My Canadian friends and readers have been freaking out about yesterday’s election: a crucial one given the dire reign of Stephen Harper and the Conservative party, and all the polls showing the Liberal Party neck and neck with conservatives. But the news is all good. As The New York Times reports, the Liberal party had a decisive victory:
The nine-year reign of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party came to a sudden and stunning end on Monday night at the hands of Justin Trudeau, the young leader of the Liberal Party.
Starting with a sweep of the Atlantic provinces, the Liberals capitalized on what many Canadians saw as Mr. Harper’s heavy-handed style, and the party went on to capture 184 of the 338 seats in the next House of Commons. The unexpected rout occurred 47 years after Mr. Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, first swept to power.
While the Liberal Party had emerged on top in several polls over the past week, its lead was short of conclusive and Mr. Trudeau was an untested figure. There was no ambiguity, however, in Monday’s results.
The Conservatives were reduced to 99 seats from 159 in the last Parliament, according to preliminary results. The New Democratic Party, which had held second place and formed the official opposition, held on to only 44 seats after suffering substantial losses in Quebec to the Liberals.
I’m sure all the Canadian readers here are celebrating, but before you do read this piece at 3D Policy: “Who will be the biggest losers in this election? Young Canadians.” Highlighting the slump in the Canadian economy and the lack of prospects for external forces to improve it, the unnamed author argues that neither the Liberal nor the New Democratic Party has the means to fulfill its promises to revamp the stagnant economy:
The growth strategy of the Conservatives has always been clear -cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget, cut the size of government, hope the U.S economy recovers, and pray for higher oil prices. The entire April budget is based on this failed strategy. The economic and fiscal projections underlying the April budget can only be described as “pure fantasy”.
What is strange is that the Liberals and the NDP are twisting themselves into knots to put together economic growth strategies that are supposed to be different from that of the Conservatives, while at the same time adopting the Conservative orthodoxy that all deficits are bad, all debt is bad, and small government is good.
Like most Americans, I’m shamefully ignorant of Canadian politics and economics, but the author recommends “renewed federal-provincial trust and cooperation, with strong federal leadership, something that has been painfully lacking for years,” eliminating barriers to movement of goods and services across provinces (I didn’t now these existed!), a revamped tax structure, rebuilt infrastructure, and a comprehensive environmental protection and energy-development strategy. I’ll add here that the government needs to fund science more heavily: a continual complaint of my Canadian colleagues. Finally, the author recommends that, since interest rates are low, Canada adopt the International Monetary Fund’s recommendation to increase government borrowing to support infrastructure.
Canadian readers (or those who know the situation) are welcome celebrate as well as to weigh in on this pessimism, but the author of the 3D Policy piece doesn’t have much hope, ending like this:
The federal government clearly has a strong sustainable fiscal structure, thanks to actions taken over the past 20 years, whereas many provinces do not. The federal government is in a position to act and should do so by adopting the recommendations of the IMF and take the lead in financing a new strategy to strengthen potential economic growth.
Is any of this likely to happen? Probably not. Except for a lot of empty rhetoric from all three parties, a new “built in Canada” growth strategy does not appear to be on the agenda for this election.
It is young Canadians who will suffer the consequences.
Good news! I’ll be interested in what the Canadian readers have to say …
Best day ever! Woke up to a new era full of hope.
Exactly how I felt!
Canada, like the US, has been ignoring it’s infrastructure too long. One country who actually gets it right is China (but not everywhere).
Why don’t governments realize that repairing roads and bridges and working on airports and rail systems adds tremendously to the economy in several different ways.
The Liberals are promising $20 billion investment in transit, which is sorely needed in most urban areas.
Purely anecdotal evidence here, but while driving most of the way across Canada last week ( Whistler to Toronto) we “experienced” a TON of highway and bridge construction, especially in BC and northern Ontario. Much more than on the same drive last year, though I would hate to attribute any of this to the Harper gov’t. I really don’t know if this was funded federally or provincially. Another strange thing: gas was much more expensive in BC and Alberta than at home ($1.23/L vs. $.93/L). I would have expected really cheap gas around Calgary in particular.
I am hoping for the best from Justin and am very happy to see the back of Harperman.
Hi Merilee,
I live in Calgary, my home for the past 25 years. Gasoline near my house is $1.09 this morning, so you might have paid a bit too much. However, Canadian fuel is generally higher than in the US because we have higher taxes on gasoline. For example, in Calgary, we have an extremely progressive mayor (Naheed Nenshi, the only big-city, nominally-Moslem mayor in North America) who has been using the city tax of 5c/litre to inverst in mass transit.
Provincial fuel taxes in our socialist-governed province have long been high in an effort to keep roads in good shape.
So, though it is true that our province produces a lot of oil and natural gas, which might suggest it should be cheaper, our progressive tax structure makes drivers pay an extra $5/week or so to keep the roads and public transit working.
I hope you had a nice time here – thanks for visiting.
Thanks for the clarification, Miksha. I had NO idea that Calgary had a progressive gov’t. In my ignorance I figured it was a hotbed of Harperism. I’ve always been in favor of high gasoline taxes ( to fund roads and discourage driving). I wonder why Ontario, with a Liberal Premier, has so much cheaper gas?
P.S. Thanks for the warm welcome, but we actually just drove through Calgary. Always amazed how the Trans Canada Highway goes right through the middle of the city, traffic lights and all.
Well, I actually live in the riding that Harper represents. As usual, my neighbours voted overwhelmingly Conservative. And that’s a puzzle to me, too, because these same neighbours voted in May 2015 to send a socialist (NDP) representative to our provincial capital.
