatives will need a political miracle to win a majority government.

The anti-Trudeau campaign just isn't working.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I don't think Canadians care about Andrew Scheer's personal convictions on abortion or gay rights.
> 
> They do care what he would do if he became the PM in a Conservative government.
> 
> ...


Somehow you are not getting the message that the Cons won't open up debates on matters that have already been resolved. Repeat after me.....not on abortion, not on same sex marriages, not on legalization of marijuana, not on pension plans, not on anything that is part of mainstream Canada. It makes no difference whatsoever what is said, or not said.

Give it up already. You CD/LP is skipping many tracks. Your repetitiveness for the 99th time is tiresome.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You say they won't......but why won't Scheer commit to it ?

The right wing reformers elected Scheer as leader in return for extracting a pledge from him that he would allow individual free votes.

They know they can pressure individual MPs to table the legislation they so desperately want on abortion and gay rights. 

They didn't elect Scheer to maintain the status quo.

All Scheer is doing is putting out positions of "plausible denial". Canadians have seen this movie before and aren't buying it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Skip....skip......skip......skip.......skip......skip.......skip........


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You can say that, but why would Scheer avoid committing to keeping those issues closed? Only other conclusion is that Canadians should avoid giving the Conservatives a majority.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

andrewf said:


> You can say that, but why would Scheer avoid committing to keeping those issues closed? Only other conclusion is that Canadians should avoid giving the Conservatives a majority.


He doesn't have to say anything more than he has, i.e that a Con government will NOT re-open the debate on abortion, same sex marriage, etc, etc. I am every bit against the re-opening of those issues as anyone here.... For crying out loud, move on folks to real issues. I see nothing more here than partisan drivel trying to make gold out of a turd.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

andrewf said:


> You can say that, but why would Scheer avoid committing to keeping those issues closed? Only other conclusion is that Canadians should avoid giving the Conservatives a majority.


Perhaps you have selective hearing? Scheer has said, "_I will not reopen these debates (on abortion, and same-sex marriage), I will oppose measures or attempts to reopen this debate, a Conservative government will not reopen these debates, we will oppose measures that reopen these types of questions._"


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> You say they won't......but why won't Scheer commit to it ?


It seems that he has committed to it ... but like Harper's previous commitment on the subject as well as keeping it - I doubt it will change the rhetoric and conspiracy theories.


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The problem I have with Scheer's values is not specifically about his _stated_ position on abortion or gay issues. I don't care what he says his policy is.

His past actions & words are just little glimpses into the broader religious views of the Christian right, which plays a big role in the party. The Conservative party wants to be a party of social conservatives, with significant influence from religious groups.

I don't want religious influence in government, but that's what you'll get with Conservatives -- whether or not they control what their members say about abortion. Plenty of evidence has emerged over the years of a significant religious streak within the Reform/Alliance ... er excuse me, Conservative, party. It started with Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, but Scheer continues it.

Many of these things Conservatives have done since Harper's days (attacks on science, frowning on abortion and gay rights, get-tough-on-crime, eager participation in middle east wars) are meant to pander to a devout religious voter base.

I don't like any of these values.

Doesn't matter what he says his abortion policy is. This goes so much deeper.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> The problem I have with Scheer's values is not specifically about his _stated_ position on abortion or gay issues. I don't care what he says his policy is.
> 
> His past actions & words are just little glimpses into the broader religious views of the Christian right, which plays a big role in the party. The Conservative party wants to be a party of social conservatives, with significant influence from religious groups.
> 
> ...


I'm not surprised that you want to do something about crime, but don't want to "get tough on crime".
Care to offer any suggestions?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I want a Government that is tough on crime.

But I do not want a Government passing crime bills specifically to cater to it's base in the full knowledge that they would be struck down because they violated the Charter like Harper did in his last term.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Scheer has been very careful what he says publicly or in answer to reporter questions.

He says he "his government" will not reopen the abortion or gay rights debate. So, no member of his cabinet will table a motion.

He says that he opposes reopening the debate and he is "confident" his caucus will "understand that". 

