What are Justin Trudeau's views?

[hitops]

Can anyone explain what his views are?

I checked out his website https://justin.ca/

There is a section 'Justin's views'. Under that there is 'Justin's message', however I cannot see a single view in that message. You check out his 'public statements' under the same tab, but once again I can hardly find a single specific plan or number of any kind.

What I did find was in the statement on 'democratic reform'. Here's the best I could do figuring out his positions:

- Will not support PR - seems clear

- Will make PBO totally independent - seems clear

- Will Increase funding to elections Canada - by how much is not indicated, but ok

- Will not 'anoint' any MP candidate. The meaning of this one is a little fuzzy.

Other than that, I still have no clue what this guy believes. Does anybody else know?

[punked]

Can anyone explain what his views are?

I checked out his website https://justin.ca/

There is a section 'Justin's views'. Under that there is 'Justin's message', however I cannot see a single view in that message. You check out his 'public statements' under the same tab, but once again I can hardly find a single specific plan or number of any kind.

What I did find was in the statement on 'democratic reform'. Here's the best I could do figuring out his positions:

- Will not support PR - seems clear

- Will make PBO totally independent - seems clear

- Will Increase funding to elections Canada - by how much is not indicated, but ok

- Will not 'anoint' any MP candidate. The meaning of this one is a little fuzzy.

Other than that, I still have no clue what this guy believes. Does anybody else know?

Brokerage parties don't hold views they swing with the polls from one day to the next.

What he is running on is clear though. Elected me and "Just watch me" whatever that means?

Edited March 23, 2013 by punked

[WWWTT]

That pretty much sums it up punked.

Justin is riding this vague political view in hopes that the voter will project their views upon him to some kind of all new high!

At some point of time,he is going to have to talk.

And at this rate,he is in jeopardy of pulling an Ignatieff.Losing his own seat!

The liberals are on a good,hard long skid,and I don't see how this Justin guy can out compete the seasoned political heavyweights.

I remember Ignatieff and other liberals a few years ago saying that they were going to pull a rabbit out of the hat,never happened.

WWWTT

[UofGPolitico]

The fact that that question has to be asked about someone who aspires to lead this country is pretty telling. He does not have any views and until the last 10 years, really did not have much to do with politics. He is a manufactured candidate and yes, eventually he will have to speak.... and this where I hope he crumbles. The thing is though, Canadian voters are fairly fickle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if enough fall for this guy's act and elect him.

[punked]

The fact that that question has to be asked about someone who aspires to lead this country is pretty telling. He does not have any views and until the last 10 years, really did not have much to do with politics. He is a manufactured candidate and yes, eventually he will have to speak.... and this where I hope he crumbles. The thing is though, Canadian voters are fairly fickle. I wouldn't be at all surprised if enough fall for this guy's act and elect him.

Favorite Justin Quote which he said at the age of 29:

“I don’t read newspapers. I don’t watch the news. I figure, if something happens, someone will tell me.”

Maybe that is his view. I think what you say before you a politician says a little more about you then when you are.

[RNG]

But at least he isn't promising Hope and Change.

[Topaz]

Come people, you probalby wouldn't vote for him anyway so why so concerned about his views. No one knew about the new leader of the NDP views were until after he was elected. Many times the leader is a little different from party views and its been said many many times , that Harper himself doesn't act like a Conservative. Let's just wait until the new liberal leader is picked for sure and then debate it.

[hitops]

Come people, you probalby wouldn't vote for him anyway so why so concerned about his views. No one knew about the new leader of the NDP views were until after he was elected. Many times the leader is a little different from party views and its been said many many times , that Harper himself doesn't act like a Conservative. Let's just wait until the new liberal leader is picked for sure and then debate it.

So what are the party views? I'm not clear on that either. The best I can figure is "we also like to balance the budget and promote business but we don't have the kind of weirdos they do in the CPC". Is that about right?

Edited March 24, 2013 by hitops

[Sleipnir]

Can anyone explain what his views are?

He supports the senate and sees no problem with it (despite all the rash of recent scandals).

