Tracking the Liberal government's record of keeping promises (a.k.a. Trudeaumeter 2)

355 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Then minimum wage is a great issue in which he can be factually corrected.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

A minimum income.And more social housing. Provinces stop paying social assistance as the income would be federal money. The provinces would be on the hook for social/affordable housing. Sounds reasonable to me especially considering the new revenue,business and industry from legal weed that would help both the provinces and the feds to pay for it.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is another backtrack. He lied though his teeth to make himself look progressive. In the end he will do whatever the Canadian business elite tells him to. But don't worry it is only on the really important issues that he is going to take his corporate 'advisers' direction.

Quote:

During a joint press conference with Notley, Trudeau was asked whether he would still stick to his pledged that a First Nation’s no meant “no” on TransCanada’s proposed cross-country Energy East pipeline project and Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline project in British Columbia.

The prime minister responded saying that he was committed to a “renewed relationship” with First Nations that “respect inherent and treaty rights.” He said the federal Liberal government looked to “First Nations and Indigenous peoples as partners in all that happens in this land.”

During an APTN virtual town hall held during the election campaign Trudeau was asked by anchor Cheryl McKenzie whether a no would “mean no under your government?”

Trudeau responded, “Absolutely.”

http://aptn.ca/news/2016/02/04/trudeau-election-pledge-on-first-nation/

mark_alfred

MegB wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

bagkitty wrote:

Just 'cause these things occur to me, shouldn't the site be called Trudeaumeter (a device to measure) rather than Trudeaumetre (a unit of measurement).

You are a nitpicker after my own heart, bagkitty. I can't remember how many times I've thought the same thing, but refrained from mentioning it. Laughing

*Takes a bow*

I think it falls under my Law #87 - all internally produced documents will contain at least one major gaffe and several typos - the number of typos increasing if the group putting out the document is involved with printing or publishing. I am still working on a formal Law to encompass the naming of astroturf groups.

[ETA: the gaffe in this case being the failing to distinguish between metre and meter]

Gaffe duly noted and corrected.

*sigh*  This is not a gaffe.  The original thread, and this subsequent thread, is based on the website http://www.trudeaumetre.ca

Note, within the URL of the site that is the focus of this thread, the spelling is trudeaumetre

monty1

Probably best to just change it even though it shouldn't be changed. Well let's hope that's the end of that!

quizzical

Kinder Morgan only hires FN's or those of FN heritage to work on their Transmountain pipeline. i figure  this actions gives them the authority to say

"FN supported and working relationship"

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is just the latest example of how Trudeau is merely Harper with a smile and that is far more insidious.

Quote:

The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

As well, in aggressively defending the actions of CSIS and trying to prevent the release of thousands of unredacted documents that a judge is now poring over, the Liberals are going further than their Conservative predecessors did to protect CSIS sources.

Lawyers for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government are seeking retroactive blanket anonymity for spies and their sources and have filed an appeal in a civil lawsuit launched by the three men with that goal in mind. A Conservative bill last year, C-44, which enacted source protection, was not made retroactive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here is just the latest example of how Trudeau is merely Harper with a smile and that is far more insidious.

Quote:

The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government’s legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees’ cause while they sat in opposition.

As well, in aggressively defending the actions of CSIS and trying to prevent the release of thousands of unredacted documents that a judge is now poring over, the Liberals are going further than their Conservative predecessors did to protect CSIS sources.

Lawyers for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government are seeking retroactive blanket anonymity for spies and their sources and have filed an appeal in a civil lawsuit launched by the three men with that goal in mind. A Conservative bill last year, C-44, which enacted source protection, was not made retroactive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

I was about to post that. This is worrisome and bears watching. I want an explanation. I hope someone brings it up in Question Period but it probably won't happen.

NDPP

Liberals Back CSIS In Torture Lawsuit

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/06/liberals-back-csis-in-tort...

"The Liberal government has taken up the former Conservative government's legal fight against an apology and compensation for three Canadians tortured in the Middle East, despite voting in favour of the former detainees' cause while they sat in opposition.

As well, in aggressively defeating the actions of CSIS and trying to prevent the release of thousands of unredacted documents that a judge is now poring over, the Liberals are going further than their Conservative predecessors did to protect CSIS sources.