What he hasn't said is that he would stop any private member bill to reopen debate. 

In fact, he has done the opposite and pledged he would allow the private member's bills.

Scheer was Speaker of the House and he knows how the system works inside out.

He seems to desire a position where if a private member tables a bill to reopen the debates, he can claim it wasn't his government and he doesn't approve.

But such a bill could be tabled and voted on.

Even Conservatives are saying Scheer has to clarify his position.

*Scheer was asked that question multiple times last week, in a variety of ways. At no point did he offer a clear answer.*_

Scheer did say that a Conservative government led by him would not re-open the abortion and same-sex marriage debates, and that while backbench Conservative MPs are free to follow their individual consciences, he would "oppose measures to reopen" these debates and is "confident" the caucus "understands that."

But when it came to Scheer explaining what he actually thinks — personally, even some of his supporters found his words a little wishy-washy.

"On the issue of same-sex marriage, I think what would have helped would have been to hear him say that his own personal views had evolved since 2005, much as (Alberta Premier) Jason Kenney did during the Alberta provincial campaign. He didn't say that," Rachel Curran, former director of policy to Stephen Harper, told me on Power & Politics.

_


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In riding by riding analysis,

The Liberals are now projected 35% to win a majority government

The Conservatives are projected at 11% to win a majority government.

If either party wins a minority government, the Liberals will control Parliament.

The Conservative support has fallen off a cliff. It might be a good idea for Scheer to address some of the questions that surround him.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem with the Conservatives solutions to crime is they are all directed at "after the fact" punishment, such as minimum sentencing.

The policies don't address crime "before it happens", as in putting more police on the ground in neighborhoods or reforming the detention/prison system.

In the current system, "detention centres" mix people who are "charged" but not yet convicted of both minimal and serious charges, with people who have already been convicted and sentenced. Some of the inmates are awaiting transfer to other prisons. In our local detention center, people with minimum charges have been killed by inmates who were known to be violent and had transferred from other facilities because of their violence.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/elgin-middlesex-detention-centre-death-inmate-1.5079593

While the detention centers fall under Provincial jurisdiction, they house people accused of Federal crimes as well. The Federal government could play a major role by funding new, better designed small detention centers that house inmates according to the severity of the charges. In the EDC for example, the poor design means the guards cannot even watch the inmates activity, which is beyond stupid.

There is almost zero counselling or education in the prison system. The inmates just spend their "dead time" learning how to be a better criminal.

If the government wants to admit it or not, in Canada the inmates run the prisons. We should be looking at other countries with more effective systems.

In fairness, the Liberals haven't done much to change the system for the better either. They have announced reforms to the criminal justice system but don't appear to have done much. The public just isn't all that interested in a problem they don't have to deal with day to day, so it is low priority for any government.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags...those projections are completely meaningless. Harper went into the last election when the polls suggested a majority gov't. He was so sure of it, and because the numbers were so good, he went with a 75 day campaign instead of 50. The feeling was that their numbers would actually improve. It was the opposite...a complete disaster. They went from a projected majority to Opposition with not one seat in Atlantic Canada and a shut out in Canada's largest urban areas. So much for polls prior to a writ being dropped.

Anything can happen. 

Though I would agree with you. If Scheer continues as he has been over the past year, the Liberals don't screw it up, and there is no sudden resurgence in NDP or Green support. 

Those are a lot of IFS.

The Liberals should be very thankful that the Conservatives elected a weak second stringer candidate as Leader. Had someone like Rona Ambrose been at the helm I believe that the polling numbers would be very different and the Party morale would be much higher than it currently is.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

ian said:


> sags...those projections are completely meaningless. Harper went into the last election when the polls suggested a majority gov't. He was so sure of it, and because the numbers were so good, he went with a 75 day campaign instead of 50. The feeling was that their numbers would actually improve. It was the opposite...a complete disaster. They went from a projected majority to Opposition with not one seat in Atlantic Canada and a shut out in Canada's largest urban areas. So much for polls prior to a writ being dropped.
> 
> Anything can happen ...