To make it even more fun, my kids attended an elementary named for Canada’s leading suffragette who brought in the right to vote for women, they go to middle schools named for Louis Riel (hanged in the 1880s for leading an aboriginal uprising) and another middle school named for an 1870s black American escaped slave who was an area rancher (John Ware). My kids’ high school will be Henry Wisewood, named for a communist from Missouri who came here in the 1920s and helped set up our labour movement. All of these schools are in the same neighbourhood which Mr Harper was representing in Ottawa!
Alberta has always been Canada’s Texas – oil and rednecks – but things seem to be changing. I lived there for 10 years at a time when conservative rule was absolute. An NDP provincial government and a Calgary mayor named Naheed Nenshi? There’s hope for Alberta.
Very schizophrenic
The province just elected lefties too!
Oakville got a Lib named John Oliver!!! Very glad to get rid of Tory Terrence Young.
Most likely those were funded by the province. The Feds own the highways.
The Feds own the highways but the provinces maintain them?
I think so. Municipalities do the other local roads.
I’m certainly no expert on Canadian politics, but it seems to me that the 3D Policy commentary is a lot of conservative hooey.
I would largely agree, and in particular, see little point in reading that blurb, given the straightforward factual falsehood contained in
“…the Liberals … are twisting themselves into knots …. while at the same time adopting the Conservative orthodoxy that all deficits are bad,…”
Anybody paying attention to the campaign knows that the Liberal Party has an explicit policy with deficits (not large) for the next 3 years.
I am delighted to get rid of Harper, and I voted strategically for my Liberal candidate for that reason. I would have preferred a slight minority for the Liberals and better performance by the NDP, leaving the need for some cooperation between the two. Or even, as a pipe-dream, many more votes for the Greens (who got only one seat of 338). But who knows how politics will develop, or would have with results closer to my particular wishes.
Let’s just hope we hear good things from the Liberals now re global warming.
sub
The new Liberal govt platform actually use most , if not all, of those recommendations.
It’s a very positive change from the policies of the conservatives.
By that I meant these reco’s:
“renewed federal-provincial trust and cooperation, with strong federal leadership, something that has been painfully lacking for years,” eliminating barriers to movement of goods and services across provinces , a revamped tax structure, rebuilt infrastructure, and a comprehensive environmental protection and energy-development strategy. science funding. government borrowing to support infrastructure.”
Add to that marijuana legalisation and proportional representation (no more FPTP) too.
As an Albertan I’m surrounded by angry conservatives, but I’m a pretty happy camper today!
I certainly wish Canadians and Trudeau the best. I know next to nothing about Canadian economics so I can’t chime in on that issue. When I left Canada as a child I left a bit of my little heart behind: The local woodland animals, the girl next door, hockey…
So, I hope everyone who wants a job gets a job in Canada. Go Maple Leafs!
And go Jays, who finally trounced KC last night!!
Not so fast there Merilee. The Royals should bounce right back.
And unfortunately thry have, in spades.
I can’t wait for the repeal of Bill C-51 so I’m no longer a 2nd class citizen.
A food and drug act? What does it do to make you a 2nd class citizen? (Not a rhetorical question but sincerely curious; I don’t know anything about the bill).
C-51 is a so called anti-terrorist bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_Act,_2015
C-24 (as Greg mentioned) is a change to the Canadian Citizenship Act. There were clauses in it which could revoke citizenship under certain conditions.
Actually it is C-24 that can strip me of my Canadian citizenship even though I was born here. This is only some of this it can happen to. C-51 gives broad security powers to government agencies. There were so many totalitarian bills put through with this last government that it is hard to keep them all straight.
Hmmm I must’ve googled the wrong thing. Thanks for the explanation.
Funny, I heard a guy buying a case of beer in the local liquor store last night tell the clerk that he was buying it to celebrate the electoral defeat of the guy who had made him a 2nd-class citizen.
Same reason as you, I guess.
Yes. Anyone with dual citizenship can have their Canadian citizenship revoked if the government feels that you are bad. It may at first seem trivial since I don’t do bad things that would be so bad that I’d be charged with terrorism, but it’s important to note 1) Mohammed Fahmy could technically lose his Canadian citizenship for pissing off Egypt 2) It’s the principle of the matter. If you are a Canadian citizen, Canada has to deal with you.
My friend with dual Canadian-Australian citizenship remarked that she stood a good chance of becoming stateless if Australia ever changed their mind about her citizenship.
Oh and I should add that this was the tactic of the government at the time – try to play on hatred and tribalism.
I think this picture is apt of Mr. Harper.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qzeq0syfp7tevf/harperhate.jpg
Thanks for this, hadn’t seen it.
Glad you don’t have to worry about the one-way trip now, Diana
I think you mean C-24. I hope it is repealed too.
A very close family member has long been a Conservative supporter – he even attended the national convention 10 years ago as a youth delegate and in 2011 he tramped through the streets for one of their candidates. However, when Harper pushed C-51 through and tried to use divisive racist rhetoric in this election, and hinted that there are more C-51s up his sleeve, my relative totally and vehemently opposed Harper and rallied his friends against Harper. Mr Harper really messed up with his Big Brother attitude and he has paid the price!
What they should do first is stop exploiting tar sands.
http://www.no-tar-sands.org/what-are-the-tar-sands/
The Liberals are likely to take far more action on climate change than the Conservatives.
“Shut off the taps” is just not realistic.
Supply and demand, production costs will determine what happens with any carbon resource.
A carbon tax is the way to go (to start).
Yes. We need to find ways to move off fossil fuels, but at the moment we do not have sufficient replacement products. Without them the world would literally grind to a halt and we’d all starve to death if we didn’t die of disease first. I am not exaggerating.
That won’t stop the problem. We cannot afford to burn this oil without causing catastrophic climate change.
Maybe Americans should raise their gasoline taxes to Canadian levels so they aren’t as inclined to burn up all that dirty fuel.
Pffft, it hasn’t stopped Canadians.