Put together, the moves have stunned a team of lawyers at Toronto's Stockwood's firm that took up the cause of Abdullah Almalki, Muayyed Nureddin and Ahmad El Maati, as well as others who closely follow developments in security law.

"It's a continuation of this incredibly litigious no-holds-barred-scorched-earth defence strategy which we've been experiencing for 10 years under the Harper government,' said lawyer Phil Tunley. Tunley, who is leading the team of counsel to the men, is shocked by the moves of a Liberal government that explicitly promised to bring accountability to the nation's national security regime."

No surprise here. This is the where we see revealed their true intentions -  to preserve and defend the worst aspects of the Canadian security state. There will undoubtedly follow more such indications...

Hey Ralph! Liberal-Tory same old story? WTF?

ralph.goodale@parl.gc.ca

Webgear

quizzical wrote:

oh Webgear am i going to win our bet?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-may-keep-surveillance-refuel...

 

Looks like I win the bet, the fighters are coming home.

 

NDPP

...Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end, in which they dropped less than 500 bombs over a year and a half, now exchanged for  a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, tripling special forces involvement. This is just a warm up. JT has successfully leveraged the 'bring home the jets' campaign promise into a serious, significant and dangerous Canadian escalation in the US imperial project for the 'New Middle East.'

Pondering

NDPP wrote:
Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end in which they dropped less than 500 bombs in over a year and a half, with a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, involving tripling special forces involvement.

So what you are saying is that he kept his commitment. I'm surprised you think Harper was going to stop bombing.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/02/08/canada-to-end-bombing-miss...

...two surveillance aircraft and an air-to-air refueller jet will continue.

...Canada will triple the number of the military trainers. (note, from 69 now)

...the government will deploy medical personnel to provide training to Iraqi forces in how to treat battlefield casualties

...Canada will also provide weapons — small arms, ammunition and optics — to help with the training of local forces.

...Ottawa will earmark $840 million over three years to provide shelter, food, health care and other essentials (for refugees).

...$270 million will go towards improving local capacity in education, health, water and sanitation.

...the complement of military personnel dedicated to the mission rise to 830, up from 650 now.

monty1

NDPP wrote:

...Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end, in which they dropped less than 500 bombs over a year and a half, now exchanged for  a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, tripling special forces involvement. This is just a warm up. JT has successfully leveraged the 'bring home the jets' campaign promise into a serious, significant and dangerous Canadian escalation in the US imperial project for the 'New Middle East.'

[/quote

And what NDPP, would you say the reason is that the Conservatives hate it so much that we're pulling out the 6 bombers? Is it the same reason the NDP hate it or is it sort of something like a little different reason. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

As for the promise of a new respectful relationship with Aboriginal people there is this.

Quote:

The federal government used a technical argument to disqualify an estimated 1,000 claims for compensation made by indigenous Canadians who were abused at Indian residential schools listed in the agreement negotiated to award them for their suffering.

It is a move that the people who signed the deal on behalf of former students denounce as a cash-saving measure by Ottawa – one that has created unequal restitution for survivors, depending upon the date they filed their claims and the location on the school grounds where the assaults occurred.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-used-technicality-to...

NDPP

monty1 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

...Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end, in which they dropped less than 500 bombs over a year and a half, now exchanged for  a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, tripling special forces involvement. This is just a warm up. JT has successfully leveraged the 'bring home the jets' campaign promise into a serious, significant and dangerous Canadian escalation in the US imperial project for the 'New Middle East.'

[/quote

And what NDPP, would you say the reason is that the Conservatives hate it so much that we're pulling out the 6 bombers? Is it the same reason the NDP hate it or is it sort of something like a little different reason. 

They're the 'Opposition', it's their job to oppose in this bourgeois backwater of a merry-go-round you're so fixated on. A pillow-fight between political bedfellows. Makes Trudeau look like a nice progressive dove by comparison too, and keeps people believing in their fixed game bs. Washington's happy. That's all that matters. They only play politics for the chumps in the cheap-seats.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As for the promise of a new respectful relationship with Aboriginal people there is this.

Quote:

The federal government used a technical argument to disqualify an estimated 1,000 claims for compensation made by indigenous Canadians who were abused at Indian residential schools listed in the agreement negotiated to award them for their suffering.