That's literally all I can gather from him. On the gun registry, keystone pipeline, quebec separatist movement, divisive politics, transgendered right, etc - he flips flop more than Romeny.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Sleipnir

[The_Squid]

I sort of knew what Harper stood for before elected.... Fiscal conservatism, a reformed senate, etc. but he has gone against all he stood for. So much for clarity of a candidates beliefs and ideals.

[CaptainChatham]

I sort of knew what Harper stood for before elected.... Fiscal conservatism, a reformed senate, etc. but he has gone against all he stood for. So much for clarity of a candidates beliefs and ideals.

- In fairness to PM Harper, he has made some efforts consistent with his espoused political and economic philosophy and would have done much more in this regard except for the challenges of holding on to power in a minority parliament and of the global economic meltdown of 2008.

- The budget projection shows that the federal debt in FY 2015 will amount to 42% of our GDP, the best debt to GDP ratio in the G7. In contrast, the US federal debt will be at about 100% of their GDP, a proportional difference of about 250%.

- Yes, the debt has grown since 2008 as it has in every country in the developed world but a/ it would have grown even more had the opposition parties had their way on wanting larger and more open ended stimulus projects and b/ it has grown much less proportionately than in the other G7 countries and this has happened without federal tax increases unlike in most of the developed countries post 2008.

- So Harper has been a fiscal conservative relative to other world leaders during the post 2008 period and relative to the wishes of the opposition parties and it seems to have worked. During his seven years in power, Canada has proportionately created more jobs than any other G7 nation.

- As to senate reform, this has been an active and intractable issue for more than forty years beginning, in the modern era, with the 1972 federal-provincial conference that failed and followed by various other failed senate reform attempts of which Meech Lake (Mulroney offered to scrap the senate) was the boldest. Harper, perhaps consistent with being a conservative who prefers incremental change, has introduced some useful piece meal changes, some proposed and some now passed, which encourage the provincial election of senators and which limit their terms in office. He is probably going to propose additional senate reforms to make the choice of senators more democratic and to better reflect regional growth trends when the time and circumstances are propitious but now he is probably right to focus on economic and trade and fiscal priorities which are more pressing than senate reform.

- If Harper really had gone against all he stood for as a fiscal conservative then he would not have earned such extreme enmity and obsessive hatred among the left-lib class that for decades governed Canada from the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto corridor while the rest of the country was basically reduced to the role of helpless spectators.

- As for PET's son, nobody really knows what, if anything, he stands for other than winning power back from those dasterdly Tories and nobody can safely predict how effective a leader he will be because he has never run anything other than his mouth.

Edited March 24, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[waldo]

imagine... someone refusing to help his opposition (falsely) define him before an actual campaign begins. Why, some wag might suggest it's analogous to the HarperConservatives refusing to release a policy platform months into a campaign... even after its leader is lampooned over failing to release a platform in the campaign debates. Imagine!

[eyeball]

Can anyone explain what his views are?

I checked out his website https://justin.ca/

There is a section 'Justin's views'. Under that there is 'Justin's message', however I cannot see a single view in that message. You check out his 'public statements' under the same tab, but once again I can hardly find a single specific plan or number of any kind.

What I did find was in the statement on 'democratic reform'. Here's the best I could do figuring out his positions:

- Will not support PR - seems clear

- Will make PBO totally independent - seems clear

- Will Increase funding to elections Canada - by how much is not indicated, but ok

- Will not 'anoint' any MP candidate. The meaning of this one is a little fuzzy.

Other than that, I still have no clue what this guy believes. Does anybody else know?

Oh well, I guess that's all I need to know.

Thanks for that.

[g_bambino]

imagine... someone refusing to help his opposition (falsely) define him before an actual campaign begins.

Er, the campaign to be leader of the Liberal party began some time ago, waldo.

[shortlived]

Favorite Justin Quote which he said at the age of 29:

“I don’t read newspapers. I don’t watch the news. I figure, if something happens, someone will tell me.”