And then the polls mid-race had the Mulcair's NDP coasting to a majority where we all know how that turned out.

One can take what one wants from the polls but at the end of the day, the election polls are all that will matter.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Tough on crime really is just a bunch of feel good measures, with total disregard for actually reducing crime.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Of course. 

Every damm one of them is in favour of less crime, law and order, lower taxes, reducing government waste, helping the middle class, the environment, reducing poverty levels, more defense spending, affordable homes, ......the list goes on.

Motherhood issues that give us all the warm and fuzzies. And we fall for all that jazz every election time.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Its pretty lol that both Sheer and Junior are religious and anti abortion. I looks like many don't know this.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The problem I have with Scheer's values is not specifically about his _stated_ position on abortion or gay issues. I don't care what he says his policy is ...


Must be exhausting for you to ignore the stated position, shift through all the back room influences and still be objective. :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Must be exhausting for you to ignore the stated position, shift through all the back room influences and still be objective. :rolleyes2:


And it must be very easy for you to put your head in the sand, comfortable with some policies you like, but ignoring some very serious flaws in the party as a whole.

Think about it: If you had a party that had a significant Sharia Law influence in it, would you be comfortable voting for them even though they say reasonable things?

You're smarter than that Eclectic. You have to look at the basis of the party, the values they have shown over the years, and their actions -- not just words.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Andrew Scheer continues the anti-Trudeau election policy plan. 

I think Canadians are looking at Andrew Scheer and seeing an empty suit.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Andrew Scheer continues the anti-Trudeau election policy plan.


Huge mistake. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be business-minded people with "go get 'em" attitudes?

Who wants to vote for a chronic whiner?

Trudeau has already produced historically low unemployment and the strongest economy in years, the envy of the developed world, and groundbreaking carbon pricing to modernize Canada. Where is Scheer's plan? What's he going to do... how is he going to improve on the best economy in many years?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nope......in an interview with the Toronto Star editorial board (available online), Scheer is still moaning on about SNC Lavalin, ethics and blah, blah, blah.

Canadians have heard all this and made up their minds it is a small bump on a big log.

People want to know what the Conservatives will do for them and the answer is......the opposite to whatever Trudeau is doing.

Sad the Conservatives have fallen so far. The right wing Reformers have ruined the Conservative Party.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

James........ignore all the policies (or lack thereof) and vote for Andrew Scheer because Trudeau is a bad man.

Remember that he did lobby too hard to save Canadian jobs in Quebec (the horror), dress up in Indian garb (ghastly), and booted MPs for secretly taping conversations with fellow cabinet ministers and the PMO and undermining his leadership whenever possible (the nerve of that man).

Is that not reason enough to vote for Andrew Scheer ?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sags, you are not even responding or replying to a post. You just continue to parrot the same stuff over and over. 

Do you realize how juvenile it comes across. 

AR's analogy of a skipping record was apt.

Either you are a paid or volunteer troll, or you need to find some other outlets. 

Imagine someone collating all the crap you have posted here over time and reading it at your memorial service. A life well lived? I think not.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> And it must be very easy for you to put your head in the sand, comfortable with some policies you like, but ignoring some very serious flaws in the party as a whole ...


Having never seen a perfect political party with a perfect slate of candidates - isn't this always the trade off?

Sorry ... I forgot the Liberals are perfect despite their tying the doling out of public funds to a combination of whether the employer's beliefs match the gov't position (if yes, all's good - if not, funding that used to be acceptable is denied).




james4beach said:


> ... Think about it: If you had a party that had a significant Sharia Law influence in it, would you be comfortable voting for them even though they say reasonable things?


One of your regular sources says Sharia Law is already in Canada and is not to be feared.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/shariah-religion-islamophobia-1.4295453




james4beach said:


> You have to look at the basis of the party, the values they have shown over the years, and their actions -- not just words.


How far back do you go? Four years? Ten years? Back to the 1930's?


