Welcome to the coming Peter MacKay era in Canadian politics, eh!

84 posts / 0 new
Last post
kropotkin1951

He was a Liberal in high school and switched parties less than two years after he graduated. The NEP was enacted when he worked in the mail room at Imperial Oil in Calgary.  He did not have to move to Calgary to become indoctrinated into the oil industry's worldview since his Dad back in Toronto, when he was growing up, worked for Imperial Oil.

I remember the NEP well, I thought it was a decent national program. Harper on the other hand cites the NEP as the reason he switched parties.

Harper became involved in politics as a member of his high school's Young Liberals Club.[22] He later changed his political allegiance because he disagreed with the National Energy Program (NEP) of Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government.[23]

 

voice of the damned

alan smithee wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 

And I hate to break it to you, but the Liberals aren't doing quite as fantastic as you might imagine.

 

I never said the Liberals are doing good. For years I have vented that I hate the Conservatives. You seem to think all your woes are because of the Liberals. You're kidding yourself.

Just to be clear, what I meant by "the Liberals aren't doing as fantastic as you seem to think" was that they are not that electorally strong, not that their policies are good or bad.

Basically, they are not in a position where they can afford to say, as you suggest, "Fuck the prairies, we can just stay in power by appeasing Ontario and Quebec." In fact, no party with aspirations to hold onto power has ever been able to govern that way. There are NEVER any guarantees that your support in a particular region is going to remain as strong as it is at any given time.

Remember "Well, welcome to the 1980s"? Any Liberals who were swooning over that little bit of self-glorification got a pretty rude shock four years later.  

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

 

And I hate to break it to you, but the Liberals aren't doing quite as fantastic as you might imagine.

 

I never said the Liberals are doing good. For years I have vented that I hate the Conservatives. You seem to think all your woes are because of the Liberals. You're kidding yourself.

Just to be clear, what I meant by "the Liberals aren't doing as fantastic as you seem to think" was that they are not that electorally strong, not that their policies are good or bad.

Basically, they are not in a position where they can afford to say, as you suggest, "Fuck the prairies, we can just stay in power by appeasing Ontario and Quebec." In fact, no party with aspirations to hold onto power has ever been able to govern that way. There are NEVER any guarantees that your support in a particular region is going to remain as strong as it is at any given time.

Remember "Well, welcome to the 1980s"? Any Liberals who were swooning over that little bit of self-glorification got a pretty rude shock four years later.  

I appreciate your comment. Of course there are no guarantees. I am saying MacKay is a weak choice for leader. and it would be that way if he lead ANY of the parties in Ottawa.

I don't want a Conservative majority....ever. This is the only reason why I think we should stop blaming the Libs for everything. It's dishonest. You know as well as I know that the Conservatives are horrrible and that they would dismantle our country. You know it.

The NDP  could soak up the Liberals support in some areas. I think that is great. BUT I still worry about this country and Conservatives in the era of Trump. It's terrifying.

I want the party (regardless who) has the best chance of keeping the keys away from the CPC. And with MacKay, it may not work out for the CPC.

But as you said, there are no gaurantees. I'm aware of that. So I have to put my support toANY party that can keep the CPC powerless. You understand? I know you do.

Misfit Misfit's picture

My mother was born and raised in northern Ontario into a Progreswice Conservstive family. She moved out west and found the CCF which she eagerly adopted as her ideology of choice.

Her mother's brother was born and raised in the very same northern Ontario community. He was raised a Progressive Conservative as well. He moved out west and worked for the CP railroad. He too discoverered the CCF and changed allegiances for life.

The prairies changed many people who relocated here from central Canada. It certainly didn't change them all into being extremely right wing in ideology either. In fact, the prairies has attracted tremendous politicians from other regions of Canada to be a part of our remarkable social democratic revolution which successfully grabbed hold onto power here. Allan Blakeney is just one such example.

There is nothing in Alberta and Saskatchewan that is unique in terms of right wing thought except for anger at central Canada. The oil industry is a major employer and many lives are dependent on it. This helps to give the Conservstive party a strong base of support. Racism tends to be more pronounced but racism and social conservatism exist all across Canada and are not unique to this region of Canada.