Maybe that is his view. I think what you say before you a politician says a little more about you then when you are.

Hold on, I strangely remember Stephen Harper saying the exact same thing.

[shortlived]

- In fairness to PM Harper, he has made some efforts consistent with his espoused political and economic philosophy and would have done much more in this regard except for the challenges of holding on to power in a minority parliament and of the global economic meltdown of 2008.

- The budget projection shows that the federal debt in FY 2015 will amount to 42% of our GDP, the best debt to GDP ratio in the G7. In contrast, the US federal debt will be at about 100% of their GDP, a proportional difference of about 250%.

- Yes, the debt has grown since 2008 as it has in every country in the developed world but a/ it would have grown even more had the opposition parties had their way on wanting larger and more open ended stimulus projects and b/ it has grown much less proportionately than in the other G7 countries and this has happened without federal tax increases unlike in most of the developed countries post 2008.

- So Harper has been a fiscal conservative relative to other world leaders during the post 2008 period and relative to the wishes of the opposition parties and it seems to have worked. During his seven years in power, Canada has proportionately created more jobs than any other G7 nation.

- As to senate reform, this has been an active and intractable issue for more than forty years beginning, in the modern era, with the 1972 federal-provincial conference that failed and followed by various other failed senate reform attempts of which Meech Lake (Mulroney offered to scrap the senate) was the boldest. Harper, perhaps consistent with being a conservative who prefers incremental change, has introduced some useful piece meal changes, some proposed and some now passed, which encourage the provincial election of senators and which limit their terms in office. He is probably going to propose additional senate reforms to make the choice of senators more democratic and to better reflect regional growth trends when the time and circumstances are propitious but now he is probably right to focus on economic and trade and fiscal priorities which are more pressing than senate reform.

- If Harper really had gone against all he stood for as a fiscal conservative then he would not have earned such extreme enmity and obsessive hatred among the left-lib class that for decades governed Canada from the Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto corridor while the rest of the country was basically reduced to the role of helpless spectators.

- As for PET's son, nobody really knows what, if anything, he stands for other than winning power back from those dasterdly Tories and nobody can safely predict how effective a leader he will be because he has never run anything other than his mouth.

Your debt to GDP ratio information is grossly off debt to GDP is floating around 80%, with adding 50 billion more to the debt by 2015 how the hell is it going to go down by more than 30% where is that 300 billion dollars to pay down the debt coming from next year? That is the entire GDP tax income next year and no spending whatsoever to pay the debt down that much.

Somehow I suspect your figures are completely fabricated.

He will need to loot a lot more than syria to come up with that amount of cash.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[CaptainChatham]

Your debt to GDP ratio information is grossly off debt to GDP is floating around 80%, with adding 50 billion more to the debt by 2015 how the hell is it going to go down by more than 30% where is that 300 billion dollars to pay down the debt coming from next year? That is the entire GDP tax income next year and no spending whatsoever to pay the debt down that much.

Somehow I suspect your figures are completely fabricated.

He will need to loot a lot more than syria to come up with that amount of cash.

- shortlived ... I get my figures from the federal Department of Finance and from the bugetary projections tabled this past week. Where do you get your figures from? I'd suggest that it is far more likely that you are fabricating the figures but then I would probably be suspended again since it is open season here to insult me but verboten for me to respond in kind.

[shortlived]

- shortlived ... I get my figures from the federal Department of Finance and from the bugetary projections tabled this past week. Where do you get your figures from? I'd suggest that it is far more likely that you are fabricating the figures but then I would probably be suspended again since it is open season here to insult me but verboten for me to respond in kind.

Various news sources I've been following for the last 6+ years. Post a link to your info.

Federal debt, not counting provincial debt, municipal debt and personal debt, is above 600 billion. Government income from all sources including income tax is about half that amount. It will increase another say 50 billion by 2015 to be somewhere around 700 billion (the number is much higher) when adding in bonds that are still in issue the number is much higher, when you factor in forward projected contracts, that is yet even more money.

Add in provincial and municipal and personal debt you get a couple trillion dollars of debt.