It is a move that the people who signed the deal on behalf of former students denounce as a cash-saving measure by Ottawa – one that has created unequal restitution for survivors, depending upon the date they filed their claims and the location on the school grounds where the assaults occurred.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-used-technicality-to...

I must also post the article from 2 days after this one. Good to see they are in looking into this and hopefully are going to reverse this despite the fact the government lawyers were still relying on it.

Quote:

Canada’s Indigenous Affairs Minister has told her department to conduct an urgent review of a practice that denied compensation to some indigenous Canadians who were abused at Indian residential schools listed in a settlement agreement with survivors.

“I have asked my department to look into this and we are going to look into it in a very serious manner right now,” said Carolyn Bennett, who described the matter as “urgent.”

Dr. Bennett’s announcement in the House of Commons comes after The Globe and Mail reported Wednesday that Justice officials in the former Tory government used a technicality in the agreement that led to compensation being denied to more than 1,000 abuse victims.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-review-rejected-a...

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As for the promise of a new respectful relationship with Aboriginal people there is this.

I'll wait and see how the Trudeau government deals with this news. The G&M is heavily biased towards the Harper government under which this case has been proceeding for many years. Government lawyers on this and other cases are still operating under marching orders from the previous government. Now that the Trudeau government is aware I expect them to act to correct this injustice. If they don't I agree that it is every bit as disgusting as it was under the Harper government.

mark_alfred

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thesundayedition/the-police-and-the-public-100-d...

On the CBC Radio's Sunday Edition, four well known activists (Angela Robertson, Eve-Lyne Couturier, Pam Palmater, and Ruth Kelly) rate the Trudeau Liberals after their first 100 days in office.  They all say that the openness and tone of the government is much improved from the previous government.  Palmater in particular is impressed.  Robertson wishes that there would be more focus on poverty issues, but remains optimistic.  All of them feel the real test will be the first budget; so, in other words, it's still a bit too early to assess the government at this point.

monty1

NDPP wrote:

monty1 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

...Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end, in which they dropped less than 500 bombs over a year and a half, now exchanged for  a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, tripling special forces involvement. This is just a warm up. JT has successfully leveraged the 'bring home the jets' campaign promise into a serious, significant and dangerous Canadian escalation in the US imperial project for the 'New Middle East.'

[/quote

And what NDPP, would you say the reason is that the Conservatives hate it so much that we're pulling out the 6 bombers? Is it the same reason the NDP hate it or is it sort of something like a little different reason. 

They're the 'Opposition', it's their job to oppose in this bourgeois backwater of a merry-go-round you're so fixated on. A pillow-fight between political bedfellows. Makes Trudeau look like a nice progressive dove by comparison too, and keeps people believing in their fixed game bs. Washington's happy. That's all that matters. They only play politics for the chumps in the cheap-seats.

You can't sell your line that Washington is happy. That's dishonest in my opinion. Washington definitely wants the visual effect in the news that Canadians are killing people over there in their wars. That's what all the fuss is about even though it's supposed to look like Canada's 6 bombers are indispensable. 

Now the Conservatives have two wishes as Christmas presents but either one will do. 

Some Canadians soldiers are killed in the US led wars

Canada will suffer a real terrorist attack for the first time.

edit: As long as the % of Canadians who are angry at Trudeau is increasing because he's bringing the 6 bombers home, we know the move has the desired effect!

That's something that's stiking in their craws and they can't do anything about it.  

mark_alfred

[drift]

I wish people would be more careful about using quote tags correctly.  If you can't do that, then don't use quotes.  Basically, there should be an opening and closing tag around the text that is quoted.  Failing to properly have a closing tag be placed to match an existing opening tag can result in messing up not only what and who's identified as a quote, but can also mess up formatting in subsequent posts if the tag is broken or just partially rendered.  So, if you can't handle properly using quote tags, just don't use them.  Instead, go back to the basics of using quotation marks -- "here's a quote" -- rather than tags -- [quohte]here's a quote[/quohte].