Cheers


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Of course I wouldn't look back to the 1930s. That isn't even relevant to these Conservatives. Look at their history since formation by the merger of Reform & Canadian Alliance about 15 years ago. Study the key figures in the party's creation such as Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper. This is a relatively new, populist right wing party with a religious slant.

Yes there are tradeoffs with all these parties. We choose whatever works for us. I don't like the tradeoff the Conservatives one bit. They represent nearly the polar opposite to my values.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think there is more alignment than you think between the parties. Most differences are minor, with the key differences being fiscal balances (most important on my list - favour Cons) and certain social conservative policies (again the Cons - which I abhor). The question is which is more potentially damaging long term. Canadians are generally left of center in their thinking on social policy, so there is almost no risk of real damage from any radical social conservative policy for more than one electoral term. But fiscal damage can become structural and very hard to pull back once the barn door has been opened.

In my mind, the Liberals are irresponsible with our finances and I am highly disappointed in Bill Morneau who I thought, as a businessman, would be way more disciplined like Paul Martin. but I should have known better. He has a silver spoon in his mouth just like JT, having never had to really work for a living. Neither of them know what it is like to need to do real work.

We ultimately get what we deserve I suppose. There is nowhere else that I can really go in the developed world and see much better prospects. Australia is closest to my total thinking with their kick *** attitude on immigration and refugees but their finances are no more robust. Off to New Zealand maybe instead. If I didn't have so many unrealized cap gains, those could be real options.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

It will be interesting to see....SAGMANS ....reponse to the fact that JT will forgo most of the debates....except one in English and the other in french both hosted by Liberal Comittee bone heads.
I could sum up the reason.....when you are ...King Of Canada...nay to the peasants.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Of course I wouldn't look back to the 1930s. That isn't even relevant to these Conservatives ...


Interesting ... the '30's Conservatives used the controversial section 98 of the Criminal Code that did away with presumption of innocence. Simply attending meetings of an outlawed organisation or publicly speaking in its defense or distributing its literature carried a penalty of up to 20 years in prison. 

PET would later use the War Measures Act's Defence of Canada section that section 98 was the template for in the '70 October crises.


Seems far worse that what I think might happen but clearly we see different political limits.





james4beach said:


> ... Yes there are tradeoffs with all these parties. We choose whatever works for us. I don't like the tradeoff the Conservatives one bit. They represent nearly the polar opposite to my values.


Really? 

They sound more like they are copying each other in the rush to appeal to all possible voters.


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On the front page of the Conservatives official website they have 6 pictures of Justin Trudeau and 5 of Andrew Scheer.

https://www.conservative.ca/

On the front page of the Liberal official website they have 6 pictures of Justin Trudeau and 0 of Andrew Scheer.

https://www.liberal.ca/

The Conservatives are fixated on Justin Trudeau for some reason.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Michael Cohen writes a good article on why Andrew Scheer's refusal to fully commit to not opening the abortion debate is troubling for a lot of voters.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-question-to-ask-about-andrew-scheer-and-abortion/

_So it’s hardly surprising that during the Conservative leadership contest, Scheer was eagerly interviewed by the pro-life group Right Now. He told them that while his party wouldn’t officially reopen the issue, “I’ve always voted in favour of pro-life legislation … I can assure you that I support the right of individual MPs to speak out and bring, introduce matters that are important to them.”

The group itself then issued a concluding statement to its community, and it’s extremely significant: “Andrew Scheer has said that the government will not introduce legislation on abortion. When leadership candidates (or even elected leaders) of political parties say that, it means the cabinet. Let’s say the Conservatives win 180 seats in the next federal election and of the 180 MPs, 30 of them are in cabinet. That means 150 other Conservative MPs would be allowed to introduce a private members’ bill on this. He also never said that he would whip his cabinet not to vote for pro-life motions or bills nor did he say he himself would not vote for them either.”

Opponents of abortion went on to support Scheer during the contest, and their votes were—to the surprise and often chagrin of many—sufficient to catapult him above Maxime Bernier in the 13th ballot._

_The culture and climate of choice can be dented gradually and carefully, and just as Andrew Scheer has the absolute right to his beliefs, those who have fought for so long for abortion rights need to know where potential prime ministers genuinely stand.
_


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Right. Scheer is quite religious, he's pro-life, and religion is clearly both a big part of his life and his views on public policy.

