Trudeaumetre - Bravo!

618 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Good article by Karl on Parl:  http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2016/01/trudeaus-supporte...

Condensed version below:

Quote:

To say that Justin Trudeau is merely Stephen Harper lite, that the new prime minister is doing nothing more than putting a human face on the old one's policies is not only unfair, it is wrong in fact.

On the basis of the evidence so far we are seeing a huge sea change from the Harper regime.

That hardly means, however, that the new government is beyond criticism.

And as much as there are some who want to oversimplify things by saying that Trudeau is Harper with a smile, there are too many others who will brook absolutely not a single critical word about the new government.

It appears that a lot of Canadians feel an almost parental need to shelter and protect the new, young prime minister, with all of his sunny ways. They seem to feel that he and his government are somehow fragile and vulnerable, and might melt in the face of even the most limited and measured criticism.

This writer experienced that over-the-top need to protect when he had the temerity to say that the single legislative measure the Trudeau government passed during the House's one-week sitting in December was not really the middle class tax cut it was advertised to be.

This government has a big majority and it is riding high in public esteem. One would think it would be resilient enough enough to handle this kind of constructive and fact-based criticism.

And those who honestly criticize, when criticize they must, are not trying to injure a fragile rookie team in need of coddling and protection. They are just trying to lay out the facts.

We certainly see this everywhere

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Good to see you're optimistic, Pondering.  Hopefully things will work out well.

I'm less optimistic.  I suspect the fed Libs will take a path similar to the Ont Libs -- that being cuts, privatization, and divestment of assets (IE, like the Ontario gov't moving to sell off Hydro One).  In fact the federal Libs promised cuts right in their platform.  1/2 billion in the first year, $1 billion the next, $2 billion the following year, and finally $3 billion in 2019 (so, totalling $6.5 billion in cuts).  Some of the things they say they'll cut are laudible, such as "reducing the advertising budget of the government of Canada, and ending the use of government advertising for partisan activities."  But otherwise, when a government refuses to increase corporate taxes and instead preaches cuts, I generally am leery.  My impression is that they're on the side of big business, rather than on the side of people.  But we'll see.

I think they see tha as being on the side of the people, not that I agree. My expectations of the Trudeau government are not that high. If they make cuts it won't be on ideological grounds like Harper did. Harper wanted to destroy the government, Trudeau doesn't. I was disappointed to see Bill Morneau as finance minister but it must have reassured the business community. Recall the Globe and Mail as well as the National Post still endorsed the Conservatives which I found quite shocked. I had assumed they would support Trudeau once they saw Harper was going to lose. Maybe they wanted to hold him to a minority?

I have no higher expectations of a Trudeau government than I would of a Mulcair government. I expect marijuana legalization to come but be slow, not the top priority of the government. Trudeau has spoken of a new health care accord. There will be strings attached to the money which I am happy about. Mulcair was just going to hand the money over to the provinces to respect regional differences. This (for me) was a major issue I had with the Sherbrooke Declaration and Mulcair's talk of respecting provincial jurisdictions.

I don't expect they will keep all their promises even in spirit.

I am not predicting his win in 2019 based on my wanting him to win because I am not sure that I do. Depends on what's on offer in 2019. I don't foresee the Conservatives or the NDP finding a more dynamic leader than Trudeau. Governments in Canada, provincial as well as federal, seem to defeat themselves. It's like we consider it firing someone or something like that.

Many of you here know much more about political history than I do or ever will but I think sometimes it is like when I was trying to decide if Trudeau had done well or not in the first debate. I thought it was that I doubted my own ability to be objective because I wanted him to win, but now I realize that wasn't my problem. It's that I was too informed, I had heard it all already. I could not unhear it and judge it from the perspective of Canadians that were just beginning to tune it.

Someone here mentioned a friend saying he was like Robin Hood while watching the debate. Was that you? An article I read had a women apologizing for not voting and said she would do so next time around basically because she saw her own family reflected in Trudeau and to her that translates into have the same values as she does.

A portion of Canadians are tuned into politics or at least decide from a more informed perspective but I think they are a minority and most of them already have a leaning or are supporters of a particular party.

Harper framed himself as the accountant, the type who would have a pocket protector. He cultivated that image and to this day I bet Canadians would still say he was a good economic manager.

Trudeau has framed himself as the leader who inspires his team to greatness, who attracts "extraordinarily" talented people. That is one of the words he uses that makes me cringe every time but generally speaking he gives people around him lots of praise which ends up reflecting back on him.

The memory of Harper will not fade in 4 years even though the Conservatives will be under a new leader. Trudeau's performance will be measured against Harper's not against his new adversaries because whomever they are they will not have had experience in governing nationally.

