Trudeau draws the line for the Liberals on "pro-choice"

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I do agree that he's started making overtures to Alberta and demonstrating consideration for this province as a critical part of Canada. Publically supporting Keystone, speaking to energy leaders at the Petroleum Club and touring the Oil Sands are evidence of this. I think it is great.

He certainly doesn't say much nice about Alberta when he's speaking in French.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It think Harper has done a great job in terms of trade relations, overall I think he's been good on the human rights front, I would have liked to see the Harper government acting in a stronger way in terms of things like the imprisoned journalist in egypt. I have no trouble with the maintenance on International relations, and think that he's taken a good lead role in terms of Ukraine.

I'm happy with his stance on Iran.

I don't have many problems with his foreign policy at all.

And this might just be a matter of disagreement in foreign politics between the two of us. I haven't been impressed at all with the way he's waded into Middle East politics, specifically his dog and pony show in the Israeli parliament. I also think he's done poorly in his relations with the UN (the UN's own failings aside), and his international record on climate change hasn't been encouraging.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It think Harper has done a great job in terms of trade relations, overall I think he's been good on the human rights front, I would have liked to see the Harper government acting in a stronger way in terms of things like the imprisoned journalist in egypt. I have no trouble with the maintenance on International relations, and think that he's taken a good lead role in terms of Ukraine.

I'm happy with his stance on Iran.

I don't have many problems with his foreign policy at all.

One that does deserve discussion is his handling of China and the Canada-China trade deal.

It was a good lesson for him and the rest of the world on dealing with China. He at first took a pretty hard line stance guided by a naive or misunderstood impression of who needed who more. Now he appears to be much more conciliatory after getting smacked around. They called his bluff and it ended in a deal that is far too one-sided.

It's certainly good for our energy industry, but we were negotiating from a position of weakness and it shows. Don't get me wrong, we need an infusion of foreign capital to develop the oil sands, but I think we got bent over.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What specific actions and/or policies could possibly make you consider the Liberals? When Trudeau announced he was running for the party leadership, his first speech was in his home riding (as is customary), but his second speech was in Calgary. He's spoken to Alberta's business leaders at the Petroleum Club, and he supports increasing oilsands development and pipeline construction (including Keystone XL). While there are many legitimate reasons to criticize him (I certainly have a few of my own), "he doesn't care about Alberta and our interests" isn't one of them.

Talk is cheap. The truth is, there is no chance that I would vote Liberal in the next election under any circumstance. It would actually require that they return to government then demonstrate a level of care - despite the fact that they will have virtually no party support in this province - before I gave them consideration.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Talk is cheap. The truth is, there is no chance that I would vote Liberal in the next election under any circumstance. It would actually require that they return to government then demonstrate a level of care - despite the fact that they will have virtually no party support in this province - before I gave them consideration.

I'm just posing this as a theory, but is it possible that one of the reasons they don't identify the needs of Albertans (a debatable point) is because they have so few elected Albertan representatives to present those needs?

[Flash Walken]

That's a nice closed circuit of thought there, Resolute.

"I'd only vote for the liberals if they represent my interests, but I am ardently opposed to putting them in a position where they could represent my interets. In that way, I don't have to really ever consider voting for a different party but am able to maintain the illusion that I am not a dyed in the wool partisan."

[Resolute 14]

Won't disagree with the first part, Flash, but your ad hominem is well off the mark. Unlike most Liberal partisans here who try to pass themselves off as neutral or unbiased, I have never made a pretense toward political objectivity. But that bias exists as a result of my perceptions of past Liberal governments, and it would take a Liberal government to change them.

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm just posing this as a theory, but is it possible that one of the reasons they don't identify the needs of Albertans (a debatable point) is because they have so few elected Albertan representatives to present those needs?

Absolutely. And there should be little doubt that Chretien's overt disdain for our province stemmed from this. But it is a chicken and egg problem for the Liberals. They have done nothing in the past several decades to warrant that support, so why should anyone vote for them? And if the Liberals are to be a true federalist party, they need to work for all Canadians, not just those from areas that vote for them.

I'm not prepared to consider them, much less commit to casting a vote in their favour, until they commit themselves.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Absolutely. And there should be little doubt that Chretien's overt disdain for our province stemmed from this. But it is a chicken and egg problem for the Liberals. They have done nothing in the past several decades to warrant that support, so why should anyone vote for them? And if the Liberals are to be a true federalist party, they need to work for all Canadians, not just those from areas that vote for them.

Well, to be fair, there really hasn't been a really notable Liberal presence in Alberta for as far back as I can remember. At least not since Pearson, and probably further back (I don't feel like looking it up). However, the problem with federalism is that certain provinces are always going to be asked to sacrifice more than others in the name of the greater good of the country. Has Alberta maybe had to share an unfair load in that? Recently, probably yes, but historically has that always been the case? Is it not likely to shift back at some point in the future?

