SunnyWays

What's your point? They would be either a terrorist or a nut. Couldn't care less if they were Christian, Muslim or Rastifarian.....the obvious truth just happens to be that the vast majority of terrorist acts in today's society are carried out in the name of Islam. I have no doubt that if thousands of Christians were trying to carve out a homeland by lopping off heads - they would be called Christian Terrorists. Don't you agree?

It would be best if you used an emoticon to display your sarcasm - it was "tongue in cheek", was it not? But your sarcasm is misplaced - I have no opinion poll to support it but I do not detect any "fear" in Canadians - I think we're all pretty comfortable/satisfied (if that's the right word) with how law enforcement is keeping an eye on things.......and the rantings of Racism and Islamophobia ring hollow in the face of one undeniable fact - only a microscopic number of Muslims are terrorists - but an overwhelming number of terrorists are Muslims. Why is it continually necessary to acknowledge the first - while ignoring the second? I guess tripping over ourselves so we don't "offend" anyone is the Canadian way - but calling anyone who disagrees an "Islamophobe" is pretty juvenile.

No one becomes Prime Minister by being an idiot. He and his handlers have managed his limitations well - and I don't really expect that to change. I regret that I haven't heard/seen his unscripted responses to American students - if there's a link, I'll have a look.

Not quite - he needed a brutal awakening to the fact that he's not bright enough to veer off script. He's better prepared and stays on-script much better. Call his remarks "talking points" or platitudes, but he's getting a lot of mileage from them based on his likeability. If people are looking for Bozo Eruptions - they might have to wait a while.

Funny how generally speaking, Obama has been one of the least respected American presidents by his Global counterparts - while Harper had the respect of most Western leaders. He was certainly respected, if not admired by Germany, Britain, France and Australia.......let's hope that somehow, Trudeau can gain similar respect beyond the squeaky wheel environmental crowd and its platitudes.

Army guy - I hear you. Soldiers are not like other civil servants - they are often called on to willingly risk their lives. Instead of lowest-common-denominator or one-size-fits-all approaches, we should always err on the generous/gracious side. Better, more effective advocates/facilitators/ombudsmen to be able to individualize support where required. Whether that make sense or not, for God's sake - don't let these guys go cap-in-hand for benefits that they rightly deserve. As for the Memorial - build it by all means - it's not an either/or proposition. Most soldiers would never see it but we as a nation are already forgetting our history and what made us who we are. As each Canadian passes by the memorial, one hopes that they will grasp the importance of our military and the sacrifices that are sometimes required.

Don't you find it insanely maddening that his sentence was "Life in Prison"?

With too broad a brush, assisted suicide works its way into the societal domain as an accepted way to end one's life and dangerously - gives argument to personal suicide (not assisted) being more accepted in the minds of the more vulnerable. Teenagers breaking up, bouts of mild depression, treatable mental issues - all can fall prey to this "acceptance" of suicide - if too broad a brush is used to define the parameters of assisted suicide.

I'm relatively new to this forum but I would think going from a smart response (keep trying) to an insulting one (why the dumb response) on an issue that you have clearly been proven wrong.....deserves at least an acknowledgement, if not an apology?

I understand all too well - and the bills haven't even started to come in - and the problems have not had time to arise or fester - as I alluded to. My point is that in spite of the crass politics, there are people behind the scenes who have made the very best of a bad situation - over the Christmas holidays, no less. So I applaud the non-partisan hard work of people just trying to do their jobs.

Here's their commitment - from the Liberal Website......and in the news - and lastly, in Trudeau's own words.

Why the smart response? I don't think you even read what was posted. As I said though - regardless of the failure to come close to the campaign promise of 25,000 government-sponsored refugees by the end of last year, the bureaucracy made a commendable and herculean effort to accomplish as much as they did. Even John McCallum deserves credit for making chicken salad out of chicken feathers with his dizzying array of numbers.

