[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

You mean he just assured 10 more years of Conservative fearmongering?

[crazy canuck]

Trudeau has admitted to smoking pot more than once.
He's gonna be our next Prime Minister for sure, now.

Meh, I think its a non issue.  We have gotten to the point now that the working assumption is that everyone running for elected office has at least tried the stuff.

I think the Conservatives realize its a non issue too by the PM simply saying "speaks for itself".  Its a very safe answer as the BB's fo the world will hear that and think it is grounds for immediate disqualification and the rest of us will think no biggie.

[Neil]

Trudeau's ridiculous facial hair is a more serious issue than his drug use.

[Barrister]

Trudeau has admitted to smoking pot more than once.
He's gonna be our next Prime Minister for sure, now.

Meh, I think its a non issue.  We have gotten to the point now that the working assumption is that everyone running for elected office has at least tried the stuff.

I think the Conservatives realize its a non issue too by the PM simply saying "speaks for itself".  Its a very safe answer as the BB's fo the world will hear that and think it is grounds for immediate disqualification and the rest of us will think no biggie.

I certainly don't assume that to be the case.

Look, the only qualification for membership in the House of Commons is that a plurality of voters in your riding voted for you.  Trudeau is clearly qualified.

But it certainly speaks to his character.

[Maximus]

Trudeau's ridiculous facial hair is a more serious issue than his drug use.

When it comes to politicians more facial hair == more trustworthy.

For men that is, for women longer hair == more trustworthy

[Barrister]

Trudeau's ridiculous facial hair is a more serious issue than his drug use.

When it comes to politicians more facial hair == more trustworthy.

For men that is, for women longer hair == more trustworthy

So you support Mulcair over Harper then?

[crazy canuck]

But it certainly speaks to his character.

Exactly 

Harper's response was brilliant.  It didnt offend either of us.

[Neil]

But it certainly speaks to his character.

Exactly 

Harper's response was brilliant.  It didnt offend either of us.

Yeah, and I think that's what will disappoint Trudeau more than anything.  Harper's been thinking about how to respond to this for a long time (since it was obvious that this is where Trudeau was going), and when you give Harper and his guys a lot of time to think, they're really quite good.

[Barrister]

But it certainly speaks to his character.

Exactly 

Harper's response was brilliant.  It didnt offend either of us.

I dunno - his response to whether or not he had smoked was mealy-mouthed.  "No, but I have asthma so I can't smoke" leaves the implication that he would if he could.  It's "Yes, but I didn't inhale" for a new generation.

He should have simply said "no".

[Maximus]

So you support Mulcair over Harper then?

No. More trustworthy does not always equal more desirable and I actually know something about these people beyond their picture.

[Jacob]

The federal government has allegedly spent $120M to facilitate the building of the Northern Gateway pipeline: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/04/elizabeth-may-northern-gateway-harper_n_3868343.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

How likely is this allegation to be factual?

If it is factual, how big a deal is it?

[crazy canuck]

Meh, the Globe and Mail has May quoted as saying 100 million.  I guess when she got around to the Huffington post that number didnt sound large enough so she was up to 120 million for the study.

Whatever the number might be I would think it irresponsible of the government not to determine what might happen if there is tanker traffic in the area.  I wouldnt want to blindly trust the OMG the world will end rhetoric of the con side, nor would I want the government blindly trust the We know what we are doing from the pro side.

I dont really understand the attack May is making.  Shouldnt she be happy a scientific inquiry is being made.  Unless of course she is worried there is a scientific case to be made for safe tanker traffic.

[Jacob]

Yeah... it does seem somewhat expensive, and I suppose you could make an argument that the prospective developers should fund the safety studies rather than the tax payer. But certainly, it's good that the studies have been carried out.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah... it does seem somewhat expensive, and I suppose you could make an argument that the prospective developers should fund the safety studies rather than the tax payer. But certainly, it's good that the studies have been carried out.

You would trust a safety study commissioned and paid for by the person trying to pursaude the govenrment its safe?  I wonder what May would have to say about that? 

[Jacob]

You would trust a safety study commissioned and paid for by the person trying to pursaude the govenrment its safe?  I wonder what May would have to say about that? 

I think the model should probably be that the government carries out the study and hands the bill - or at least part of it - to the prospective developer.

I mean, when I built my house, I paid all sorts of fees for the government to determine if my plans were acceptable.