Countries with higher fuel taxes tend to use less fuel.
This is the first PM that is younger than me, so that’s the bad news (for me). My first memories of politics as a child was of Trudeau senior. He was pretty controversial in Canada but seemed like a cool dude to me. He was good friends (it seems) to Castro fwiw.
“eliminating barriers to movement of goods and services across provinces (I didn’t now these existed!)”
This has annoyed me for ever. I learned about this when we were negotiating the FTA with the US. After that trade deal became law it was cheaper to sell goods to the US in most cases than to trade between most provinces! I believe it is still the case.
As for the Infrastructure spending and running deficits, the Liberals have promised to make this a priority, we’ll see if they hold up to it.
btw, do yourself a favour and do a Google search for “trudeau boxing match”.
“He was good friends (it seems) to Castro fwiw.”
In an era when Castro ran a totalitarian state with no political freedom, that is a less than ringing endorsement of Trudeau’s “coolness”. Is there no end to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thinking?
I did say he was controversial…
I think Trudeau saw that placing an embargo on Cuba was wrong. He was also good friends with Jimmy Carter and Alexander Yakolev and named his son after him, even keeping the Russian diminutive, Sasha.
I think he was most cool during the October Crisis when he said “just watch me” and enacted the War Measures Act to deal with terrorism.
The common refrain about Pierre is “He haunts us still,” and now it’s clear how true that is. Justin is very different; more open, less intellectual. I recall a BBC interview with PET (Pierre Elliott Trudeau) conducted by Lord Chalfont, a wide-ranging, exhilirating discussion of politics and ideas, and thinking how chuffed I was to have a Prime Minister with real intellectual chops.
… also one who did a little pirouette behind her back while in the room with Her Majesty.
Let us hope Justin has the intellectual depth, even if he realizes that lecturing provincial premiers with it in public might be counterproductive.
Justin is really more like his mother. The son that is more like PET avoided politics like the plague. It is sad that his other son died in that avalanche. I heard that was too much for PET to recover from and ruined his health.
I think Justin is a year younger than me.
I grew up under PET so I think he was pretty influential in how I think.
Good for the Canadians!
Meanwhile in Switzerland, the same day, our local version of the Tea party, namely the Swiss Folk’s Party, won 11 seats (64/200) and our parliament strongly shifted to the right… SFP is xenophobic, anti-refugees,anti-european and souverainist, 19th century version. I’m seeing a bleak time for the next four years.
That’s bad news about Switzerland. I hardly hear about what goes on there political, despite having a friend there (a Canadian by origin) and another friend originally from there. What would motivate this result?
Well, 25 % of the resident population (8 millions) is foreign, and 200’000 additional people living in France, Germany and Italy cross the border everyday to work in Switzerland. Actually, they boost our economy (we have the lowest unemployement level in Europe, about 3%) and for example our hospitals simply couldn’t work without them.
But you know, they are visible, and it’s soooo easy to present them as invaders responsible for all our problems. And these refugee-candidates from Africa who hang about around the train station (they are forbidden to take a job – to protect swiss workers).
Add the fact that we have to adjust our laws to the European regulations without even participate (because we refused to “give away our sovereinty”) and you have a perfect recipe for the political success of the SFP.
A small European country like Switzerland is perfectly entitled to take in as few, or as many, immigrants as it chooses, and to select among would-be immigrants those who it believes will be most compatible with the national culture, easiest to assimilate, and who will bring the least crime and other aspects of social dysfunction with them. I do not blame the Swiss at all for wanting to maintain the historic character of their society by imposing strict limits on immigration, and in particular by refusing entry to Africans, Middle Eastern muslims and other culturally alien groups. I wish my own country (the UK) would do the same.
There is no obligation on any country to have a “fair” immigration policy. A sovereign state should set limits to its desired intake (if any), and the identity of those it decides to accept, on the basis of national self-interest – and on no other criterion.
I think there IS an obligation on countries that established colonies by force in those lands that immigrants are coming from. Most problems in those areas can be traced to a colonial past and the terrible policies and decisions made by those colonial powers before they left or were expelled.
Ah, yes, the old “We were bad to them in the past, so we have to suck it up now” argument. Funny, as a child I was always taught that two wrongs don’t make a right, but maybe things have changed since then. The problems in what used to be known as the “Third World” are largely down to the cultural backwardness, incompetence and corruption of the political leaders of those countries, not to the alleged misdeeds of a colonial era that is now half a century or more in the past. British colonial rule in Africa and Asia provided the best governance that those regions have ever hand, before or since, not that the inhabitants show much gratitude for it. Africa, in particular, would be a much more peaceful, stable and civilised place if the British were still running it. And as for the Middle East, much of it was never “colonised” by the west, and in those parts that were, periods of direct western rule were brief, well within the scale of a single human lifetime. The cultural pathologies of the Middle East that currently plague the world are entirely home-grown, and in no way the result of western colonialism.
Yikes.
Yes, we should blame the Romans.
Also know very little about the politics up north but have to expect this is a good thing. I wonder if this will have any affect on this never ending battle with the pipeline down here in the states and in Nebraska specifically?
Lets hope the results in Canada will translate down here and remove some of these overbearing people from Congress and from the republican election trail. They are far too numerous to mention and certainly not worth it.
And sub
The pictures of Harper capering with the Ford brothers probably didn’t go the way he hoped . . .
The mental image of a Ford brother “capering” stonkers me.
Re climate change, we shall see. The previous liberal government under Chretien talked a good game, jumped on the Kyoto bandwagon, and then did absolutely nothing. I’m hoping for better from the current crop of Liberals in power after almost 10 years in the political wilderness.
O Canada
And yes, without infrastructure were back to Rousseau.
I like it better than Stars and Stripes…
Wish they’d change The Star Spangled Banner to America the Beautiful. Hate the newish singing of God Bless America in the middle of ball games.