I'm disappointed he hasn't pulled the bombers out yet but the NDP isn't pressuring him to do so nor pushing for faster decriminalization. Mulcair probably would have pulled out of the war faster but he was still supportive of Nato actions and of having invaded Libya so it's not like he would have been all that different. He didn't promise to pull of the Saudi "jeep" deals. Internationally he is having a positive impact on our reputation and foreign affairs isn't a big vote driver.

I was really surprised when Trudeau described himself as a retail politician.

retail politics

  • Word Origin

noun, ( used with a singular or plural verb) 1. a political strategy or campaign style of meeting and speaking directly to as many voters as possible: New Hampshire is a state where retail politics are decisive. Not every candidate is good at retail politics.

He's right, that is his strength.

Over the next four years Trudeau will field a lot of policy based criticism but I'm pretty sure once 2019 rolls around most people who voted for him will be satisfied enough with his performance to vote again.

Another factor I failed to mention is that every who voted for him feels empowered by it because he won big. They feel their vote did "count" as posters here say. That's a powerful motivation to vote again. I don't believe that new voters were inspired by Trudeau's policy commitments I think they were inspired by him. Anyone who was old enough to vote is old enough to have experienced the dour Harper years. A new leader will not wipe the slate clean for them. As of right now the NDP seems redundant not that they are but dubbing themselves the "progressive opposition" and claiming they will hold the liberals accountable just sounds bombastic.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering how doe yet another thread about the Liberal turn into a NDP slam thread whenever you write? You're very insecure.

Sean in Ottawa

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering how doe yet another thread about the Liberal turn into a NDP slam thread whenever you write? You're very insecure.

Actually I found this last Pondering Post to be one of the more measured and balanced ones. I disagree with her on Sherbrooke but find little else to disagree with in this last post.

Perhaps you are reading them in a different way than I am but I don't see her last few posts to be particularly partisan. There are things I may disagree with but I see nothing wrong with a few I read recently. There have been periods of good conversation before so rather than polarize, better to go with it. This kind of post we can discuss and respond to.

While she does not always have this balance there are a few posts recently where you can see an effort to be more balanced. I think those that fought with her on other posts might want to respond to these differently. More balanced does not mean that we agree on everything but this last post before yours is not Liberal cheerleading nor is it attacking the NDP -- in my opinion.

Sean in Ottawa

Here's a thing -- you fight like hell with someone asking them to be more reasonable -- well regardless of the history if they show an effort to be more reasonable then you can't just ignore that and keep fighting or you become the jerk.

Ultimately you have to always be reachable to effort by the other person.

I am not asking anyone to agree with me. I complained and fought over tactics and extreme inbalance. So now, I do not have to agree to see several posts that show a considerable effort at moderation. Since I asked for it I don't have a right to demand explanation or specualte on motivation. I have an obligation to notice and work with it. I think others have the same. You cannot nail someone to heir past such that you and they are unable to change otherwise, like it or not, you become as much a part of the problem as they are.

I respond to current posts. If I see one in five minutes I do not like -- I might even show anger or even a little nasty. But I can't show anger or nasty when the thing I am complaining about is not the most current thing.

Pondering -- right now -- is clearly attempting to engage in a thoughtful intelligent dicsussion. She still ahs her persepctive but we have to notice this attempt since we asked for it. We do not ahve to agree on the past but you can see the attempt. We have to draw a line and make another attempt on our side.

This is how I see it anyway.

Pondering

Karl is right to some extent but wrong in his conclusions.

Their unspoken attitude seems to be: Don't rock the boat. If you dare naysay anything Trudeau does or fails to do we may, magically, get Harper back again.

It appears that a lot of Canadians feel an almost parental need to shelter and protect the new, young prime minister, with all of his sunny ways. They seem to believe that he and his government are somehow fragile and vulnerable, and might melt in the face of even the most limited and measured criticism.

It is the general public, not just Trudeau supporters who don't want to hear criticism of Trudeau right now and it has nothing to do with thinking his support is at all fragile. Nobody is afraid Harper will magically return.

The election is over and Trudeau has a majority. He is not at all fragile. People  want to celebrate the good things Trudeau is doing and they don't want to be downed out by criticism of every little thing. For most people their taxes won't change at all and for the upper middle class they will get a small boost. Most people with children will get more money than before. The rest is theoretical and they don't want to get that into it.

We are not refugee heros and we are not doing our fair share worldwide but try telling anyone that and they will practically take it as a personal affront. The argument will turn to all the reasons why we can't take more and you will be accused of being negative and biased against the Liberals.

That is not because people are biased. It's because people are tired of the years of Harper hate. They want to give Trudeau a fair chance and don't think he's been in power long enough to pass judgement over him. As soon as Karl opens his mouth people are thinking that he is being critical because he is partisan so he is looking for reasons to diss Trudeau. Certainly his theory of why people don't want to hear criticism is way off and reveals his partisanship.

Instead of assuming he would do better to ask people why they are resistent to any criticism of him. They will probably say that they just don't want to get into figuring out how the tax change will end up benefiting the wealthy, and even if it does, whatever, it's not that big a deal.