[/drift]

And now back to keeping track of the government's promises.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

[drift]

I wish people would be more careful about using quote tags correctly.  If you can't do that, then don't use quotes.  Basically, there should be an opening and closing tag around the text that is quoted.  Failing to properly have a closing tag be placed to match an existing opening tag can result in messing up not only what and who's identified as a quote, but can also mess up formatting in subsequent posts if the tag is broken or just partially rendered.  So, if you can't handle properly using quote tags, just don't use them.  Instead, go back to the basics of using quotation marks -- "here's a quote" -- rather than tags -- [quohte]here's a quote[/quohte].

[/drift]

And now back to keeping track of the government's promises.

Sorry about that. I'll fix it.

monty1

NDPP wrote:

monty1 wrote:

NDPP wrote:

...Just a couple of weeks short of the Harper mission's end, in which they dropped less than 500 bombs over a year and a half, now exchanged for  a new open-ended, vastly expanded operation, tripling special forces involvement. This is just a warm up. JT has successfully leveraged the 'bring home the jets' campaign promise into a serious, significant and dangerous Canadian escalation in the US imperial project for the 'New Middle East.'

[/quote

And what NDPP, would you say the reason is that the Conservatives hate it so much that we're pulling out the 6 bombers? Is it the same reason the NDP hate it or is it sort of something like a little different reason. 

They're the 'Opposition', it's their job to oppose in this bourgeois backwater of a merry-go-round you're so fixated on. A pillow-fight between political bedfellows. Makes Trudeau look like a nice progressive dove by comparison too, and keeps people believing in their fixed game bs. Washington's happy. That's all that matters. They only play politics for the chumps in the cheap-seats.

You can't sell your line that Washington is happy. That's dishonest in my opinion. Washington definitely wants the visual effect in the news that Canadians are killing people over there in their wars. That's what all the fuss is about even though it's supposed to look like Canada's 6 bombers are indispensable. 

Now the Conservatives have two wishes as Christmas presents but either one will do. 

Some Canadians soldiers are killed in the US led wars

Canada will suffer a real terrorist attack for the first time.

edit: As long as the % of Canadians who are angry at Trudeau is increasing because he's bringing the 6 bombers home, we know the move has the desired effect!

That's something that's stiking in their craws and they can't do anything about it.  

 

mark_alfred

[drift]

Re: post 121:

Post #113 and any subsequent post quoting it have a broken quote tag:  [/quohte  So, unless there's other errors, fixing this by fully rendering the closing tag in post #113 and any subsequent post with this broken tag (like the post above) should fix it.  That way, rather than erroneously attributing your words to NDPP, your words will correctly be attributed to yourself.  Anyway, it's not a big issue.  All of us at one point or another mess up with the quote tags.  So, don't worry about it too much.  It's not a big deal really.

[/drift]

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

[drift]

Re: post 121:

Post #113 and any subsequent post quoting it have a broken quote tag:  [/quote  So, unless there's other errors, fixing this by fully rendering the closing tag in post #113 and any subsequent post with this broken tag (like the post above) should fix it.  That way, rather than erroneously attributing your words to NDPP, your words will correctly be attributed to yourself.  Anyway, it's not a big issue.  All of us at one point or another mess up with the quote tags.  So, don't worry about it too much.  It's not a big deal really.

[/drift]

 

I'm not worried about it too much. You mentioned it, I apologized for the error and I fixed it. The problem appears to be happing to me because the quote closing is too far down the comment space and sometimes I miss it. If the board format could move it up then it wouldn't happen.

monty1

Btw, could somebody tell me who the moderators are on this board and which sections they look after? Or is it posted somewhere?

mark_alfred

Yes and no.  I myself erred in inserting the broken tag in my post #123, which I've just changed.  By quoting my error above, you've now got your words as spoken by me.  Like I said, we all mess up.  Just take out the broken tag above, and that post should be fine.  Or not.  It doesn't really matter.  ETA:  or maybe not.  Seems fixed now in #124.  Bah.  quote tags drive me crazy sometimes.

monty1

mark_alfred wrote:

monty1 wrote:

Btw, could somebody tell me who the moderators are on this board and which sections they look after? Or is it posted somewhere?

MegB is the main moderator that I'm aware of.  Sometimes oldgoat or catchfire, but mostly MegB.

Thanks, but what about swallow?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

monty1 wrote:

You can't sell your line that Washington is happy. That's dishonest in my opinion. Washington definitely wants the visual effect in the news that Canadians are killing people over there in their wars. That's what all the fuss is about even though it's supposed to look like Canada's 6 bombers are indispensable. 