Our historical support for social democracy and innovation. This more accurately sets the prairies apart from the rest of Canada. Before 1990, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and B.C. were the only provinces in Canada to elect social democratic governments. And Saskatchewan is the only province that has successfully dominated the political landscape with a solid and long term social democratic government.

So if you want to single out the prairies, single then out for the things which have truly defined our political footprint and not with ignorant stereotypes about who some people misunderstand us as being about.

voice of the damned

 Before 1990, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and B.C. were the only provinces in Canada to elect social democratic governments.

Well, you might include Ontario and Alberta in there, depending on how you regard the United Farmers movement. Not quite socialist in its ideology, but generally regarded as ancestral to the NDP.

And the PQ under Levesque was pretty much social-democratic in its orientation. In any case, yes, the political history of Canada is far from being The West Forcing Right-Wing Rule On A Helpless Nation. 

kropotkin1951

The United Farmers were a populist party whose elected officials often worked with labour representatives. I think it is a stretch to call them a precursor to the CCF let alone the NDP. The CCF was a socialist party not a populist party. By the time of the forming of the NDP Dief the Chief had wrapped up the populist vote on the prairies and the CCF had morphed into a social democratic party.

Misfit Misfit's picture

To Krop and VOTD, yes to both of you.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He was a Liberal in high school and switched parties less than two years after he graduated. The NEP was enacted when he worked in the mail room at Imperial Oil in Calgary.  He did not have to move to Calgary to become indoctrinated into the oil industry's worldview since his Dad back in Toronto, when he was growing up, worked for Imperial Oil.

I remember the NEP well, I thought it was a decent national program. Harper on the other hand cites the NEP as the reason he switched parties.

Harper became involved in politics as a member of his high school's Young Liberals Club.[22] He later changed his political allegiance because he disagreed with the National Energy Program (NEP) of Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government.[23]

 

Did the NEP include any measures or programs to retrain or re-employ those workers who had jobs in or related to extractive industries?  The Alberta narrative implied that the NEP turned the whole promise into a northern economic version of Dust Bowl Oklahoma or something.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

 Before 1990, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and B.C. were the only provinces in Canada to elect social democratic governments.

Well, you might include Ontario and Alberta in there, depending on how you regard the United Farmers movement. Not quite socialist in its ideology, but generally regarded as ancestral to the NDP.

And the PQ under Levesque was pretty much social-democratic in its orientation. In any case, yes, the political history of Canada is far from being The West Forcing Right-Wing Rule On A Helpless Nation. 

I've sometimes wondered if the major reason Alberta has been so generally right-wing since the Thirties was that the UFP, which was something of a left-populist grouping, happened to be the party in power when the Depression hit-there was a consistent pattern that whichever party was in power in Ottawa or Quebec or each province when that cataclysmic event occurred did badly in electoral terms for years afterwards-it's probably the main reason the Cons were out of power federally from 1935 to 1957, for example.

kropotkin1951

Ken Burch wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

He was a Liberal in high school and switched parties less than two years after he graduated. The NEP was enacted when he worked in the mail room at Imperial Oil in Calgary.  He did not have to move to Calgary to become indoctrinated into the oil industry's worldview since his Dad back in Toronto, when he was growing up, worked for Imperial Oil.

I remember the NEP well, I thought it was a decent national program. Harper on the other hand cites the NEP as the reason he switched parties.

Harper became involved in politics as a member of his high school's Young Liberals Club.[22] He later changed his political allegiance because he disagreed with the National Energy Program (NEP) of Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government.[23]

 

Did the NEP include any measures or programs to retrain or re-employ those workers who had jobs in or related to extractive industries?  The Alberta narrative implied that the NEP turned the whole promise into a northern economic version of Dust Bowl Oklahoma or something.

The Alberta narrative was, "we don't want to share with our cousins in other provinces.' They completely rejected the idea of a national energy program designed to benefit ALL Canadians. That is why calling the TMX pipeline, that is designed to move tar sands gunk owned by foreign multi-nationals to an export market a "national interest" project really sticks in my craw. Many of the ideas in the NEP had been promoted by the NDP. It was a weaker version of the Norwegian model. Of course Norway is not a federation so there were no regional arguments clouding the basic issues.

This is a decent short summary of the program.