I have said prior to this that this is not a good time for the NDP to look for any excuse to criticize Trudeau. Valid or not it still comes across as sour grapes at a time when people want to be happy about all the positive changes Trudeau is making. They want to celebrate gender parity and freed scientists not evaluate the financial implications of the tax change.

The time will come to criticize some Liberal policies but now isn't it. It's backfiring on the critics and increasing the strength of support for Trudeau as people argue in his defence and feel like they are arguing in their own defence as well.

Politics is off people's radar now and that is the way they want it to stay until the next election. They voted. They did their part and now you are trying to convince them they made the wrong choice. Unless you can point to a headline that says Trudeau is stealing from the poor to give to the rich you won't be believed and people won't even try to understand your argument even if they hear you out. They have already decided that if it is bad it is minor compared to all the good Trudeau is doing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Karl is right to some extent but wrong in his conclusions.

Their unspoken attitude seems to be: Don't rock the boat. If you dare naysay anything Trudeau does or fails to do we may, magically, get Harper back again.

It appears that a lot of Canadians feel an almost parental need to shelter and protect the new, young prime minister, with all of his sunny ways. They seem to believe that he and his government are somehow fragile and vulnerable, and might melt in the face of even the most limited and measured criticism.

It is the general public, not just Trudeau supporters who don't want to hear criticism of Trudeau right now and it has nothing to do with thinking his support is at all fragile. Nobody is afraid Harper will magically return.

The election is over and Trudeau has a majority. He is not at all fragile. People  want to celebrate the good things Trudeau is doing and they don't want to be downed out by criticism of every little thing. For most people their taxes won't change at all and for the upper middle class they will get a small boost. Most people with children will get more money than before. The rest is theoretical and they don't want to get that into it.

We are not refugee heros and we are not doing our fair share worldwide but try telling anyone that and they will practically take it as a personal affront. The argument will turn to all the reasons why we can't take more and you will be accused of being negative and biased against the Liberals.

That is not because people are biased. It's because people are tired of the years of Harper hate. They want to give Trudeau a fair chance and don't think he's been in power long enough to pass judgement over him. As soon as Karl opens his mouth people are thinking that he is being critical because he is partisan so he is looking for reasons to diss Trudeau. Certainly his theory of why people don't want to hear criticism is way off and reveals his partisanship.

Instead of assuming he would do better to ask people why they are resistent to any criticism of him. They will probably say that they just don't want to get into figuring out how the tax change will end up benefiting the wealthy, and even if it does, whatever, it's not that big a deal.

I have said prior to this that this is not a good time for the NDP to look for any excuse to criticize Trudeau. Valid or not it still comes across as sour grapes at a time when people want to be happy about all the positive changes Trudeau is making. They want to celebrate gender parity and freed scientists not evaluate the financial implications of the tax change.

The time will come to criticize some Liberal policies but now isn't it. It's backfiring on the critics and increasing the strength of support for Trudeau as people argue in his defence and feel like they are arguing in their own defence as well.

Politics is off people's radar now and that is the way they want it to stay until the next election. They voted. They did their part and now you are trying to convince them they made the wrong choice. Unless you can point to a headline that says Trudeau is stealing from the poor to give to the rich you won't be believed and people won't even try to understand your argument even if they hear you out. They have already decided that if it is bad it is minor compared to all the good Trudeau is doing.

Write Karl, I mean actually write him, tell him that, and let us knw what he thinks of your thesis. You won't though, you're a pompous blowhard. You're ALL talk, and, NO ACTION.

ETA: You know what i find most troubling about you Pondering? It' is your arrognat, self important, cynicism.

Your arguments ALWAYS come down to "it doesn't matter what the Libs do. No one is watching. Two weeks before the elction, Trudeau will bat his beautiful eyes, throw back his hair and toussel it, look into the camera, and hypnotize the electorate again".

The real problem with you is you think people are so self absorbed that they don't have an idea regarding what is happening to them. You on the other hand, think you are so smart, and know so full well what others think, that you can pontificate endlessly and will proven right, why, because YOU think you KNOW what every one else considers their priority in life and that its all about comestics, appearance, and imbe age. This kind of attitude is precisely why I find LPC sycophants impossible to either tolerate or  respect in any way and I genuinely hate the LPC.

This unbridled, opprtunistic, shamless cynicism has done horrible and lasting damge to the Canadian policial psyche. When Trudeau doesn't deliver again, as Liberal PMs ALWAY do, the damage may be irrepairable. But that doesn't bother you because you harbour an apparent almost borderline complete  hatred of the NDP, hatred of anyone who disagrees, and hatred of all the enemies you percieve the LPC has.