It seems you and the POTUS are not on the same page. I personally would believe him when it comes to whether they are happy or not with Canada's involvement. You are welcome to your opinion but it certainly does not mean that it is correct or factual. The real players know that Trudeau has done the window dressing of recalling the CF18's to look like a dove while actually increasing Canada's commitment. Trudeau is making great personal strides in the art of disinformation. Some leaders have a hard time with such a steep learning curve but he is well on his way to a master level.

Quote:

Obama "welcomed Canada's current and new contributions to coalition efforts and highlighted Canada's leadership in the coalition," the White House said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-canada-obama-idUSKCN0VH201

Quote:

First up was Peter Cook, the Pentagon spokesman and stand-in for Defence Secretary Ashton Carter, who has been portrayed as the bad cop to Secretary of State John Kerry’s Trudeau-hugging good-cop softie on the Canada file. What’s significant is that Cook didn’t just shrug and accept Trudeau’s training-and-relief-but-no-fighters stance, he flagged it as a model for other U.S. allies to emulate. “The Canadian announcement is the kind of response the secretary’s been looking for from coalition members,” Cook said at the daily Pentagon briefing, “as the United States and coalition partners push to accelerate the campaign against ISIL.”

After that, remarks from U.S. ambassador Bruce Heyman (“I was pleased“) and, in a paraphrased readout of a phone conversation with Trudeau, from Obama himself (“The President welcomed Canada’s current and new contributions“) were gravy.

...

The result is before us today. “Your CF-18s, we don’t need them,” a diplomat from a European country with serious skin in the anti-ISIS game told several reporters at a private lunch recently. “We don’t need them.” The Harper training effort was so rudimentary it is possible for Trudeau to triple it. The troop commitment was so modest it is possible to exceed it. The bar was set so low it is possible for Ash Carter, the toughest guy on the Obama block, to announce Trudeau has raised it.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/trudeaus-isis-policy-gets-an-assi...

mark_alfred

monty1 wrote:

Btw, could somebody tell me who the moderators are on this board and which sections they look after? Or is it posted somewhere?

MegB is the main moderator that I'm aware of.  Sometimes oldgoat, but mostly MegB.  ETA:  Also michael-stewart, rather than catchfire (which I think was an older user-name for Michael)

NDPP

Further to support krop's post above, for those that missed it elsewhere:

US Brookings Institution defence policy expert on Trudeau's flim-flam ISIS plan

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2683205790

Washington is indeed happy.

 

monty1

NDPP wrote:

Further to support krop's post above, for those that missed it elsewhere:

US Brookings Institution defence policy expert on Trudeau's flim-flam ISIS plan

http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2683205790

Washington is indeed happy.

 

Couldn't get the video to play right now but maybe later. But I don't have to hear any attempts to make it appear that Canada or Trudeau hasn't objected to the US wars in any way. What would you and your friend expect them to say?

Canada won't help us bomb and kill people because Trudeau sees that as being complicit in our war crimes. Canada is going to play another role and leave us to do the killing, along with our willing accomplices and that's because Canada is turning back to being closer to their reknowed role as peacekeeper or peacemaker. 

I must say, be careful of being too quick to climb into bed with the US and their damage control propaganda. The chickens could come home to haunt you both.

As I have said, it the number of Canadians who are whining about pulling the 6 bombers out is increasing every day, then we know Trudeau has scored big with people of intlligence and the sort of people I want to seen getting  in bed with.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Here is Trudeau following up on his commitment to make science based decisions making. The scientists say pesticides are killing bees so Trudeau says lets just wait for more evidence they might not be right after all the industry doesn't believe it. I love his double speak of saying he is all about science based decisions while announcing he is not going to listen to the scientists. Liberal Tory same old story. Business before health or science.

Quote:

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says he’s not prepared to push for an immediate ban of a controversial class of pesticides being blamed for mass bee deaths in Ontario and Quebec.

“Ultimately, we’re a party of evidence-based policy,” Trudeau said Wednesday during a question and answer session at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Ottawa.

“We will be looking at ways to move forward that is going to support farmers based around science and research and not necessarily implement a ban on neonics despite the very clear will (of party members), which I take as a will to make sure we’re being smart about bee populations,” he said.