Program details

The National Energy Program "had three principles: (1) security of supply and ultimate independence from the world market, (2) opportunity for all Canadians to participate in the energy industry, particularly oil and gas, and to share in the benefits of its expansion, and (3) fairness, with a pricing and revenue-sharing regime which recognizes the needs and rights of all Canadians".[1]:6[14]:5–7

"The main elements of the program included:

(a) a blended or 'made-in-Canada' price of oil, an average of the costs of imported and domestic oil, which will rise gradually and predictably but will remain well below world prices and will never be more than 85 per cent of the lower of the price of imported oil or of oil in the US, and which will be financed by a Petroleum Compensation Charge levied on refiners...;

(b) natural gas prices which will increase less quickly than oil prices, but which will include a new and rising federal tax on all natural gas and gas liquids;

(c) a petroleum and gas revenue tax of 8 per cent applied to net operating revenues before royalty and other expense deductions on all production of oil and natural gas in Canada...;

(d) the phasing out of the depletion allowances for oil and gas exploration and development, which will be replaced with a new system of direct incentive payments, structured to encourage investment by Canadian companies, with added incentives for exploration on Canada Lands (lands which the federal government held the mineral rights as opposed to private lands and lands which provinces held the mineral rights);

(e) a federal share of petroleum production income at the wellhead which will rise from about 10 per cent in recent years to 24 per cent over the 1980-83 period, with the share of the producing provinces falling from 45 to 43 per cent and that of the industry falling from 45 to 33 per cent over the same period;

(f) added incentives for energy conservation and energy conversion away from oil, particularly applicable to Eastern Canada, including the extension of the natural gas pipe-line system to Quebec City and the maritimes, with the additional transport charges being passed back to the producer; and

(g) a Canadian ownership levy to assist in financing the acquisition of the Canadian operations of one or more multinational oil companies, with the objective of achieving at least 50 per cent Canadian ownership of oil and gas production by 1990, Canadian control of a significant number of the major oil and gas corporations, and an early increase in the share of the oil and gas sector owned by the Government of Canada."[14]:6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program

voice of the damned

Ken wrote:

I've sometimes wondered if the major reason Alberta has been so generally right-wing since the Thirties was that the UFP, which was something of a left-populist grouping, happened to be the party in power when the Depression hit-there was a consistent pattern that whichever party was in power in Ottawa or Quebec or each province when that cataclysmic event occurred did badly in electoral terms for years afterwards-it's probably the main reason the Cons were out of power federally from 1935 to 1957, for example.

No, I don't really think the aversion of Alberta voters to left-wing parties can be explained simply by the UFA being in power when the Depression hit. It probably explains why the UFA itself was wiped out in 1935, in favour of a party that was even more interventionist economically, but it doesn't explain why subsequent generations of Albertans developed an allergy to the CCF and the NDP. I think I could count on one hand the number of times I've heard a non-political Albertan talk about the UFA, and none of those were in the context of explaining why the speaker was gonna vote Conservative. 

I think the conservative hegemony in Alberta is explained almost entirely by the oil industry, which, at least until the early 90s, privided successive governments with enough revenue to keep the funding flowing into schools and hospitals, and under the PCs, arts and culture as well. It would be a very different history had oil never been struck in Alberta.

Alvin Finkel's unsympathetic history of Social Credit explains the basic template of Alberta governments post-1947...

https://tinyurl.com/rnvat4z

Even Finkel acknowedges that, when opposition leader Lougheed attacked the Socreds for underspending on education, he was mostly blowing smoke.

 

voice of the damned

kropotkin1951 wrote:

The United Farmers were a populist party whose elected officials often worked with labour representatives. I think it is a stretch to call them a precursor to the CCF let alone the NDP. The CCF was a socialist party not a populist party. By the time of the forming of the NDP Dief the Chief had wrapped up the populist vote on the prairies and the CCF had morphed into a social democratic party.

Well, according to wiki anyway, of the nine UFA MPs sitting in the FEDERAL House Of Commons in 1932, 8 joined the CCF when it was formed, and one became a Conservative. So I'd extrapolate that a lot of people probably did see some affinity between the United Farmers and the CCF. 

But no, the UFA wasn't ancestral to the CCF in the same way that the CCF itself was ancestral to the NDP.

https://tinyurl.com/voddrao

 

voice of the damned

Further to post 62...