OK, you may be right. But you DON'T KNOW THAT! Stop pretending that you do. You REALY aren't that smart; certainly, you aren't smarter than any of us here. Seriously, try getting over yourself! And as far as I know, you can't look into the future, unless maybe you're Marvel's Doctor Strange in disguise!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

And just after posting my comment, Rick Mercer picks up where I left off much more effectiely than I ever could:

In his latest rant, and in part:

"Trudeau made the jeep comment on "Tout le monde en parle," a popular French-language TV talk show, a week before the federal election. His choice of phrasing was criticized by Duceppe, who accused the Liberal leader of misleading Canadians (trudeau, according to the HP article said "we're just selling them some jeep").

Mercer seemingly agrees.

"Really, Justin? Jeeps? Like Barbie used to drive a jeep? Did Barbie's jeep have a machine gun turret?" the comedian said.

"I got to hand it Justin, usually prime ministers are on the job for a few years before they start talking down to Canadians. He's learning so fast."

Don't be so sure Pondering that people aren't already noticing. My hope is the Libs don't notice. That hubris will be the end of them.

More here, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/12/rick-mercer-rant-saudi-arms-deal...

This MUST be ENTIRELY and SOLELY, a Liberal thing!

Pondering

I did write Karl in the messages which I believe he reads.

He was speculating on why he thinks people don't want to hear criticism of Trudeau.

I think it is common knowledge, certainly the pundits treat it as such, that most people tune out politics between elections. I think most posters would agree and have experienced the difficult of trying to talk politics with friends and family.

In 2019 Trudeau will have plenty to brag about having achieved during his term. The incumbancy boost  is a well known factor as is the 3 term maximum. Almost all leaders seem to get either 2 or 3 terms, rarely 1 or four.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
The real problem with you is you think people are so self absorbed that they don't have an idea regarding what is happening to them. You on the other hand, think you are so smart, and know so full well what others think, that you can pontificate endlessly and will proven right, why, because YOU think you KNOW what every one else considers their priority in life and that its all about comestics, appearance, and imbe age.

One of my beefs with political progressives such as yourself is that you look down on people who don't follow politics. People priorize their work, their family life, and squeezing in some fun time if they can or working out or are absorbed in some hobby.

Many people have the attitude that there is nothing they can do between elections so they can catch up in the weeks before the next one. There is no reason they have to pay attention now. They are not being irresponsible by choosing to use their time differently.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
  But that doesn't bother you because you harbour an apparent almost borderline complete  hatred of the NDP, hatred of anyone who disagrees, and hatred of all the enemies you percieve the LPC has.

I don't hate anyone here including yourself and I certainly don't hate the NDP.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
OK, you may be right. But you DON'T KNOW THAT! Stop pretending that you do. You REALY aren't that smart; certainly, you aren't smarter than any of us here. Seriously, try getting over yourself! And as far as I know, you can't look into the future, unless maybe you're Marvel's Doctor Strange in disguise!

Everyone here speculates on the future. I'm not a fortune teller I just don't put "I think" in front of every sentence.

I don't think I am smarter than everyone else here and I am less informed than most but that does give me a unique perspective when discussing mainstream non-activist type opinions and reactions. I have been wrong a few times and admitted it. I predicted Trudeau would have a daycare plan and he didn't. I know my confidence during the time Mulcair was in 1st place infuriated you. Many of you here have spent the last two years suggesting that Trudeau was somewhat stupid, an airhead, that Mulcair would wipe the floor with him during the debates. Many were convinced Mulcair's support in Quebec was solid and they would never vote for a Trudeau. When I said otherwise I was accused of being a cheerleader even though I gave reasons for my opinions.

It's not gloating to point out the widespread support Trudeau has even from many New Democrats.

Instead of looking down on "low information" voters you would do better thinking about how to reach them and convince them f the benefits of social democracy.

 

quizzical

so justin is minister for youth but his less than transparent itinerary shows no meetings with anything to do with  youth, what's up with this ignoring of his ministry?

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has spoken of a new health care accord. There will be strings attached to the money which I am happy about.

I'm unaware of him speaking of this.  What has he said?

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has spoken of a new health care accord. There will be strings attached to the money which I am happy about.

I'm unaware of him speaking of this.  What has he said?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/5-things-to-know-about-the-liberal-pledg...

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has spoken of a new health care accord. There will be strings attached to the money which I am happy about.

I'm unaware of him speaking of this.  What has he said?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/5-things-to-know-about-the-liberal-pledg...

That says absolutely nothing.  From the article:

Quote:
Provinces and territories will be keen to see the federal government restore the escalator — a six-per-cent annual increase in health care transfers to the provinces — to previous increases, which promises to pose a huge budgetary conundrum for the federal government. As the Liberals work to get the provinces and territories on side with the accord, the government will also have to address the escalator issue.

6% increase was the bottom line of the NDP (which you oddly criticize) for establishing a new accord.  I've seen no such commitment from this supposedly progressive Liberal government.  This is a terrible thing to underfund, IMO.