I guess my issue with this "what about us?" cry from Albertans is that many of the policies that they've hated from the Liberals, such as Kyoto, various climate change strategies, gay marriage, etc., may have seemed disadvantageous for Alberta but are clearly designed to improve the overall health of the country. You can argue their effectiveness if you'd like but many Albertans seem to more commonly criticize the intentions, which to me is a bit ridiculous.

[Resolute 14]

Recently? I'd say the problem of sharing an unfair load likely goes back as far as the lack of a notable Liberal presence - but perhaps even right to day 1 when Alberta became a province but without its own resource rights that the eastern provinces enjoyed. I'd say Alberta (particularly Calgary) has spent a significant percentage of its history fighting for equality against Liberal federal governments. Now, in fairness, a large part of this overall problem is due to the inequities in the nation's federal makeup. After all, Reform split from the PCs in part because the west was left behind by that party as well.

Ultimately, when you spend that much time being told you have to make the sacrifices for others, people become jaded. And given that the majority of this province's population are either people who have immigrated from other regions or are children of such immigrants, you have to wonder just what the Liberals have done wrong out here such that people originally from Liberal supporting areas of the country inevitably change allegiances.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Anyways, my views on the pretty empty headed pony are well known here, so no point in me rehashing the subject.

The irony of this post, when followed by multiple long winded posts rehashing the subject, including criticism of "flip flopping" has certainly not been lost on me.

[MarchHare]

And given that the majority of this province's population are either people who have immigrated from other regions or are children of such immigrants, you have to wonder just what the Liberals have done wrong out here such that people originally from Liberal supporting areas of the country inevitably change allegiances.

I think that's largely a matter of people voting with their own self-interest in mind. For example, someone living in PEI is very unlikely to support a party that wants to cut back or eliminate the Equalization program because of the negative effects that would have on their home province; however, if that same person moves to Alberta, their situation would be reversed. Additionally, the Reform Party (and subsequently the CPC) branded themselves as champions of Western interests, so they get "home team" support from people who live here regardless of where they were from originally.

[Roughneck]

Typical chicken and egg situation for a lot of voters (not the "I won't vote Liberal because of the NEP crowd" because they're just lost causes). Won't vote Liberal because they don't care about Alberta, but the Liberals don't care about Alberta because people don't vote for them.


However the silliness of such a position is because what is best for Alberta is swing ridings. If the CPC feels like their fortress is threatened, things will get better for Alberta. If the Liberals feel they could actually make gains in Alberta, things will get better. Chima winning Calgary-Centre and a push in Confederation could be what we need to get some SE LRT funding. Dare to dream.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Recently? I'd say the problem of sharing an unfair load likely goes back as far as the lack of a notable Liberal presence - but perhaps even right to day 1 when Alberta became a province but without its own resource rights that the eastern provinces enjoyed. I'd say Alberta (particularly Calgary) has spent a significant percentage of its history fighting for equality against Liberal federal governments. Now, in fairness, a large part of this overall problem is due to the inequities in the nation's federal makeup. After all, Reform split from the PCs in part because the west was left behind by that party as well.

Ultimately, when you spend that much time being told you have to make the sacrifices for others, people become jaded. And given that the majority of this province's population are either people who have immigrated from other regions or are children of such immigrants, you have to wonder just what the Liberals have done wrong out here such that people originally from Liberal supporting areas of the country inevitably change allegiances.

Where to begin. First it has to be noted that Alberta had a Liberal Premier before any other party. We were a definite have not province until Leduc, and to this day are the only province to ever default. That day federal government who constantly screws us had to bail out the province and Socred government of the day.

More recently, while its fun to say how the Liberals were constantly trying to steal our money and resources, it has to be recognized that the federal government (Liberal) also made a lot of concessions to build up Ft. McMurray into what it is today. There were (and still are) various royalty provisions and things like that to help spur growth and investment into the oilsands and the resource industries in general. I know that's jot as sexy and fun to talk about, but frankly a lot of what's there today exists as it does in part due to these policies and programs.

[Troubamaker]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Typical chicken and egg situation for a lot of voters (not the "I won't vote Liberal because of the NEP crowd" because they're just lost causes). Won't vote Liberal because they don't care about Alberta, but the Liberals don't care about Alberta because people don't vote for them.


However the silliness of such a position is because what is best for Alberta is swing ridings. If the CPC feels like their fortress is threatened, things will get better for Alberta. If the Liberals feel they could actually make gains in Alberta, things will get better. Chima winning Calgary-Centre and a push in Confederation could be what we need to get some SE LRT funding. Dare to dream.