I think Eclectic12 is arguing that he may just be trying to court the religious voters, appeal them and get their vote. I think the history of the Conservative party since formation in 2003 shows it goes deeper, that many party members are actually quite religious (and leaning towards the fundamentalist and evangelical faiths).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

He has to position himself from a threat from the right flank, i.e. PPC, as well as appeal to the center. 

Still, you two still are skipping like a damaged CD.....skip.....skip....skip....skip. Maybe 103 times already.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Catholic church believes strongly that abortion is equivalent to homicide and a grave sin.

Would a deeply devout Andrew Scheer stand aside if he had the power to change the law ?

That...........is a key question that voters must consider, and one which Scheer could quite easily put to rest.

Justin Trudeau is also Catholic and has no problem of publicly supporting abortion rights. Stephen Harper blocked all attempts to change the law.

I think the "skipping" is being done by the Conservatives who would like to skip around answering a question on an important issue for Canadians.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> The Conservatives are fixated on Justin Trudeau for some reason.


I've got a funny little story to share.

I was reading provincial party platforms and articles before voting in the provincial election. What sealed the deal for me was the Manitoba PC web site, where I found an article that said something like: the NDP wants to cooperate with Justin Trudeau's carbon tax, which will make it more expensive to fill your mini van.

My reaction was: NDP sounds great! I want Manitoba to join the national strategy, and cooperate with federal environmental policies, instead of being a nuisance like Alberta & Ontario.

Then I went and cast my vote.

Thanks, Manitoba PCs! Edit: I found the article.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

james4beach said:


> the Conservative party since formation in 2003 shows it goes deeper, that many party members are actually quite religious (and leaning towards the fundamentalist and evangelical faiths).


The religiosity comes from the Reform/Social Credit side of the house. I think the PCs were much less religiously motivated. Personally I am suspicious of the "moral" religious motives and do not support them. I voted for Chong, but basically gave up when Scheer won.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I had Chong high on my ballot as well and Lisa among a few others.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... I think Eclectic12 is arguing that he may just be trying to court the religious voters, appeal them and get their vote. I think the history of the Conservative party since formation in 2003 shows it goes deeper, that many party members are actually quite religious (and leaning towards the fundamentalist and evangelical faiths).


When the Supreme Court ruled that the existing restrictions violated the charter and kicked it back to the gov't to come up with restrictions, only two attempts were made to change it that I can find record of.

What's in it for Scheer to open this can of worms?




sags said:


> The Catholic church believes strongly that abortion is equivalent to homicide and a grave sin.
> Would a deeply devout Andrew Scheer stand aside if he had the power to change the law ?


What makes you think he won't stick to what he said, like Harper did? (see post # 130).




sags said:


> Justin Trudeau is also Catholic and has no problem of publicly supporting abortion rights.


Makes me wonder why public funds are:
a) okay to give to pro-choice groups.
b) okay to give to pipeline protestors (Free Speech, don't ya know?)
c) bad to give to pro-life groups.

It looks like for JT and the Liberals, "free speech" only applies to those in agreement with gov't policy and those who disagree with gov't policy that the PM is lukewarm or does not care about.




sags said:


> ... Stephen Harper blocked all attempts to change the law.


There's no law to change. 

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled the law restricting access violated the charter, leaving Canada with no restrictions. Contrary to what has been implied or outright misrepresented by some (particularly the media), the SC did not rule that there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7.


If change is going to come - it will be a new law that restricts abortion access. Mulroney's majority gov't was unsuccessful both times (approximately 74% of all seats in '84 and 57% in '88).


Cheers


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Some pretty funny stuff in the Hasan Minhaj interview with Trudeau.