I like The Maple Leaf Forever better than O Canada. We can just take out the bits about defeating he French.
Moi aussi.
Doesn’t God Save the Queen still have verses (seldom sung) about defend her from “Priests and their knavery” and “Rebellious Scots to crush”
Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean.
Great anthem. Best one I know of. (Though God Save the Queen isn’t bad either.)
The English lyrics are a bit sexist, but the French ones are pretty Christian, which is worse, IMO.
Best music though. It will be a long time before there are any “inclusive” national anthems. With the possible exception of RSA.
And defeatest – Il sait porter la croix — that has a lot of meanings.
This should be England’s (possibly all of Great Britain’s) anthem:
All you need…
Especially the introductory trumpet. Let’s hope that it hasn’t already been used by any of England’s historic enemies.
Rule Britannia.
Witnessing the entire process, from the call of the election so long ago (78 days) to the speeches and interviews with the candidates and the public, and having witnessed bits and pieces of American elections, it was clearly driven home that American and Canadian politics are like night and day, respectively. Thank goodness for that. Go Leafs Go!
I loved John Oliver’s comment that a78-day election campaign was”adorable”.
The longest campaign we’re allowed by law is 90 days.
They are mostly quite different. However it is clear that the new Regressive Conservatives, replacing the Progressive …) have been very keen to learn from the Karl Rove Manual for Dirty Republican Political Tricks. Having been repudiated yesterday finally I take to be a rejection of that kind of dirty trick stuff (e.g. robot calls sending non-Conservatives to the wrong voting station, definitely a tactic they used in the 2011 election). Harper would fit in very comfortably with the circus of clowns who are present Republican presidential candidates.
Harper had Tony Abbott’s guy help him with his campaign. That says a lot. And you could see it in the awful “dog whistle” things he said like “old stock Canadians” comment.
Meanwhile in the UK disenfranchising the poor by changing voter registration rules seems to be in vogue. The right definitely keep in touch with each other – I think their political vision is democracy Singapore style and given the isolation of the left in the UK as in NZ and Australia it might work for awhile.
In Canada, the provincial premiers play a very significant and often selfish role in federal policies (for example, Quebec has its own immigration policies). Under Harper, the Premiers were mostly frozen out of any discussions about any and all national policies and programs… yet their provincial go-it-alone actions were often used by the Prime Minister as evidence for a federal achievement (see different provincial climate change legislation and provincial greenhouse reductions as an example of this ‘theft’).
One of the first and strongest supporters of Trudeau was Ontario’s Premier, whose outspoken support was very unusual during a federal election when most premiers go quiet and wait to see who will be running the federal coffers. This matters because (Ontario is to Canada what the Eastern seaboard states are to the US) it signals a new partnership between federal and provincial leaders. And this is a double-edged sword in that national polices can be implemented when Premiers are willing but the federal government will have to now take into consideration the very profound differences between different parts of the country.
What should be of interest to the US electorate is how this significant shift away from US style partisan politics relied on by Harper to govern (by constantly creating adversaries and villains and then cashing in on voter fear and uncertainty for political support) and replacing this approach by a much more inclusive government plays out on the world stage. Don’t expect automatic support for US foreign policies, for example. This inclusiveness is a trademark principle of the national Liberal Party – and this election is more of a move back to a We the People kind of governing rather than another term of Us versus Them… a shift that is both necessary to effectively govern such a diverse and disparate country as Canada and a problem to achieve fast solutions. It’s much more difficult to govern through consensus than it is to rely on despotism and the Canadian Prime Minister has the kind of power that can (and often does) produce despots (mostly benign)… a power that is needed, however, once a decision has been reached and implementation undertaken in order to avoid the kind of political gridlock and non-action that has become almost a fixture in the US.
We can expect to see Canada’s reputation in the world undergo a shift that will have an impact on everything from the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) to knee-jerk support for the Israeli government, from (finally) addressing climate change to accepting much greater numbers of Syrian refugees, and so on. The change really comes from a change in governing principle which will then translate to many changes in practice. To isolate just the economy and young people misses this shift back to governing by a different principle.
The economic impact from new federal government programs can now be seen as the old-style Conservative talking point it is; we have mostly a resource based economy and so have little say in the world price of these commodities and their related impact on our Treasury. That’s an economic reality. As for young people, we tend to view their job prospects using a metric from our own past that is usually quite outdated if not obsolete (in this faster paced technologically evolving world) and then base our judgments on their prospects accordingly. With a strong social safety net firmly in place, young people in Canada still have a remarkable opportunity through not just world class education and training available to them but access to various sources of finances to find their way in whatever fields they wish. No federal government can do more than support this kind of infrastructure (like special legislation for banks to regulate them to an extent that would make an American reach for their well-armed-militia assault rifle and claim government tyranny) and so the talking point by the linked article’s author is already outdated.
Thanks you.
Don’t confuse – as Harper did – very strong Canadian support for the state of Israel (32 years we spent peacekeeping on the Golan Heights) with support for actions undertaken by its various governments.
Israeli’s are upset we didn’t re-elect Harper but what they will find is Canada will be a much better friend under Trudeau. We won’t be sycophants and a real friend never is.
Here’s the Liberal message to the ex-Prime Minister, Stephen Harper. FUDDLE DUDDLE !
Canada seems very prone to these big shifts in parties’ fortunes. I remember the Conservatives being absolutely gubbed in the mid 90s as well.
Is this a function of the electoral system, or are Canucks just a changeable bunch?
A parliamentary system concentrates power in one office, and voter control of that office is indirect, requiring removal of members at the local level. Hence the metronomic swings as dissatisfaction builds.
2011: Harper wins 53.9% of the seats with 39.6% of the vote.
2015: Trudeau wins 54.4% of the seats with 39.5% of the vote.