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has spoken of a new health care accord. There will be strings attached to the money which I am happy about.

I'm unaware of him speaking of this.  What has he said?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/5-things-to-know-about-the-liberal-pledg...

That says absolutely nothing.  From the article:

Quote:
Provinces and territories will be keen to see the federal government restore the escalator — a six-per-cent annual increase in health care transfers to the provinces — to previous increases, which promises to pose a huge budgetary conundrum for the federal government. As the Liberals work to get the provinces and territories on side with the accord, the government will also have to address the escalator issue.

6% increase was the bottom line of the NDP (which you oddly criticize) for establishing a new accord.  I've seen no such commitment from this supposedly progressive Liberal government.  This is a terrible thing to underfund, IMO.


And I believe that while Harper let the accord expire he did keep the 6 % escalator. If that is the case we should expect Trudeau to match Harper"s record. Talk about low expectations.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

6% increase was the bottom line of the NDP (which you oddly criticize) for establishing a new accord.  I've seen no such commitment from this supposedly progressive Liberal government.  This is a terrible thing to underfund, IMO.

The NDP didn't have a health accord in their platform. They were going to simply give the money to the provinces no strings attached.

With the Liberals the provinces will have to meet requirements such as lowering wait times or offering more home care or agreeing to fund certain procedures.

For example, PEI could be required to offer abortion services on the island in order to recieve an increase in funding.

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

6% increase was the bottom line of the NDP (which you oddly criticize) for establishing a new accord.  I've seen no such commitment from this supposedly progressive Liberal government.  This is a terrible thing to underfund, IMO.

The NDP didn't have a health accord in their platform. They were going to simply give the money to the provinces no strings attached.

With the Liberals the provinces will have to meet requirements such as lowering wait times or offering more home care or agreeing to fund certain procedures.

For example, PEI could be required to offer abortion services on the island in order to recieve an increase in funding.

Why you keep spewing this bullshit is beyond me.  The NDP platform very specifically addressed negotiating a new health care accord with the provinces.  Further, they mentioned lowering wait times, number of additional doctors/nurse practitioners to be hired, amount of nursing home beds to be created along with additional health care clinics and mobile rural clinics, and a specific commitment to enforce the Canada Health Act and keep health care public.  There was far more than in the Liberal platform.

Most importantly, unlike the NDP, the Liberals did not commit to ensure the Canada Health Transfer increases by at least 6% per year.  Again, this is a terrible thing to underfund, in my opinion.

Sean in Ottawa

I object to the use of the term "middle class" in these promises except placed in quotations becuase:

1) tax brackets are not based on class and the "43k-$90k" tax bracket is not a "middle income tax bracket" -- If we could label middle class by income, tax brackets do not even work that way -- as we have discussed the top benefit of the 43l-90k bracket goes to people earning 90k-200k.

2) the Liebrals claimed it was a middle class tax cut but this was deceptive and misleading and we should not honour that description except in quotes since it never was created for the middle class.

3) If you are going to sort people by income then you have to refer to it as "middle income"  rather than "middle class." Politicians in all three major parties have defrauded Canadians who largely confuse the two by defining "middle class" as really meaning higher income people when you look at the policies they have produced. The NDP to their credit did point out that raising the basic exemption helps everyone but they did not fight this middle income concept or really fight on the issue that the "middle class" cut does not go to middle income people. This, despite the fact that journalists have done a good job trying to inform Canadians. The NDP remains oddly complicit and even voted for the Ways and Means motion without even making this criticism a priority-- or opposing it due to this.

We should not recognize promises that are misleading as kept if they mean something different than what the people were led to beleive they mean. As such no promise mentionningthe "middle callss" should be assumed to be kept.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Why you keep spewing this bullshit is beyond me.  The NDP platform very specifically addressed negotiating a new health care accord with the provinces.  Further, they mentioned lowering wait times, number of additional doctors/nurse practitioners to be hired, amount of nursing home beds to be created along with additional health care clinics and mobile rural clinics, and a specific commitment to enforce the Canada Health Act and keep health care public.  There was far more than in the Liberal platform.

Most importantly, unlike the NDP, the Liberals did not commit to ensure the Canada Health Transfer increases by at least 6% per year.  Again, this is a terrible thing to underfund, in my opinion.

Did you know it is actually possible for human beings to make mistakes?

I was remembering when he annouced the 6% riser he didn't mention any negotiations. I found the platform and discovered he did indeed commit to a negotiated accord. I do remember thinking it odd when he promised 5000 new doctors as I thought surely that is something that would have to be negotiated with the provinces and why 5000?