Hasan is a bit of a lefty, but he's a funny guy and a sharp interviewer. Trudeau seems a bit out of his league with this guy.












ltr


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes I was not aware of him and will watch other of his episodes on Netflix. It was well-done. Just a slight roasting.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Seems like a heavily edited interview. Not sure what the thesis is. That Trudeau is not the perfect progressive? He has to be somewhat pragmatic. In Canada that means not trying to choke the oil industry. It is a bit rich that an American is roasting Canada for not bending over backwards for climate change.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

They call it a "comedy series". 
Must be part of the internet in-crowd that Trudeau wanted to rub sticks with. 
Netflix's answer to Royal Canadian Air Farce perhaps.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

No, the US has a strong genre of comedian/journalists that mostly graduated from the Daily Show. Minhaj's show is Netflix's attempt at HBO's last week tonight with John Oliver.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Who knew.
You'd think with Trudeau's familiarity and participation in US trash tv that he'd be eminently qualified to lead the pack in the Munk debate on foreign policy.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Munk debates are very well done. I just watched a re-run of one that discussed China.

Trudeau should do the Munk debate. The other debates are local and the campaign is short. 

He doesn't want to spend all his time prepping for local debates that Liberal MPs can attend. 

Trudeau wants to go forth and greet the maddening crowds.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Canadian government is ordered to pay up to $40,000 per indigenous child who was put into the reserve welfare system under the Jordan Principle.

The Harper Government enacted the policy in 2007 until the Trudeau government changed the law.

Another Harper problem left for Trudeau to fix and another reason not to vote for a right wing reformer Conservative PM.

All they do is create problems someone else has to fix.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/child-welfare-on-reserve-compensation-1.5272667


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Sagbrain......please do not read Rx Murphys commentary in todays National Post....your brain will explode.

Again...please do not read the article......


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

condor said:


> Sagbrain......please do not read Rx Murphys commentary in todays National Post....your brain will explode.
> Again...please do not read the article......


Sorry Condor, I couldn't help it _"The Trudeau government of Ontario and Quebec__ went to the mat for SNC. Now contrast. For court cases concerning its own decision to approve Trans Mountain, the government wasn’t even there. It stayed completely out of it. It gave the judicial field over entirely to its opponents. Its absence and indifference startled even the judge!"_

I have my windex ready to clean brains off of my laptop screen if necessary.

I enjoy how Rex can cut someone to ribbons without resorting to calling them an entitled P.O.S. or reminding us of their duplicity in rehiring Gerald Butts.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^Thanks for mentioning that Condor and for posting that OMO. It didn't appear in my digital version today but I'm sure it will tomorrow. 

Hope you guys saw his last 3 too. Classics! 

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...lin-should-trudeau-be-lecturing-about-the-law

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...ve-the-empathy-to-interrogate-our-feminist-pm

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...-disagree-justin-trudeaus-amazing-doublespeak


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> The Canadian government is ordered to pay up to $40,000 per indigenous child who was put into the reserve welfare system under the Jordan Principle.
> The Harper Government enacted the policy in 2007 until the Trudeau government changed the law.
> 
> Another Harper problem left for Trudeau to fix and another reason not to vote for a right wing reformer Conservative PM ...


??? ... what parts are you blaming Harper for?

That Jordan River Anderson died before Harper came into power?
That your own article says the under funding was known all the way back to 2000 and probably has existed for a lot longer so it's not Harper's creation?
That the First Nations created "Jordan Principle" was introduced as a private members motion that unanimously passed by the House of Commons?
That follow on private members bills that tried to turn the "Jordon Principle" into law failed?
That Trudeau's gov't couldn't change a law that wasn't passed?
That Trudeau's gov't was in power when the CHRC issued their rulings?


With Trudeau's gov't saying the lack of an agreement with the Ontario provincial gov't for funding is a problem for establishing mercury treatment centre for Grassy Narrows - isn't this the same problem as when the Liberal gov't and Manitoba couldn't agree funding on Anderson's home care before he died?


Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Jordan Principle was passed in 2007. Stephen Harper was the PM. 