These big shifts are particularly likely in multiparty first-past-the-post systems [Canada, United Kingdom], much less likely in effectively 2-party systems [US]. Proportional representation [Israel, much of Europe] should be least swingy, but often lend themselves to party-of-the-moment, or quirks due to throwing away votes on parties that don’t make a cutoff point.
But no system is better than its politicians and voters!
The Liberals (amongst others) who just won have promised to change the FPP style to something else. We’ll see!
I was surprised that the results from eastern Canada were divulged on TV before the polls closed on the west coast. Did this contribute at all to the final tally?
Haven’t heard anything yet. This is the first time it’s been allowed, for just the reason you cited.
It may have accounted for the victory of the Tory in my riding, in which case I’m against it.
The old adage of ‘it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always wins’ comes to mind.
However down here in New Zealand we look at the big picture from the Canadian election – our PM John Key has lost his two other PM golfing buddies in recent weeks, both Abbott and Harper now being history.
Yeah Abbott and Harper were in a bromance.
To be fair to Key he doesn’t have the religious-social conservative bent of the other two.
Mark, it’s true that Trudeau won 54% of the seats with just 39.5% of the popular vote. On the other hand, Harper’s party got 29% of the seats with 32% of the vote, so that’s almost exactly right. The big losers were the NDP and Greens, whose voters came out in fair numbers, but that didn’t translate into seats. The Greens took 3.5% of the vote but got 0.3% of the seats. If there were an equal distribution, they would have had 10 members elected.
Maybe we’re just too forgiving, but when we finally decide that we really, really, REALLY don’t like the way things are going, we let the politicians know very clearly. To go from a ruling government to two (or was it four?) seats was a pretty clear message.
Harper, in his concession speech concluded with god bless Canada. Trudeau did not. A good start.
The Catholic Church also slammed Trudeau as a bad Catholic for not budging on abortion. Sorry church, you don’t get to force your way in on this issue.
I noticed The Goddy ending of Harper’s speech as well. Trudeau talked about Canada for people of all religions, I was sorry that he didn’t include ‘no religion’ as Obama did. However, Trudeau did refer to the ‘better angels of or nature’!
That annoyed me as well, but largely because it was our new Canadian Prime Minister quoting an American president.
There are far worse people to quote than Abe Lincoln.
Sure, but I would hope that a Canadian politician could find an appropriate quote more local in nature.
“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.”
– Jean Chretien
Yeah, you gotta love Jean! And he choked a guy that got in his face too. Our PMs are bad ass.
Couldn’t really speak either official language, but not a bad PM, especially compared to Harperman.
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Steven Pinker, a good (ex)Canadian boy.
Well, sure, I suppose Trudeau could have been quoting the title of Pinker’s book, rather than the far-better known Lincoln original…
He did.
He started his speech with a reference to “Sunny Days” which is a quote of Laurier’s referring to his style of government which was inclusive not exclusive.
Bah! His speech at his dad’s funeral was worse — Friends, Romans, Countrymen. Thanks Shakespeare, are you saying you are Brutus? I get that PET is Caesar but come on, be original!
This wouldn’t bother me at all, if he were channeling Pinker’s book.
Some of his policies reflect principles in the book, such as putting more women in leadership roles in government, engaging countries in trade or diplomatically, restoring inclusiveness and openness, righting the domestic wrongs towards our aboriginal people, creating meaningful jobs for young people, etc., all of which hopefully have the positive effect of decreasing violence in the world.
Harper always thanks god. It’s annoying and something that makes most Canadians cringe (even religious ones).
Any leading politician in NZ who did the God Bless You bit would be guaranteed to lose, even though a majority are still believers. It’s just not the Done Thing for politicians. It would be seen as a failure to be inclusive.
There are often prayers at public events still, but they’re always led by the professionals and there’s an effort to get every religion imaginable involved. Atheists are expected to be inclusive too i.e. just put up with it.
Harper’s behaviour is foreign to us in Canada too where religion is mainly considered a private thing. Pierre Trudeau was famously a devout Catholic and he kept religion out of his public life – especially when it came to abortion (we have PET & my hero, Henry Morgentaler to thank for the abortion laws we have).
When Harper says “God bless Canada” it’s laughable to us because we always hear US politicians saying “God bless America” and hearing “Canada” instead is just weird.
Interesting. I always thought you guys were the same as us on that, so it’s good to know you weren’t reverting! If Harper wanted to change it, he’s got no chance now anyway! 🙂
He also helped make homosexuality legal in Canada, famously saying “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”.
Tulse means Pierre Trudeau not Harper who probably sees homosexuality as a sin. 🙂
Apologies if the context was not clear — I did indeed mean Pierre Trudeau.
Not surprising, as Harper’s an evangelical Xtian.
I’m sure it will be an improvement, but the left in Canada seems a lot more like what we might refer to as the “regressive left”, or “authoritarian left” than ours is in terms of their sentiments on criticism of Islam for example. Am I wrong?
I don’t think so. The niqab thing was something that was a non-issue and I agreed with the Liberals and NDP and Greens who called the PCs out on it.
The “niqab thing” was and is not a non-issue. However, it shouldn’t have been an election issue that resulted in name calling.
Conspicuous religious symbols, which include crucifixes are inappropriate in public. Canada’s multicultural policy has created hyphenated Canadians; people should attend citizenship ceremonies to become Canadians, not religious-Canadians.
I completely disagree. Canada is famously “a mosaic, not a melting pot”. I live in the most ethnically diverse city on the planet, and I am delighted that so many Canadians here have retained their culture. Sure, that means public displays of religious paraphernalia, and as an atheist I may find that weird. But I am very happy to live a country of such tolerance and welcoming. As someone else once said, someone willingly wearing the niqab (or kirpan, or kippah, or crucifix) neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
As someone once said, You’re entitled to your opinion.