I think any riser will be negotiated not dictated.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh, so Trudeau makes "mistakes", and Mulcair is a liar Pondering? DOUBLE STANDARD! Mark was right, WHAT BULL!!!!

mark_alfred

We all make mistakes.  Anyway, someone else somewhere mentioned the Conservatives committing to 6% increase to the Canada Transfer Payments.  Out of curiousity, I checked that and found this:

Quote:
Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s Minister of Health, said Canada Health Transfer (CHT) would grow at 6 per cent per year, from $28.6 billion in 2012-13 to a projected $37.7 billion in 2017-18, exceeding the current growth rate of provincial healthcare spending. CHT is the Canadian government's transfer payment program that supports the health systems of the individual provinces and territories.

Starting in 2017-18, the CHT will grow in line with a three-year moving average of nominal GDP growth, with funding guaranteed to increase by at least 3 per cent per year.

So, 6% until 2017-18, then down to a minimum of 3%.  I'm pretty sure that was something that irked some of the provinces.  However, I've seen no commitment at all on this from the Liberals.  But, again, I may have overlooked or missed something.

ETA:  interesting link:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-vows-to-renegotiate...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The problems with so many of Trudeau's promises, http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-i-want-to-legalize-weed-but-they-wont-let-me/ar-CCvT8H?li=AAggFp5&ocid=iehp 

Details, shmetails! People had no idea what they were doing when they voted for this clown! Poor Justin. Governing is hard!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The problems with so many of Trudeau's promises, http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-i-want-to-legalize-weed-but-they-wont-let-me/ar-CCvT8H?li=AAggFp5&ocid=iehp 

Details, shmetails! People had no idea what they were doing when they voted for this clown! Poor Justin. Governing is hard!

The headline is a lie. Trudeau didn't say anything of the sort.

From the article:

The Liberal government will have to do substantial work on the international stage before it can follow through on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's promise to legalize marijuana, new documents suggest.

That work will have to include figuring out how Canada would comply with three international treaties to which the country is a party, all of which criminalize the possession and production of marijuana.

Trudeau's plan to legalize, regulate and restrict access to marijuana is already proving a complicated and controversial undertaking on the domestic front, in part because it requires working with the provinces.

Internationally, says a briefing note prepared for the prime minister, Canada will also have to find a way to essentially tell the world how it plans to conform to its treaty obligations.

Of course any briefing note will cover the angles that have to be considered and it would be odd if the international treadies were not mentioned as one of the considerations.

In my earlier post I didn't say that Trudeau had made a mistake, the mistake I was referring to was mine.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

They mislead the youth of this country. Call it lies or call it disinformation but those treaties have been around for a long time and they knew about them but hell there was no problem during the campaign.

Liberal liars are Liberal liars. Liberal Tory same old story. A Liberal will say anything to get elected.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was the U.S. a signatory to any of these treaties?  If so, how did they get around that?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The US was signatory. I don't know you would have ask their native people how they do that. Wink

International treaties cannot bind a current parliament or Congress because they embody the soverign state and have the right to withdraw from treaties signed by previous governments.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Was the U.S. a signatory to any of these treaties?  If so, how did they get around that?

As I understand it cannabis is still illegal under federal U.S. law, but the Obama administration has chosen not to enforce this law in states that have legalized. They could change their minds at any time, for example if Ted Cruz were elected President. That confrontation would be interesting.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The states in the US have jurisdiction over criminal law unlike our provinces where it is federal.

quizzical

ha Liberal Tory same old story and here's more proof....

Quote:
Trudeau picks close allies as ambassadors to U.S. and UN...Mr. Trudeau tapped Mr. MacNaughton because of his extensive experience working in the United States and profound understanding of how Washington operates.

For many years, Mr. MacNaughton worked in New York as chair of Hill & Knowlton, one of the world’s most influential consulting firms. He spent much of his time in Washington lobbying political figures and senior government officials.

The official said Mr. MacNaughton will be aided by his spouse and business partner, Leslie Noble, an influential figure within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, who can reach out to the Republican-controlled Congress.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

ha Liberal Tory same old story and here's more proof....

Quote:
Trudeau picks close allies as ambassadors to U.S. and UN...Mr. Trudeau tapped Mr. MacNaughton because of his extensive experience working in the United States and profound understanding of how Washington operates.

For many years, Mr. MacNaughton worked in New York as chair of Hill & Knowlton, one of the world’s most influential consulting firms. He spent much of his time in Washington lobbying political figures and senior government officials.

The official said Mr. MacNaughton will be aided by his spouse and business partner, Leslie Noble, an influential figure within the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, who can reach out to the Republican-controlled Congress.

They are there to lobby for business so it makes sense that they would choose people experienced in that and people that understand Republicans given that they dominate the US Senate. They aren't going there to lobby for social programs.

quizzical

no one said they were other than you.

the article indicates the close ties between Liebrals and Conservatives which is what i pointed out. doesn't matter which is voted for.

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

no one said they were other than you.

the article indicates the close ties between Liebrals and Conservatives which is what i pointed out. doesn't matter which is voted for.