_The Jordan's Principle portion of the order covers a time frame from Dec. 12, 2007— when the House of Commons adopted Jordan's Principle — to Nov. 2, 2017 — when the tribunal ordered Canada to change its definition of Jordan's Principle and review previously denied requests._


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

There is the private members motion that was passed.
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2007/12/5/jean-crowder-1/

But for bills, there is a defeated one introduced by the NDP from 2011.

Unless you have a reference to a bill that was passed on the subject, at best the Liberals changed the policy/principal - not law.


So yes, Harper was PM but since FN says they were talking to previous Liberal gov'ts, they clearly had a hand in the under funding as well.
I doubt the Liberals created the problem either but lots of gov'ts have done little to nothing about it.


BTW ... don't you find it strange that the HOC passed the private member's motion in Dec '07 but the children covered start pretty much two years earlier?


> The ruling covers all children in the care of the child welfare system at any point *from Jan.1, 2006*, to a date to be determined by the tribunal.



Cheers


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sorry but Harper owns it.

Jordan's Principle has been argued multiple times in court and before the Human Rights Commission, so it has legal standing.

The main issue is the narrow interpretation of the principle by the Harper government. It was so narrow that no child ever qualified.

_First Nations children experience service delays, disruptions and denials due to jurisdictional payment disputes within and between federal and provincial/territorial governments. The House of Commons sought to ensure First Nations children could access government services on the same terms as other children when it unanimously passed a private members motion in support of Jordan's Principle in 2007. Jordan's Principle states that when a jurisdictional dispute arises regarding public services for a First Nations child that are otherwise available to other children, the government of first contact pays for the service and addresses payment disputes later. *Unfortunately, the federal government adopted a definition of Jordan's Principle that was so narrow (complex medical needs with multiple service providers) that no child ever qualified.* *This narrow definition has been found to be unlawful by the Federal Court of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.* The present commentary describes Jordan's Principle, the legal cases that have considered it and the implications of those decisions for health care providers._

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27441016


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

No comment at all from Saggy...i am relieved he did not try to take a peek at Rex Murphys article in the National Post.
If he had read it we would have seen some kind of silly rebuttal by now. The silence from him is so unusal......


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rex Murphy doesn't sound happy these days.

His columns consist of saying Trudeau is a terrible leader and Scheer is a waste of time.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rex Murphy doesn't sound happy these days.
> 
> His columns consist of saying Trudeau is a terrible leader and Scheer is a waste of time.


I'd say most people agree with at least half of that statement, if not more of it.


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

Saggy....that is not a rebuttal...it just gives your opinion and makes a statement.
Step up to the plate like you always do....challenge all the points Rex made...the silence and no comment is very telling


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Rex is rehashing old grievances against Trudeau that the public has long since disregarded as trivial errors in judgement.

As to why he doesn't like Scheer, apparently he views him as not up to the task of facing Trudeau.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Rex is rehashing old grievances against Trudeau that the public has long since disregarded as trivial errors in judgement.
> 
> As to why he doesn't like Scheer, apparently he views him as not up to the task of facing Trudeau.


The "trivial errors in judgement", are a pattern of serious flaws in ethics and a failure to act in the best interests of the country.
That's what has people so upset. There is a significant disconnect between these groups.

I agree, Scheer isn't doing a good job in the PR game.

The problem is the same, Conservatives need to understand that the glaringly obvious flaws are not a concern to Liberal voters, and need to figure out what is.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The polls showed a little blip in support for the Liberals but recent polling shows they have bounced back and are now favored to win another majority government.

I don't think average Canadians care much about the so called "serious flaws in ethics" beyond Conservative supporters.

If they did, it would be reflected in the poll numbers and trends. The key issues in the election are ones that Trudeau fares well in.

The economy, climate change, immigration, social programs, justice reform, middle class taxes, childcare, pharmacare, ubi,....are key issues for the electorate.

Trudeau biggest failure was failing to achieve election reform, but the people didn't support any change so Trudeau listened to them.

As observed by the editorial board of the Toronto Star, Scheer is most animated when he is complaining about Justin Trudeau.

That isn't a winning election platform.


----------