Of course, and you are to yours. I was just pointing out that, historically, Canada has explicitly distinguished itself from the US in part by its approach to multiculturalism, which is far more welcoming to the preservation of an immigrant’s original culture.
It was a non issue because The person in question identified herself before swearing the oath by showing her face to officials. This had nothing to do with religious symbols from a prime minister that said “God bless Canada” in public speeches whenever he could and everything to do with appealing to his voter base.
We have Freedom of Religion so we may not like religious symbols or religion itself but we don’t get to dictate that to other citizens and as long as they can be accommodated without causing harm to others, we can’t force them to give it up.
The smart thing is to persuade people to see things from our perspective. Harper’s behaviour just causes those who oppose him to knuckle down. Good luck having a conversation about the niqab now that Harper did what he did.
Didn’t they pass or come close to passing a blasphemy law in Canada? Again perhaps I’m misremembering thing, but wasn’t a single incident that gave me the impression I expressed in my previous comment.
We have an old blasphemy law still on he books. The conservative government set up a hot line for “barbaric cultural practices” as if 911 didn’t work. More bluster to appeal to their voter base and divide Canadians.
Here it is in the Criminal Code. 3. Undermines it, though not sufficiently. It is effectively dead, though, not having been used since the 1930s. And it is almost certainly in contravention of the freedom of speech provision of the Charter.
296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years (2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject. – See more at: http://centreforinquiry.ca/canadas-blasphemous-libel-law/#sthash.IueRBRoe.dpuf
I for one am glad that the fear-mongering, negativity and divisiveness that featured so prominently in the Conservative campaign backfired spectacularly. I hope they have learned their lesson (but I doubt it).
All the best to PM Trudeau!
Not all of us are celebrating. Particularly those of us who are NDP supporters.
From my perspective, the Liberals are not much better than the Conservatives. It’s difficult to be optimistic about a party that supported the horrible Bill C-51, The Trans-Pacific Partnership, The Keystone XL pipeline, amongst other things.
Don’t nit pick. They also promised to legalise pot. Harper said it was “infinitely worse” than tobacco. I voted NDP also. I thought Trudeau was noncommittal towards the TPP.
I agree with you re Bill C-51 the TPP and Keystone. I would have voted NDP if I had thought that they could even form a minority government. I was almost certain that they could not because of Quebec’s souring on them
I voted strategically because I detest Harper and what he has done to Canada.
Now I cross my fingers and hope Trudeau will try to undo that damage. I do not have high hopes
I voted NDP but my candidate lost his previously-held seat 🙁 However, I’m happy that someone other than Harper is PM.
I can’t agree with the authors of that article, that it’s the young people who’ll suffer.
(I think these are the authors:
http://www.3dpolicy.ca/content/about-our-authors )
I figure they’re concerned about the prospect of running a deficit and that the burden will be on the backs of future generations, but Trudeau has explained that this is only a temporary measure, in order to stimulate growth, at a time when there are well-needed improvements to infrastructure. Former PM Paul Martin has a good understanding of what Trudeau’s government plans to do:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/paul-martin-borrow-now-save-later
Paul Martin was actually the mastermind who kept Canada solvent — he resisted the major banks overtures to have a giant merger, and so they avoided the fate of the American banks that had been considered ‘too big to fail’. He made sure that they adhered to proper banking practices. When Harperman came into power, the Tories lost no time, after the great financial meltdown, to
take credit for the health of the country’s financial institutions. That was one of their biggest lies.
It’s a great thing that the Liberals will be investing in young people’s educations by improving financial aid (loans, grants, scholarships). With economic stimulus and ramping up of further improvements to infracture, development of new projects, increased research and development and so on, I can only envision that there would be better quality jobs for people, including new grads who sorely need work experience.
Back in April of this year, Defence Minister Kenney revealed that Canada’s participation in the war in Iraq and Syria is costing us over half a billion dollars.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/war-in-iraq-and-syria-will-cost-canada-528m-by-next-year-kenney-says-1.3018802
It seems to me to be a great idea, at this time, to make a comparatively small investment in our country and our future generations. The global economic slowdown will eventually right itself, as these things tend to go in cycles. China will not be idly sitting on her hands. When the time comes for the new TPP to take effect (along with existing trade pacts), Canada will be ready and will be better positioned to hit the ground running.
I voted Liberal not because I favor Trudeau but because I detest Steven Harper, his minions, and his dictatorial way of wielding power. He brooks no criticism from Conservative ranks. All other criticism is arrogantly dismissed out of hand.
There is an old joke that while Liberals feel guilty about what they steal Conservatives think they deserve everything they steal. Harper took that philosophy to heart
Harper silenced or tried to silence any scientific evidence that he saw as detrimental to his agenda. Today when science is the only tool we have to demonstrate the reality of CC/GW Harper cut science budgets.
Harper and his government gave away too much in their trade dealings and the TPP is another huge giveaway. Personally I think there is a good reason for calling Harper a quisling. He seemed to be trying to convince world leaders that Canada is as important as he believes he is and gave away too much of Canada’s sovereignty to that end.
Harper’s all too apparent dislike of democracy is yet another reason I detest the man.
What is it with Conservatives that makes them so arrogant and so destructive? I invite you to take a close look at Harper, Vic Toews, Chris Alexander, Julian Fantino,, Joe Oliver and Peter MacKay. If that does not convince you look at his Senate appointments. Arrogance and condescension and destruction. Destruction for the economically Middle and Lower classes I have never and will never vote for a Conservative.
I had a choice between the NDP (I was a party member once) or Liberal either of which is infinitely better than any Conservative government. I chose Liberal because I was fairly certain they could defeat Harper
I hope against hope that Trudeau can and will undo the tremendous amount of damage that Harper has done to my country.