“Any convention things come forward. You listen to them. Whether or not they get implemented is based around what is good policy.”

Trudeau’s comments came just days after party members overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the immediate ban of neonicotinoid pesticides during their annual convention in Montreal.

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides used to coat corn, soybean and canola seeds. The pesticides have been widely used since 2004. They were developed to replace older, war-era aerial sprays like agent orange.

In September, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) linked neonicotinoid-contaminated dust to mass deaths in bee populations in Ontario and Quebec. The agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use in Canada.

The Liberal resolution, put forward by a delegate from the rural riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, is the latest development on the bee health file.

Beekeepers and grain farmers are immersed in a lengthy, complex debate on how to protect pollinators after the PMRA determined current agriculture practices were “unsustainable.”

The Ontario beekeepers Association and the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec want the chemicals banned, at least temporarily. The two groups have been pushing provincially since July for a moratorium similar to a two-year ban currently in place in the European Union.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/02/27/trudeau-wont-back-ban-on-pesticides-linke...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here is Trudeau following up on his commitment to make science based decisions making. The scientists say pesticides are killing bees so Trudeau says lets just wait for more evidence they might not be right after all the industry doesn't believe it. I love his double speak of saying he is all about science based decisions while announcing he is not going to listen to the scientists. Liberal Tory same old story. Business before health or science.

Quote:

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau says he’s not prepared to push for an immediate ban of a controversial class of pesticides being blamed for mass bee deaths in Ontario and Quebec.

“Ultimately, we’re a party of evidence-based policy,” Trudeau said Wednesday during a question and answer session at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting in Ottawa.

“We will be looking at ways to move forward that is going to support farmers based around science and research and not necessarily implement a ban on neonics despite the very clear will (of party members), which I take as a will to make sure we’re being smart about bee populations,” he said.

“Any convention things come forward. You listen to them. Whether or not they get implemented is based around what is good policy.”

Trudeau’s comments came just days after party members overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for the immediate ban of neonicotinoid pesticides during their annual convention in Montreal.

Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides used to coat corn, soybean and canola seeds. The pesticides have been widely used since 2004. They were developed to replace older, war-era aerial sprays like agent orange.

In September, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) linked neonicotinoid-contaminated dust to mass deaths in bee populations in Ontario and Quebec. The agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use in Canada.

The Liberal resolution, put forward by a delegate from the rural riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, is the latest development on the bee health file.

Beekeepers and grain farmers are immersed in a lengthy, complex debate on how to protect pollinators after the PMRA determined current agriculture practices were “unsustainable.”

The Ontario beekeepers Association and the Fédération des apiculteurs du Québec want the chemicals banned, at least temporarily. The two groups have been pushing provincially since July for a moratorium similar to a two-year ban currently in place in the European Union.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/02/27/trudeau-wont-back-ban-on-pesticides-linke...

Don't be so hard on him K, he's dreamy!!!

Pondering

Meanwhile, grain farmers and the biotech industry argue the pesticides are essential to modern agriculture. Grain farmers argue that, if the chemicals are pulled, yields in corn and soybeans could drop significantly.

“Neonicotinoids is a much-needed seed treatment across, Ontario, Quebec, and the West,” Leo Guilbeault, president of the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers Coalition, told Trudeau. “It treats millions of acres of corn, soybeans and canola.”

“If we lose this technology without replacing it with a plan B — which we don’t have right now — we’re looking at 20 per cent production losses across the country,” he said, adding those losses would render the industry non-competitive.

Scientists estimate one-third of all plants and plant products eaten by humans depend on bee pollination.

“The reality is that people are worried about bees because they understand that agriculture needs bees and declining bee populations are of concern to everyone, and we can all agree on that,” Trudeau said.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/02/27/trudeau-wont-back-ban-on-pesticides-linke...

This was in response to a resolution at a party convention a year ago. That is absolutely not the conditions under which a policy like this should be committed to. I would not want a PM that would make such an important decision without a serious look at the science and the expected impact. It would be irresponsible. This is absolutely something that the Ministery of Agriculture should be examining then advising on with the likely outcome of a ban but with the supporting arguments lined up.

quizzical

thank gawd people were more educated and enlightened back in the 60's when my gma was fighting to get ddt banned.

they understood evironment and life before profit.

no bees no food chain. pretty simple

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

thank gawd people were more educated and enlightened back in the 60's when my gma was fighting to get ddt banned.

they understood evironment and life before profit.

no bees no food chain. pretty simple

A government cannot commit to banning something based on "well I read a bunch of articles" and they said.....  