Also if looking at the value of the dollar on a ratio of CPI, the figure has skyrocketed, as CPI has continued to increase with the debt and relative value of the dollar in global value has declined with the US dollar.

According to the CIA the debt to GDP ratio is 84.1% circa 2012

Canada 84.1 2012 est. 87.52 2012 est. North America

The public debt relative information provided by national sources is not always objective and true, given the fact that there is no independent research in these matters.

Here is the issue and shown in Kevin Pages request for last years budget information in court... the feds are just fabricating their information and won't show their secret documents to anyone or release the details to the public.

Now if this information is so wrong why is the Federal Government letting the CIA misinform the public on the state of finances in Canada, is the CIA providing misinformation in its world factbook on its ally Canada to make it look like it is performing worse that it really is? Why would the US do that to their ally and #1 trading partner?

(Also this is without the new airforce and new navy they are going to buy.. right..)

They erased the decade of debt reduction by the liberals, and inflated the value of the Canadian dollar to increase the value of the debt even higher by 133%+ if not for the US economic collapse the debt value could have been even heavier.

You can only hope that Nato doesn't go into Syria full force or worse Iran. Costs in waste production will drag the economy even further.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[punked]

Various news sources I've been following for the last 6+ years. Post a link to your info.

Federal debt, not counting provincial debt, municipal debt and personal debt, is above 600 billion. Government income from all sources including income tax is about half that amount. It will increase another say 50 billion by 2015 to be somewhere around 700 billion (the number is much higher) when adding in bonds that are still in issue the number is much higher, when you factor in forward projected contracts, that is yet even more money.

Add in provincial and municipal and personal debt you get a couple trillion dollars of debt.

Also if looking at the value of the dollar on a ratio of CPI, the figure has skyrocketed, as CPI has continued to increase with the debt and relative value of the dollar in global value has declined with the US dollar.

According to the CIA the debt to GDP ratio is 84.1% circa 2012

Canada 84.1 2012 est. 87.52 2012 est. North America

Here is the issue and shown in Kevin Pages request for last years budget information in court... the feds are just fabricating their information and won't show their secret documents to anyone or release the details to the public.

Now if this information is so wrong why is the Federal Government letting the CIA misinform the public on the state of finances in Canada, is the CIA providing misinformation in its world factbook on its ally Canada to make it look like it is performing worse that it really is? Why would the US do that to their ally and #1 trading partner?

(Also this is without the new airforce and new navy they are going to buy.. right..)

Well those figures are wrong for sure. I would go with the IMF figures before the CIA figures while the CIA has its role and is really good at operating drones and giving out misinformation no I would not trust them with economic figures. Their mission statement has nothing about keeping an informed populace. I think you are closer to right then this other guy those numbers aren't right.

[CaptainChatham]

- It would be helpful here if we weren't talking about and comparing apples and oranges. I made very clear in my initial post on this matter that I was referring to the FEDERAL debt to GDP ratio not the fedral PLUS provincial debt to GDP ratio to which I assume you have decided to refer nor the total public and private debt to GDP ratio which is much higher still.

- What I posted about the FEDERAL debt to GDP ratio is accurate and stands both in absolute terms and relative to other federal debt to GDP ratios of other nations.

- Now, if you want to point out that the spendthrift provinces are basically broke, and that 50-60% of their profligate spending is a cynical political payoff to the monopoly public unions and goes right back into the wallets of public employees in terms of pay,perks, pensions and most of all needless numbers of them, hey I'm on board with that because it is true.

- But the topic to which I responded was Harper and his credentials as a fiscal conservative and obviously I was referring to the FEDERAL debt and suggesting that in relative terms his credentials are not all that bad.

- FYI ... While the provinces blow 50-60% of their operating budgets on needless numbers of public employees with inflated compensation that is, at least on pensions, unsustainable, and major municipalities blow even more, typically 70% plus of their budgets on their union buddies, the federal government has managed to keep pay, perks and pension spending under 20% of its operating budget.