PS Why are Canadian jets bombing in the ME? Harper wanted to prove he is tough.
I voted NDP because the candidate in my riding had the best chance of ousting the conservative in power. Sadly, that did not happen which surprised me a little because there were many more aboriginals voting and the Rez is in my riding. Finally, aboriginals see what happens when they don’t vote – you get someone like Harper who doesn’t give a rats ass about them.
I also voted NDP because I seem to very left. I thought people become more oonservative as they age – I’ve become more liberal. Maybe I’m like that Buttons fellow but in politics & not biology.
I’ve also drifted left (and more atheist) as I’ve aged – I would have voted Green if I thought the candidate in my riding stood a chance.
Me too – I have voted Green in the last couple of elections (provincial & federal) but I voted NDP strategically. Still, I think I still would have voted Green or NDP and not Liberal. The Liberals are actually too far right for me because I’m practically a communist, I guess.
In my old riding (the one Joe Oliver just lost – ha!) I used to vote strategically for the Liberal candidate (Joe Volpe – gag). I thought I was in a safe NDP riding now but apparently not. In my ideal world Elizabeth May would be PM …
A record 10 aboriginal people were voted in and are now MP’s.
Also Trudeau has said and reaffirmed in a question answer speech Tuesday night, that his cabinet will be representative of the Canadian population — women, people of various ethnic origins etc. We will see Nov. 4 when he presents his chosen cabinet ministers.
To amend Burns slightly (and the we including Australia and NZ as well as Canada)
” We’re bought and sold for US gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!”
..and as this comment seems to have lost itself I add it was a reference to the TPP
I can’t agree with the pessimistic tone of the authors of that article, that it’s the young people who’ll suffer.
(I think these are the authors:
http://www.3dpolicy.ca/content/about-our-authors )
I figure they’re concerned about the prospect of running a deficit and that the burden will be on the backs of future generations, but Trudeau has explained that this is only a temporary measure, in order to stimulate growth, at a time when there are well-needed improvements to infrastructure. Former PM Paul Martin has a good understanding of what Trudeau’s government plans to do:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/paul-martin-borrow-now-save-later
Paul Martin was actually the mastermind who kept Canada solvent — he resisted the major banks overtures to have a giant merger, and so they avoided the fate of the American banks that had been considered ‘too big to fail’. He made sure that they adhered to proper banking practices. When Harper came into power, the Tories lost no time, after the great financial meltdown, to
take credit for the health of the country’s financial institutions. That was one of their biggest lies.
It’s a great thing that the Liberals will be investing in young people’s educations by improving financial aid (loans, grants, scholarships). With economic stimulus and ramping up of further improvements to infrastructure, development of new projects, increased research and development and so on, I can only envision that there would be better quality jobs for people, including new grads who sorely need work experience.
Back in April of this year, outgoing Defence Minister Kenney revealed that Canada’s participation in the war in Iraq and Syria is costing us over half a billion dollars.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/war-in-iraq-and-syria-will-cost-canada-528m-by-next-year-kenney-says-1.3018802
It seems to me to be a great idea, at this time, to make a comparatively small investment in our country and our future generations. The global economic slowdown will eventually right itself, as these things tend to go in cycles. China will not be idly sitting on her hands. When the time comes for the new TPP to take effect (along with existing trade pacts), Canada will be ready and will be better positioned to hit the ground running.
Harper believed in the fantasy of trickle down economics. Trudeau’s plan is better. Running deficiets aren’t bad if you do so responsibly.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Diana!
Already Trudeau is being more accessible to the media too. Enough of the secrecy and standoffishness of the outgoing PM.
Negotiations for this new TPP deal have been conducted in haste and secrecy under Harper, and it’s time that Canadians get a more open government. I’m very curious as to the details of the deal.
Most people run deficits in their personal lives at least some of the time. It’s how they buy a house for goodness sake. So I’ve never understood the Conservative mantra of “Deficits are bad.” I don’t think they believe this at all — they just spout it as a sound bite.
Plus if you look at the past budgets of Conservative governments in Canada you will find deficits all over the place and you will find increases in the national debt. It is pure fantasy (lying?) to claim as they do that they are the “fiscally responsible” party any more than any other party can claim such a thing.
You better lay off the paprika. You posted twice. The Liberals may help with that.
It’s infinitely worse than pepper!
Yikes! Mea culpa — forgot to fill in my WP credentials the first time. I miss the old code where I would get prompted to fill them in.
So glad Harper is gone. He gutted world class lab on drinking water, ice in the Arctic and marine labs on all 3 coasts. He muzzled the scientists working on climate change to protect the filthy tar sands. If he had no evidence of problems e wasn’t required to do anything about them.
It’s good in my books. Conservatives are the same everywhere. Harper was in total control of his party and bypassed democracy on several instances,and of course the hallmark of the right the ol’ trickle down economy. He shut down parliament twice because he wasn’t getting his way. He ran a horrible negative campaign and it came back and bit him in the ass. He wouldn’t allow his ministers to speak to the press and he did all the talking in parliament.
Trudeau despite all the Harper’s attack ads, usually a new one every couple of days, $25 mil worth, Trudeau ran a positive upbeat campaign. For 3 years before the campaign, Trudeau met with every day people all across the country to find out what they wanted and built his campaign around that…basically revive the middle class. He also went into ridings and got bright young people to run in the election, now he has a lot of good people to select for his cabinet. i.e. He even talked a bright young lady who was working in the media in NYC to give up her job and come home and run in Quebec where in 2011 the Liberals were shut out by the NDP. She took a big chance and she won…another good cabinet minister. It appears that the liberal candidates outwork the opposition with an upbeat positive message that the Canadian people bought into. We usually don’t vote governments in, we always vote governments out and Harper had to go! As they say Huck Farper, and we did!