From the articles I've read I agree with you and would ban them but the process for doing so would include requesting that the agriculture or health or whatever ministries collect the relevant data to determine the situation and recommend how to proceed. That would include deciding on a date and whether or not stockpiles can be used or if the product is to be phased out and determining the impact of loss of crops if an alternative isn't available. I definitely wouldn't ban them based on having read some articles.

quizzical

again again

quizzical wrote:
thank gawd people were more educated and enlightened back in the 60's when my gma was fighting to get ddt banned.

they understood evironment and life before profit.

no bees no food chain. pretty simple

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

A government cannot commit to banning something based on "well I read a bunch of articles" and they said.....  

Quote:

In September, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) linked neonicotinoid-contaminated dust to mass deaths in bee populations in Ontario and Quebec. The agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use in Canada.

Your posts are stuck on spin cycle. Maybe you should try rinse sometime.

I have finally figured out who Trudeau reminds me of. That would be Lying Brian. We haven't had a PM that lies so effortlessly since Mulroney.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

A government cannot commit to banning something based on "well I read a bunch of articles" and they said.....  

Quote:

In September, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) linked neonicotinoid-contaminated dust to mass deaths in bee populations in Ontario and Quebec. The agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use in Canada.

Your posts are stuck on spin cycle. Maybe you should try rinse sometime.

I have finally figured out who Trudeau reminds me of. That would be Lying Brian. We haven't had a PM that lies so effortlessly since Mulroney.

It still isn't a decision to be made at a party convention. I hope someone will now petition this government to do something about it which will still take time. From everything I have read yes it should be banned but no Trudeau should not get up in the morning and ban it without going through the normal steps. This is an unrealistic action to expect any responsible government to do.

If the agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use then I should think they should be taking steps to recommend a ban to the government. Presumably the farmers who are losing bees are complaining through the various channels available and now that there is a new government they can approach their new MPs.

You are complaining because he didn't promise to ban it at a party convention a year ago.

I'd say people here are stuck on rinse and repeat. He didn't promise to set the world to rights. You know he is planning to sign CETA no matter what. You know that while TPP is being debated if the US signs so will he. Absolutely nothing that is happening is unexpected. There has been no bait and switch. Now it is up to the opposition to stop campaigning and start addressing the important issues such as the trade deals.

quizzical

so lobbyists at party conventions can get their shit rammed though no fuss but not members of the Liberal Party from resolutions based on science at their own convention???

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

so lobbyists at party conventions can get their shit rammed though no fuss but not members of the Liberal Party from resolutions based on science at their own convention???

What lobbyists? What got rammed through?

Resolutions at Liberal conventions are non-binding.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

It still isn't a decision to be made at a party convention. I hope someone will now petition this government to do something about it which will still take time. From everything I have read yes it should be banned but no Trudeau should not get up in the morning and ban it without going through the normal steps. This is an unrealistic action to expect any responsible government to do.

Amazing. Yeah, come on K, don't you understand he has to take the next four years reviewing this? What's the big rush? Give the guy time, it isn't 2019 yet and time to make more promises! You don't actually expect him to make any real decisions do you? How unfair! Don't worry, its OK! He's dreamy!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It still isn't a decision to be made at a party convention. I hope someone will now petition this government to do something about it which will still take time. From everything I have read yes it should be banned but no Trudeau should not get up in the morning and ban it without going through the normal steps. This is an unrealistic action to expect any responsible government to do.

Amazing. Yeah, come on K, don't you understand he has to take the next four years reviewing this? What's the big rush? Give the guy time, it isn't 2019 yet and time to make more promises! You don't actually expect him to make any real decisions do you? How unfair! Don't worry, its OK! He's dreamy!

You expect him to set policy on a specific pesticide a year before he even gets elected. 