I'd also point out that, prior to the 1967 election, the Liberals, at least as much if not moreso than the PCs, were seen as the most credible alternative to Social Credit, having provided the most powerful opposition contingent to that point in 1955, and even after being all but wiped out in the next election, still managed a better showing than the Tories as late as 1963.

Granted. in those days, the economic differences between Liberals and Conservatives were not that pronounced.

R.E.Wood

alan smithee wrote:

And why do Westerners vote blindly for the most abhorrent leaders both provincially and federally?

Sorry to bring up an old quote from a few days ago, but I notice this point was not addressed by anyone else and I think it needs to be.

It's such an overly generalized comment as to be utterly ridiculous. First of all, does "Westerners" include British Columbia, which is currently led by an NDP minority government and has a history of sending many powerful NDP MP's to Ottawa? Does it include Saskatchewan, the birthplace of the CCF/NDP, and Canadian health care as we know it due to NDP governments? Or Manitoba, with its long history of electing provincial NDP governments and federal NDP representatives? And what about Alberta, which elected an NDP government not that long ago and still has the NDP as probably its strongest opposition ever? 

There are lots of varied members elected across "Western" Canada, both federally and provincially, and they're certainly not all "abhorrent"!

I'll add that a lot of abhorrent politicians have been elected from outside Western Canada as well. Look no further than Ontario and the repugnant Ford regime for a current example. And my personal choice for "Worst Prime Minister in Canadian History" is Mulroney, who came from Quebec. There are other examples if you'd like to dig into specifics, rather than baseless generalities.

JKR

voice of the damned wrote:

I think the conservative hegemony in Alberta is explained almost entirely by the oil industry, which, at least until the early 90s, privided successive governments with enough revenue to keep the funding flowing into schools and hospitals, and under the PCs, arts and culture as well. It would be a very different history had oil never been struck in Alberta.

... and Saskatchewan's oil industry seems to have also turned that province into a right-wing stronghold:

Regina paying climate crisis skeptic $10K to speak at 'sustainability' conference; CBC News;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/climate-skeptic-speak-at-sustainability-conference-regina-1.5448458

Quote:
A former Greenpeace employee who has spoken out in opposition to environmental science has the top billing at the City of Regina's upcoming conference on future sustainability. 
 

..."It just makes me feel like, again, the politicians in this city and Saskatchewan just don't get it," she said. "They just don't understand that climate change is an important thing to take seriously."


It seems that Saskatchewan becoming a petro "have" province has made them the second most right-wing province in Canada after Alberta.

Debater
voice of the damned

R.E.Wood wrote:

 And my personal choice for "Worst Prime Minister in Canadian History" is Mulroney, who came from Quebec. There are other examples if you'd like to dig into specifics, rather than baseless generalities.

And the current PM once hailed that man as one of "the great prime ministers of the 20th Century"...

Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec. There was Trudeau, there was Mulroney, there was Chrétien, there was Paul Martin. We have a role. This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

Granted, JT was probably not expressing seriously thought-out opinions there, just trying to appeal to the local-yokel vote in Quebec by rambling off a list of PMs from that province and pronouncing them all "great". Still, it was funny to see him suggest that his party's crushing defeat in '84 was a good thing, not to mention that Paul Martin jr. is someone who has "really stood the test of time".

 

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

R.E.Wood wrote:

 And my personal choice for "Worst Prime Minister in Canadian History" is Mulroney, who came from Quebec. There are other examples if you'd like to dig into specifics, rather than baseless generalities.

And the current PM once hailed that man as one of "the great prime ministers of the 20th Century"...

Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec. There was Trudeau, there was Mulroney, there was Chrétien, there was Paul Martin. We have a role. This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

Granted, JT was probably not expressing seriously thought-out opinions there, just trying to appeal to the local-yokel vote in Quebec by rambling off a list of PMs from that province and pronouncing them all "great". Still, it was funny to see him suggest that his party's crushing defeat in '84 was a good thing, not to mention that Paul Martin jr. is someone who has "really stood the test of time".

 

I have seen the word great used at times to mean significant rather than good. Still, it is hard to rate Martin in this way either.

voice of the damned

Sean wrote:

I have seen the word great used at times to mean significant rather than good. Still, it is hard to rate Martin in this way either.