Assigning ambassadors is one task. Trudeau has done many things that Harper never would have.

mark_alfred

On page 20 of the Liberal Platform,

Liberal Platform wrote:

We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.

The framework we design together will be administered in collaboration with, and in respect of, provincial jurisdictions.

They've been in office for 74 days, so they've 26 days to get going on this.

mark_alfred

Latest update on TrudeauMetre.ca shows 9 achieved promises and 4 broken promises.

 

There's been some question on the third one of the broken promises, that being the "immediately double the number of applications allowed for parents and grandparents to 10,000 each year."  Some have pointed out that CIC site states the government is committed to increase it "from 5,000 to 10,000 per year," but the site also says, 

Quote:
Intake is now closed while we review the applications received. The first 5,000 complete applications received will be placed in the inventory queue.

So, most agree that the Liberals came nowhere near meeting this promise, despite their declaration of good intentions on the CIC website.

ETA:  Some good news:  this promise (doubling the applications allowed for parents/grandparents to 10,000) was changed recently to "achieved".  Seems the government will accept 10,000 applications despite a notice on their site earlier saying intake was closed:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-will-take-in-10-000-parent-grandp...

quizzical

oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Sophie broke out into song today at a gathering giving Joe Clark a lifetime achievement award. WTF? self-centered much???

unfknbelievable

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Sophie broke out into song today at a gathering giving Joe Clark a lifetime achievement award. WTF? self-centered much???

unfknbelievable

 

I saw that. I knew you would find and report it. I thought I would wait for your post rather than scoop you.

The problem is there is a tradition of leaders doing this Rae, Harper, even Layton. Maybe Sophie sings better than Justin or he was too busy posing for pictures?

We really do now have a presidential system in all but name and process.

Here is the link -- http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sophie-gregoire-trudeau-song-mlk-ottawa-...

It gets much much better though --

It wasn't just about Joe Clark -- it was Martin Luther King JR day. Clark was being honoured for anti apartheid work and work on Aboriginal justice.

And Sophie in her infinite wisdom felt that the gathering would really prefer an amateur white woman to sing her version of the Blues rather than having a Black man or woman do that or just speak. After all MLK day is really about the white liberals.

To be fair we cannot be sure if Gregoirre was thinking that it be appropriate that the only singer be an amateur white woman or if there were Black people there at the podium but the CBC decide that that only person worthy of coverage was the white women. I am not sure.

So who do you want to blame CBC or Gregoire -- but seeing the MLK day coverage feature a white amateur woman try out the blues just does not seem appropriate. Why -- Becuase it is 2016!

quizzical

what do you mean tradition? they had a tradition of singing the blues on MLK day and  when someone was receiving  a life time achievement award?

yup Harper had his sicko little band. when did Layton sing? and Rae?

how about both? what was Gregoire and her handlers thinking? don't think they were. self absorbtion looks to be the motive and impetuous.

quizzical

oh and what's this about the Liberals handing Syrians a bill for their transportation here after the fact?

what Canada is now like those trying to make money of the Syrian's plight as we bomb them into refugee status???????

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

oh and what's this about the Liberals handing Syrians a bill for their transportation here after the fact?

what Canada is now like those trying to make money of the Syrian's plight as we bomb them into refugee status???????

I think refugees have been handed a transportation bill for years - and the Liberals cancelled that for Syrian refugees arriving after they took power (November 4).

I could be wrong about that.

voice of the damned

Sophie Gregoire singing the blues at a reception for Joe Clark? Sounds like something out of Tom Wolfe.

Though still not as tacky as Paul Anka's reworking of My Way at Pierre Trudeau's farewell bash...

"He stuck out his neck/And said to Levesque.../No way!"

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

what do you mean tradition? they had a tradition of singing the blues on MLK day and  when someone was receiving  a life time achievement award?

yup Harper had his sicko little band. when did Layton sing? and Rae?

how about both? what was Gregoire and her handlers thinking? don't think they were. self absorbtion looks to be the motive and impetuous.

No I did not mean of singing the blues -- I meant of being amateur entertainers.

The context and how offensive that was was my next point.

I find it odd that nobody close to Gregoire was able to tell her that she should not be the focus of this event.

I am actually shocked that the CBC would not be abl eto see that its coverage was hugely inappropriate and stank of racism.

Just becuase Gregoire went to the mic, does not mean that this had to be the selection and focus for the coverage of that day.

The reality is that Dr. King's vision of a post racial society has still not been completely met. The CBC coverage was quite sad -- and on that point I really do not care who the white woman singing the blues is.

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:
Sophie Gregoire singing the blues at a reception for Joe Clark? Sounds like something out of Tom Wolfe.

 

Though still not as tacky as Paul Anka's reworking of My Way at Pierre Trudeau's farewell bash...

 

"He stuck out his neck/And said to Levesque.../No way!"