- Perhaps you can see a pattern here.

- I know I can.

Edited March 24, 2013 by CaptainChatham

[shortlived]

- It would be helpful here if we weren't talking about and comparing apples and oranges. I made very clear in my initial post on this matter that I was referring to the FEDERAL debt to GDP ratio not the fedral PLUS provincial debt to GDP ratio to which I assume you have decided to refer nor the total public and private debt to GDP ratio which is much higher still.

- What I posted about the FEDERAL debt to GDP ratio is accurate ands tands both in absolute terms and relative to other federal debt to GDP ratios

- Now, if you want to point out that the spendthrift provinces are basically broke, and that 50-60% of their profligagte spending is a cynical political payoff to the monopoly public unions and goes right back into the wallets of public employees in terms of pay,perks, pensions and most of all needless numbers of them, hey I'm on board with that because it is true.

- But the topic to which I responded was Harper and his credentials as a fiscal conservative and obviously I was referring to the FEDERAL debt and suggesting that in relative terms his credentials are not all that bad.

- FYI ... While the provinces blow 50-60% of their operating budgets on needless numbers of public employees with inflated compensation that is, at least on pensions, unsustainable, and major municipalities blow even more, typically 70% plus of their budgets on their union buddies, the federal government has managed to keep paqy, perks and pension spending under 20% of its operating budget.

- Perhaps you can see a pattern here.

- I know I can.

Post a link.

As I said that 600+ billion is SOLEY federal debt. The provincial, municipal, and personal debt is not included.

I think the problem is you arn't counting the money they have promised to pay, but havn't paid yet on contracts, it is bsically a shell game. The same with bonds, they have had massive bond selloffs, that are just another form of debt.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived

[punked]

- FYI ... While the provinces blow 50-60% of their operating budgets on needless numbers of public employees with inflated compensation that is, at least on pensions, unsustainable, and major municipalities blow even more, typically 70% plus of their budgets on their union buddies, the federal government has managed to keep pay, perks and pension spending under 20% of its operating budget.

- Perhaps you can see a pattern here.

- I know I can.

OK 50-60% of provincial operating budgets to to health care so what you are saying is WRONG. Making think you are WRONG on everything else.

[waldo]

imagine... someone refusing to help his opposition (falsely) define him before an actual campaign begins. Why, some wag might suggest it's analogous to the HarperConservatives refusing to release a policy platform months into a campaign... even after its leader is lampooned over failing to release a platform in the campaign debates. Imagine!

Er, the campaign to be leader of the Liberal party began some time ago, waldo.

see election campaign, g_bambino

[Keepitsimple]

Post a link.

As I said that 600+ billion is SOLEY federal debt. The provincial, municipal, and personal debt is not included.

I think the problem is you arn't counting the money they have promised to pay, but havn't paid yet on contracts, it is bsically a shell game. The same with bonds, they have had massive bond selloffs, that are just another form of debt.

Debt to GDP ratio is around 34%. Here's a link to the CBC budgetary commentary - and the CBC are no fans of the Tories. Shortlived - this is at least twice that you have accused others of lying (Trudeau's membership/voter numbers) or fabricated numbers with no links to back up your claims. You risk being put on IGNORE by members unless you more constructively participate.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/29/federalbudget-flaherty-hilights.html

[shortlived]

Debt to GDP ratio is around 34%. Here's a link to the CBC budgetary commentary - and the CBC are no fans of the Tories. Shortlived - this is at least twice that you have accused others of lying (Trudeau's membership/voter numbers) or fabricated numbers with no links to back up your claims. You risk being put on IGNORE by members unless you more constructively participate.

Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/29/federalbudget-flaherty-hilights.html

I'm not refering to the deficit to gdp ratio I'm talking the debt to gdp ratio.

deficit = how much debt they take on in a given year

debt = how much they have added up year after year and not paid back. real debt is how much they need to pay in the future too based upon their contracts to date including service contracts and bonds.

A savings of 5.2 billion is still a deficit of 15 billion.

Edited March 24, 2013 by shortlived