That's right about the double-meaning of "great", but I don't think I've ever heard the word used in a situation where the speaker wanted the audience or reader to have an outright negative view of the person, eg. no one ever says "Hitler was a great man", even though Hitler was certainly significant.

And assuming that Trudeau's remarks were given proper context by CBC, it seems clear that he wanted his listeners to come away with a positive view of the "great" PMs he was talking about...

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec. There was Trudeau, there was Mulroney, there was Chrétien, there was Paul Martin. We have a role. This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

I'll grant that JT probably didn't mean that Canada belongs to Quebec exclusively, as some likely tried to spin it. Just that Quebec shares in the claim to ownership.

https://tinyurl.com/u9w8ckv

 

 

brookmere

Those remarks were made in French, on a program on Tele-Quebec in 2010, while he was a first term MP. Trudeau used the word "grand" which is often translated as "great" but is broader in meaning, e.g. it literally means "big".

I was never a big fan of Mulroney myself, but he's always been well regarded in Quebec, and it would not be unusual for any politician seeking support in Quebec to speak of him positively. For example, here's what Jack Layton said:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he spoke privately with former prime minister Brian Mulroney about how to handle his new caucus, which is largely drawn from Quebec.

"I did have a conversation with him and I appreciated him taking the time," Layton said Thursday on CTV's Power Play.

He said Mulroney understood "that when you have a large and diverse caucus from right across the country, including a large number from Quebec, there are some issues...."

Layton described Mulroney's suggestions as "useful advice."

"I appreciated the contact," he said.

 

 

JKR

brookmere wrote:

Those remarks were made in French, on a program on Tele-Quebec in 2010, while he was a first term MP. Trudeau used the word "grand" which is often translated as "great" but is broader in meaning, e.g. it literally means "big".

He could have also mentioned three other "grand" Quebec PM's: Laurier, Laurent, and his dad. 

Debater

JKR wrote:

brookmere wrote:

Those remarks were made in French, on a program on Tele-Quebec in 2010, while he was a first term MP. Trudeau used the word "grand" which is often translated as "great" but is broader in meaning, e.g. it literally means "big".

He could have also mentioned three other "grand" Quebec PM's: Laurier, Laurent, and his dad. 

Well, Trudeau has talked about Laurier many times -- he's said Laurier is his favourite PM.  Laurier is where he borrowed "sunny ways" from.

kropotkin1951

brookmere wrote:

Those remarks were made in French, on a program on Tele-Quebec in 2010, while he was a first term MP. Trudeau used the word "grand" which is often translated as "great" but is broader in meaning, e.g. it literally means "big".

I was never a big fan of Mulroney myself, but he's always been well regarded in Quebec, and it would not be unusual for any politician seeking support in Quebec to speak of him positively. For example, here's what Jack Layton said:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he spoke privately with former prime minister Brian Mulroney about how to handle his new caucus, which is largely drawn from Quebec.

"I did have a conversation with him and I appreciated him taking the time," Layton said Thursday on CTV's Power Play.

He said Mulroney understood "that when you have a large and diverse caucus from right across the country, including a large number from Quebec, there are some issues...."

Layton described Mulroney's suggestions as "useful advice."

"I appreciated the contact," he said.

Given the results from the next election, after those new MP's got muzzled, maybe he should have looked for advice in some other place.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

And why do Westerners vote blindly for the most abhorrent leaders both provincially and federally?

Sorry to bring up an old quote from a few days ago, but I notice this point was not addressed by anyone else and I think it needs to be.

It's such an overly generalized comment as to be utterly ridiculous. First of all, does "Westerners" include British Columbia, which is currently led by an NDP minority government and has a history of sending many powerful NDP MP's to Ottawa? Does it include Saskatchewan, the birthplace of the CCF/NDP, and Canadian health care as we know it due to NDP governments? Or Manitoba, with its long history of electing provincial NDP governments and federal NDP representatives? And what about Alberta, which elected an NDP government not that long ago and still has the NDP as probably its strongest opposition ever? 

There are lots of varied members elected across "Western" Canada, both federally and provincially, and they're certainly not all "abhorrent"!

I'll add that a lot of abhorrent politicians have been elected from outside Western Canada as well. Look no further than Ontario and the repugnant Ford regime for a current example. And my personal choice for "Worst Prime Minister in Canadian History" is Mulroney, who came from Quebec. There are other examples if you'd like to dig into specifics, rather than baseless generalities.