I think what we really have here is a heroic effort by the civil service to salvage what they could of a sci-fi campaign promise - and make no mistake - getting 25,000 refugees into Canada in 3 months is a huge accomplishment....but to recap how over-the-top that election promise was - 25,000 government sponsored refugees in Canada by end of last year: as of now - only half of the 25,000 have made it here, the rest being privately sponsored - thousands of whom were already "in process" when the Liberals took power. The government has stated that the remaining 12,000 or so government-sponsored refugees will be relocated by the end of 2016 - fully one year year, or roughly 5 times as long as promised. So phase one is accomplished and we'll now start to find out - 1) How long government-sponsored refugees will wait for housing. 2) Will they go on a waiting list with other refugees and Canadians - or will they jump the queue and 3) How will other refugees waiting to come to Canada be affected. It is also my understanding that government-assisted refugees are funded by the Feds for one year only. If a significant number are unemployable for at least a few years through language issues or no male member to support a family.....it would appear those costs would revert to the cities and provinces. In short, the story has not yet unfolded. But so far - a huge applause to the civil service - and a black eye to the government for such an outlandish, manipulative campaign promise.

I stand to be corrected but I believe he's the first Federal Finance Minister who has never served as an elected politician. Doesn't mean he can't do the job but there's an additional learning curve just to figure our the rules of parliament, how to serve your constituents - just how to be an MP. Tough job.

In Page's defence, the CBC actively and continuously sought him out and fed him softball questions. That said, he certainly didn't shrink from the spotlight. It remains to be seen how active they will be with Page now - or his replacement.

If it helps the discussion, Sousa - and later the Deputy Premium, Deb Matthews, admitted that there was no "new money" for this initiative. It looks like a good move because more money is provided up front - but it's really just shuffling money around..... Link: http://www.westerngazette.ca/news/ontario-government-overhauling-financial-aid-system/article_39dc8c36-dc04-11e5-a063-4b7d7b18f324.html

Clearly, absolutely, undoubtedly correct.

I think some legislation that makes it easier for people with clear-cut life-ending conditions to die with some dignity at a time of their choosing is a good improvement over the status quo. Look at all those cancer patients or Lou Gehrig's disease. Making it "easier" for them is a good first step. We don't need the perfect answer - we just need progress.

I'm at the front of the line when it comes to kicking bureaucracy out of the way - but there are certain pieces of legislation that define who and what we are as a society - and I believe this is one of them. I don't expect everyone to agree but hey, that's why we always put our opinions on these boards.

I usually applaud your well-thought-out positions but I can't go along with this one - if only because making suicide generally acceptable in society will lead younger and vulnerable minds to treat it in that very fashion - an acceptable way to end whatever they construe as "their pain".

Bingo. Throwing around euphemisms like "choice" debases this very complicated issue. Can you imagine one's mother, father, son or daughter getting "approval" to end their lives under circumstances that are at best, subject to interpretation. Where do you draw the line? That's where legislation is needed. That's what needs to be voted on. Trudeau's position that the right to die is a Charter Right that he will fight for is naive, if not incompetent - he (and we) has a job to do to protect the most vulnerable. Charter Rights are not absolute.......

Are you saying they made those promises without any idea of the cost? Or are you saying they knew the cost but just didn't tell us?

Just what I said - anything over $15 billion should be clearly directed at economic growth - and that was the centerpiece of their deficit promise and the campaign itself......

They promised "modest" deficits of no more than $10 billion. You yourself have agreed that the degraded economy might lead to a $5 billion revenue shortfall. So I would accept a $15 billion budget. Does that sound like filleting? Look, these guys are the government for the next 4 years - whether we like it or not......and for Canada's sake, I hope they'll do more right things than wrong - but it starts and ends with the economy and jobs right now - right now! As I said, the budget will tell us a lot. The spirit of their election promise was to run a deficit to strengthen the economy - so any spending over the $10 or $15 billion should clearly target economic growth - and nothing more......and if not, we should hold them to account.

True - but holy cow.....so many, so quickly. That said, let's wait for the budget - that'll tell us a lot. Will they hold down spending promises to focus on economic investment - infrastructure and jobs..... will the taps be wide open - deficit and debt be damned? On top of that, setting a budget is one thing - managing and sticking to it is quite another. Canadians don't seem to be too accepting of a runaway budget. It'll be an interesting year, that's for sure.