That is just ridiculous. If the worst you can criticism him for is being dreamy you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

bswalks

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It still isn't a decision to be made at a party convention. I hope someone will now petition this government to do something about it which will still take time. From everything I have read yes it should be banned but no Trudeau should not get up in the morning and ban it without going through the normal steps. This is an unrealistic action to expect any responsible government to do.

Amazing. Yeah, come on K, don't you understand he has to take the next four years reviewing this? What's the big rush? Give the guy time, it isn't 2019 yet and time to make more promises! You don't actually expect him to make any real decisions do you? How unfair! Don't worry, its OK! He's dreamy!

You expect him to set policy on a specific pesticide a year before he even gets elected. 

That is just ridiculous. If the worst you can criticism him for is being dreamy you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.


There are serious issues about these pesticides. It is not too much to ask to have a moritorium for 2 years.

"But yeah ummm we don't have ummm a full idea ummm of the scienceses verdict on umm them. "

Kropotkin is right. Last time we saw this level of lying was Brian Mulroney. At least Harper would lie but you could easily tell when it was a partial lie or an outright lie.

Drama training to beguile the ignorant voters. Best acting gig ever.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pondering wrote:

You are complaining because he didn't promise to ban it at a party convention a year ago.

No I am complaining because his scientists say ban it and he is saying the industry says we need more study. I don't care what the Liberal party membership wants it is what the government of Canada is doing that I care about.

Quote:

You know he is planning to sign CETA no matter what. You know that while TPP is being debated if the US signs so will he. Absolutely nothing that is happening is unexpected.

You are right that I expect all Liberal's to run from the left and govern on behalf of the corporate elite. So because I knew before he was elected that he would be shill for business I should now not even comment on his being a shill for business? What strange logic you are using.

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering wrote:
You know he is planning to sign CETA no matter what. You know that while TPP is being debated if the US signs so will he. Absolutely nothing that is happening is unexpected.

You are right that I expect all Liberal's to run from the left and govern on behalf of the corporate elite. So because I knew before he was elected that he would be shill for business I should now not even comment on his being a shill for business? What strange logic you are using.

good point!!!!!

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Pondering wrote:
You know he is planning to sign CETA no matter what. You know that while TPP is being debated if the US signs so will he. Absolutely nothing that is happening is unexpected.

You are right that I expect all Liberal's to run from the left and govern on behalf of the corporate elite. So because I knew before he was elected that he would be shill for business I should now not even comment on his being a shill for business? What strange logic you are using.

good point!!!!!

No, but don't say he ran from the left and is governing from the right. You are deluding yourself and ensuring continued defeat.

Prior to the election Trudeau supported trade deals and getting oil to saltwater. He was obvious in his choice of economic advisors.

He said he would bring back the bombers but that he still supported the war against ISIS and would contribute more training and advisors in the same roles they performed under Harper. It was known before the election that it meant soldiers could come under fire and had the right of self-defence if that were to happen. They were on the front before the election and they are still on the front.

The satisfaction being expressed in the polls illustrates that he is performing better than expected. Just because he isn't doing what you want doesn't mean he isn't doing what Canadians want.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

No I am complaining because his scientists say ban it and he is saying the industry says we need more study. I don't care what the Liberal party membership wants it is what the government of Canada is doing that I care about.

That's not true.

In September, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) linked neonicotinoid-contaminated dust to mass deaths in bee populations in Ontario and Quebec. The agency is responsible for regulating and monitoring pesticide use in Canada.

They didn't recommend banning it and the industry is saying it needs more study. 

“Neonicotinoids is a much-needed seed treatment across, Ontario, Quebec, and the West,” Leo Guilbeault, president of the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers Coalition, told Trudeau. “It treats millions of acres of corn, soybeans and canola.”

“If we lose this technology without replacing it with a plan B — which we don’t have right now — we’re looking at 20 per cent production losses across the country,” he said, adding those losses would render the industry non-competitive.

...

“The reality is that people are worried about bees because they understand that agriculture needs bees and declining bee populations are of concern to everyone, and we can all agree on that,” Trudeau said.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/02/27/trudeau-wont-back-ban-on-pesticides-linke...

quizzical

again what do you people not get about competition to maximize profit and killing bees while doing?

continuing this use will destroy the whole ecosytem. it destroys other market gardens and orchard farmers crops and their ability to grow them forever.

NO BEES NO FOOD CHAIN

Pages