This is so true. Didn't Bunk post on here last year how much money Calgary got in Federal funding compared to other 'close ridings' in Ontario? we got squat because Harper knows he doesn't have to spend a dime here.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

If, as you suggest, the average Canadian, after reading about Harper's personal attack on the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, probably the most powerful and most respected institution in Canada, one that has without question had a profound impact on the day to day life of every single Canadian, will come away from that discourse with a nonsensical observation about salaries, then this country is truly lost. I refuse to believe that this is the case, however.

So.. just curious, what is your opinion as to why most voters really don't care about a public squabble between the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Stephen Harper on which rich lawyer is and isn't eligible for appointment to the SC of Canada?

I think most Canadians have more important things to worry about... like being able to pay their monthly mortgage or rent payment and which bills they can afford to pay this month and which they might be able to let slide till next month.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Rerun

So.. just curious, what is your opinion as to why most voters really don't care about a public squabble between the Supreme Court Chief Justice and Stephen Harper on which rich lawyer is and isn't eligible for appointment to the SC of Canada?

I think most Canadians have more important things to worry about... like being able to pay their monthly mortgage or rent payment and which bills they can afford to pay this month and which they might be able to let slide till next month.

Did I miss an election? When did we establish that most voters don't really care?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What specific actions and/or policies could possibly make you consider the Liberals? When Trudeau announced he was running for the party leadership, his first speech was in his home riding (as is customary), but his second speech was in Calgary. He's spoken to Alberta's business leaders at the Petroleum Club, and he supports increasing oilsands development and pipeline construction (including Keystone XL). While there are many legitimate reasons to criticize him (I certainly have a few of my own), "he doesn't care about Alberta and our interests" isn't one of them.

Let's be honest here - Trudeau is not and never will be the champion of the oil sands. Keystone XL is nice, but anything less than Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and an eastern pipeline is a direct hit to Alberta's economy.

Supporting the Canadian pipelines is particularly important if the US blocks Keystone - we need to have our own solution.

Trudeau wants Keystone, but he wants it as a substitute for Northern Gateway - not as a complimentary piece.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Did I miss an election? When did we establish that most voters don't really care?

By posting what you did..

Originally Posted by Makarov

Amazingly, this "scandal" has generated twice as many posts in half as many days as the thread discussing the Prime Minister's appalling behavior towards the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

the implication is that people on this board don't seem to care about this issue since they aren't posting about...

Threads that don't interest people quickly die due to lack of posts. Most of the people posting in Supreme Court thread are lawyers and the fervent anti-Harperists, expressing their outrage at Harper's behaviour. ...

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

May 8th, after the state department in the U.S. stated that the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline was negligible. the below is not a ringing endorsement of keystone or making a statement of support for the pipeline.

“The fact it hasn’t been approved yet is because this government has not done a credible job on demonstrating it is serious about climate change, and it is serious about protecting our environment,” Trudeau said.
“If this government had taken on its responsibilities towards the environment, Canadians and our trading partners wouldn’t be so doubtful of its capacity to protect our natural environment and wouldn’t have allowed what has happened, which is unfortunate, which is that the oilsands have become in the eyes of far too many a poster-child for climate change."

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The context of this statement is that he's blaming The Harper Government for delaying the American approval of the pipeline. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if that accusation has any merit, but he's not at all saying he doesn't support Keystone XL; rather, he's saying that if he were PM, he would have taken steps to obtain approval from the US State Department faster than what Harper has accomplished.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As a party leader, who's first concern should be the economics of the thing. The message is simple, the State department has given their sign up, they've said that environmentally the impact of the Pipeline is negligible if not better then running fuels through rail, there's no reason not to approve it.

Trudeau''s statement as a party leader is one that shouldn't be made at this point, he's playing partisan politics with something of vast importance to this countries economy, and giving ammunition to American anti-keystone groups.

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, he's not. He's stating that these groups already have ammunition because of the failure of the Harper government to manage the image of the oilsands.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I disagree with you on this matter.

I'm not sure what basis you have for disagreeing. Unless I'm missing some context, Trudeau is literally saying "If Canada had shown more of a commitment to protecting the environment, others would trust us to mange the pipeline and would have approved it."

There's absolutely nothing negative about the pipeline, only an attack on the Harper Gov't's general environmental record.

In fact, by seemingly lamenting the fact that the poor envir. record has undermined support for the pipeline, it's pro-pipeline if anything.

[Resolute 14]

Except that what Trudeau is saying is pretty much empty BS. The United States doesn't care one whit about Canada's laws or programs. The environmental policy would be coming from Washington, not Ottawa. And that's really only if you are naive enough to believe this is about anything other than lobbying and political pressure.

And Slava, thanks, but I know my history. As I said, for me it is a perception issue and the Liberals need to change that perception.