And as to abhorrent leaders, Alan...do the names "Duplessis" and "Legault" ring a bell?  

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Those remarks were made in French, on a program on Tele-Quebec in 2010, while he was a first term MP. Trudeau used the word "grand" which is often translated as "great" but is broader in meaning, e.g. it literally means "big".

I was never a big fan of Mulroney myself, but he's always been well regarded in Quebec, and it would not be unusual for any politician seeking support in Quebec to speak of him positively. For example, here's what Jack Layton said:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he spoke privately with former prime minister Brian Mulroney about how to handle his new caucus, which is largely drawn from Quebec.

"I did have a conversation with him and I appreciated him taking the time," Layton said Thursday on CTV's Power Play.

He said Mulroney understood "that when you have a large and diverse caucus from right across the country, including a large number from Quebec, there are some issues...."

Layton described Mulroney's suggestions as "useful advice."

"I appreciated the contact," he said.

 

 

Ahah. I did not realize these comments were in French. I agree grand does not mean great in the sense of good. It is the translation of great when referring to leaders but does not carry the connotation. It really does mean significant more than good in my opinion.

Leaders who win multiple majorities would be grand in that context.

Still no idea why Martin could be on the list....

Misfit Misfit's picture

Sean from Ottawa wrote:

"Still no idea why Martin could be on the list...."

Great and grand at eviscerating our social programs?

kropotkin1951

It seems he was merely doing a recital of PM's from Quebec and being non-partisan about his belief that they were exceptional, compared to PM's from elsewhere in Canada. That type of pandering served him well in the last election.

Debater

Peter MacKay and the French Factor

L. Ian MacDonald

January 30, 2020

https://policymagazine.ca/peter-mackay-and-the-french-factor/

voice of the damned

I take the point about Trudeau's words having shades of meaning in French that their equivalents in English would not. But it's still not clear to me why he would have called those PMs "big", without any connotation of "really good", given the reported context of his words...

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec. There was Trudeau, there was Mulroney, there was Chrétien, there was Paul Martin. We have a role. This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

If his answer really was in reply to the question about the country being "better served" when Quebeckers are in charge, why would he start talking about how significant Quebec PMs have been, without it being meant as a comment on the quality of their leadership? I can only assume the CBC's reportage was a complete mangle, from start to finish.

 

Sean in Ottawa

voice of the damned wrote:

I take the point about Trudeau's words having shades of meaning in French that their equivalents in English would not. But it's still not clear to me why he would have called those PMs "big", without any connotation of "really good", given the reported context of his words...

When asked whether he thought Canada was "better served when there are more Quebecers in charge than Albertans," Trudeau replied, "I'm a Liberal, so of course I think so, yes. Certainly when we look at the great prime ministers of the 20th century, those that really stood the test of time, they were MPs from Quebec. There was Trudeau, there was Mulroney, there was Chrétien, there was Paul Martin. We have a role. This country, Canada, it belongs to us."

If his answer really was in reply to the question about the country being "better served" when Quebeckers are in charge, why would he start talking about how significant Quebec PMs have been, without it being meant as a comment on the quality of their leadership? I can only assume the CBC's reportage was a complete mangle, from start to finish.

 

I can understand this distinction. Trudeau often says silly things that have a grain of truth that you can figure out what he meant. Such as his comment about China. Nobody really thinks he admires a dictatorship in China but he mangled his words to suggest he did. The fact that this is a country that can manage to get bug things done quickly at times is something we all can see is worthy of respect and is less controversial when you think about it than it has been made out to be. I think this comment is about leaders from Quebec being significant and important in contribution. I do not think that he meant it as it came out.

There is also a history of Liberal PMs who are incoherent to a point: Chrétien did that with an accent -- Trudeau does it without one. (English is his first language and certianly the one he knows best)

NorthReport

Looks like MacKay won't have much opposition in securing the Conservative leadership.

 

Debater

John Baird won't run for Conservative leadership:

https://twitter.com/Baird/status/1228092570695278592

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

John Baird won't run for Conservative leadership:

https://twitter.com/Baird/status/1228092570695278592

Good

Pages