Trudeau is going to work with the other parties and use their ideas if they are in the best interests of the Canadian people. It will be an inclusive government. As you can see, I like the result. But sometimes with that big of a majority governments get to be bullies and do what they want that is not in the best interests of the people but for their friends and big business…the conservative approach. Don’t think that is going to happen this time. His dad would be proud, I know hiss mom is!
Yeehaw! Hope I can say that in 2 or 3 years, I’m quite sure I will. Loved his dad. He was such a wit no one could spare with him.
You’ll find this amusing: Harper Left Wondering Who Let Nobel Prize Winner Arthur McDonald Talk to the Media.
Yes, and not entirely off-topic, we have the op-ed there by a Dr. Ben … , entitled
“If the dinosaurs had been armed, they wouldn’t be extinct right now”
Very well said! I concur.
I don’t know if anyone posted John Oliver telling Canadians not to vote for Harper, but it’s hilarious – you need to watch until the end because it’s extra funny.
Justin Trudeau might have won the election but he couldn’t beat me in the 5k Army Run in September 2014 in Ottawa. I beat him by 13 seconds! Sadly I’ll never be able to box him because I have a bad eye.
Apparently Trudeau has just told Obama that Canada is pulling out of the bombing campaign in Syria.
Wow. I wonder what Jens Stoltenberg thinks b
Even as a Canadian I hesitate to comment because I’m an utter dunce-cap with Politics.
I wish so much I were more interested, but as soon as words like “motions” “caucus” “backbenchers” “cabinet” “ridings” etc arise it’s impossible for my brain not to go off to a nice beach, while my eyes become those comic-book twirling patterns. My brain just doesn’t do politics. To my great shame.
All that said…I voted Liberal. He had nice hair. 🙂
(Sort of a reflex as my family always voted liberal, I’m an artsy fartsy not a business guy, and to the extent I did pay attention to Harper I hated just about everything I saw in terms of his attitude toward science, his method of sneaking through bills, etc).
Certainly better hair than in-the-fridge-overnight’s Stevie.
i am a big fan of this site, even if I rarely post. I voted conservative and I am not ashamed to say so. I follow American politics quite rabidly and I can ensure you that On the political spectrum, the Conservative party of Canada is to the left of the Democratic Party in the U.S. I find the GOP a laughingstock, but the Dems are not what I would call a shining light.
Like most of the left leaning media in Canada, I think people here have short memories and rose coloured glasses regarding the election.
Stephen Harper was no more a “dictator” than his predecessor, Liberal Jean Chrétien. He established trade agreements with dozens of countries, managed the world financial crisis better than most of the world and, for the most part, kept the social conservatives under wraps. Canada is more united today than in any time in the last 50 years and Harper deserves much credit for that. I think his stand on Israel is much more principled and honest than Obama’s.
Unfortunately, his stand on climate change was wanting and his public perception was of a cold personality. I actually had the pleasure to meet him once at a hockey game. I found him warm, genuine, and respectful.
Regarding comments about Calgarians being rednecks, I find that offensive. I am a white catholic born atheist with three atheist adult children. My two daughters voted NDP and Liberal because I told them to make their own decisions. I voted for our mayor twice because he is a fine human being. I voted for Jason Kenney (a conservative) because he is pro-immigrant, honest, ethical, and hard working. I don’t care that he is religious for the same reason that I wouldn’t care if he was gay, black, or female.
When Stephen Harper said “God Bless”, it was more of a personal greeting, not a statement like Obama’s prayer day.
For the record, I am not disappointed in the election results. The Conservatives were a spent party. I wish the Liberals the best and look forward to some of their election promises.
Best regards
Dan
There are plenty of things you say which I would dispute (and others I agree with). But let’s just stick to
“I don’t care that he is religious for the same reason that I wouldn’t care if he was gay, black, or female.”
Do you really believe that being religious is an unalterable condition with which some humans are born? That is exactly the case for the three ‘conditions’ to which you compare it. The naivety of this comment makes it hard to even spend time considering what you otherwise say.
Whether being religious is a choice or not is not the point. Jason Kenny never preached and was a strong supporter of non-Christian immigrants. I respect and admire him for his actions as an MP. If you don’t think he is one of the best Canada has to offer, you aren’t paying attention.
I think most would be shocked if a person asserted that he made his unfortunate vote for a certain candidate with these words concerning the candidate for whom he voted:
‘I don’t care that he is a neo-nazi for the same reason that I wouldn’t care if he was gay, black, or female.’
Please do not accuse me of asserting that being religious is just as bad as being a neo-nazi. Let me explicitly say that I am not. What I am trying to remind you is that being religious is a choice, not something one is born with, and that choice definitely indicates a certain type of attitude on many matters which a successful politician can strongly affect.
One of many examples, in case you are similar to me and wish for specifics, is the attitude towards assisted suicide. Possibly Mr. Kenny has a humane attitude on that particular one. But his party and Mr. Harper and many religious supporters of the Conservatives certainly have not. Other examples abound.
That article was clueless. As someone mentioned, one of the central planks of the Liberal platform was to enact a stimulus package based on $4.2B in infrastructure spending, deficits be damned, for which he took heat (understandably) from the Harperites –I can’t bring myself to dishonour the fine Canadian Red Tory tradition by calling them Conservatives– as well as from the NDP who Tom Mulcair dragged to the right in some horrific Third Way pragmatism that I reckon caused a lot of disillusioned NDP supporters to vote Liberal. The Liberals are better than the Harper crew, but they have a cynical tendency to campaign from the left and to legislate from the pockets of Bay Street (Canada’s Wall St in Toronto). The Canadian PM has a lot of power, especially with a majority government, so it is possible that Trudeau could be an atypical Liberal and actually do what is best for the non-elite in our country. Here’s hoping!!!