It was not a reception for Joe Clark. It was MLK day. The CBC stank in its coverage of this.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

what do you mean tradition? they had a tradition of singing the blues on MLK day and  when someone was receiving  a life time achievement award?

yup Harper had his sicko little band. when did Layton sing? and Rae?

how about both? what was Gregoire and her handlers thinking? don't think they were. self absorbtion looks to be the motive and impetuous.

Both sang. I remember Rae in his first campaign as Ontario NDP leader -- he played the piano, was quite good and very funny. Layton did sing as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0Mk1idNXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eCKAQ0iooE

Now Layton had a sense of humour you see -- and he actually did have principles. Now you can't imagine Mulcair saying that becuase there would be too much truth to it.

voice of the damned

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:
Sophie Gregoire singing the blues at a reception for Joe Clark? Sounds like something out of Tom Wolfe.

 

Though still not as tacky as Paul Anka's reworking of My Way at Pierre Trudeau's farewell bash...

 

"He stuck out his neck/And said to Levesque.../No way!"

It was not a reception for Joe Clark. It was MLK day. The CBC stank in its coverage of this.

I stand corrected.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

what do you mean tradition? they had a tradition of singing the blues on MLK day and  when someone was receiving  a life time achievement award?

yup Harper had his sicko little band. when did Layton sing? and Rae?

how about both? what was Gregoire and her handlers thinking? don't think they were. self absorbtion looks to be the motive and impetuous.

No I did not mean of singing the blues -- I meant of being amateur entertainers.

The context and how offensive that was was my next point.

I find it odd that nobody close to Gregoire was able to tell her that she should not be the focus of this event.

I am actually shocked that the CBC would not be abl eto see that its coverage was hugely inappropriate and stank of racism.

Just becuase Gregoire went to the mic, does not mean that this had to be the selection and focus for the coverage of that day.

The reality is that Dr. King's vision of a post racial society has still not been completely met. The CBC coverage was quite sad -- and on that point I really do not care who the white woman singing the blues is.


Well, the song was also a song written by Sophie about her daughter. What it had to do with MLK or diversity or racial justice is beyond me. Quite a surreal moment actually.

monty1

We can go over all the promises and discard the ones we never did want him to keep anyway. Some are easily recognizable as nothing but campaign promises that serve no purpose for reasonable people. On the important ones, we need to give him time to follow through.

And not many people in Canada reallly care all that much what the Conservatives whine about anyway. If Trudeau sticks to keeping the NDP moderately happy then he'll stay popular.

voice of the damned

monty1 wrote:

We can go over all the promises and discard the ones we never did want him to keep anyway. Some are easily recognizable as nothing but campaign promises that serve no purpose for reasonable people. On the important ones, we need to give him time to follow through.

Which campaign promises do you think "serve no purpose for reasonable people"?

quizzical

Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
oh and what's this about the Liberals handing Syrians a bill for their transportation here after the fact?

what Canada is now like those trying to make money of the Syrian's plight as we bomb them into refugee status???????

I think refugees have been handed a transportation bill for years - and the Liberals cancelled that for Syrian refugees arriving after they took power (November 4).

I could be wrong about that.

what?? we've made refugees pay to be refugees in Canada???? oh my......

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:
quizzical wrote:
oh and what's this about the Liberals handing Syrians a bill for their transportation here after the fact?

what Canada is now like those trying to make money of the Syrian's plight as we bomb them into refugee status???????

I think refugees have been handed a transportation bill for years - and the Liberals cancelled that for Syrian refugees arriving after they took power (November 4).

I could be wrong about that.

what?? we've made refugees pay to be refugees in Canada???? oh my......

No. We've lent them money to travel here and for medical exams. The Canadian Council for Refugees has been demanding an end to this policy since at least 2008. When the Liberals took office, they said Syrian refugees would not have to repay the loans (or at least, ones that come here after November 4, 2015). And in December, they announced more changes. Hopefully they'll come up with a fairer system for all asylum-seekers - but only if activists and opposition forces keep up the pressure. The Conservatives haven't decided yet, supposedly. And I don't know what the NDP's position is.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
what do you mean tradition? they had a tradition of singing the blues on MLK day and  when someone was receiving  a life time achievement award?

yup Harper had his sicko little band. when did Layton sing? and Rae?

how about both? what was Gregoire and her handlers thinking? don't think they were. self absorbtion looks to be the motive and impetuous.

Both sang. I remember Rae in his first campaign as Ontario NDP leader -- he played the piano, was quite good and very funny. Layton did sing as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl0Mk1idNXg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eCKAQ0iooE

Now Layton had a sense of humour you see -- and he actually did have principles. Now you can't imagine Mulcair saying that becuase there would be too much truth to it.

awweee Sean you made me cry! thank you. loved loved loved the 2005 Gallery song. the comments were great too. what a human he was.

appropriate venues for musical entertainment i'd say.

 

quizzical

.

Pages

Topic locked