CBC At Issue

[WestCanMan]

I was just watching CBC at issue, I can't stand that foolish black haired francophone woman.

Her comment today was basically that "we just had the first conservative govt in decades with a decent political platform (the last Harper govt) and they failed to deliver". I'm paraphrasing, I saw it about fifteen minutes ago. Then she said that 66% of Canadians voted against the conservatives like they do in every election.

What an idiot. More people than that vote against the ndp every time and that many people always vote against the liberals as well. Not to mention that almost no one voted liberal in the previous election.

/rant

[ToadBrother]

I find Hebard one of the better commentators, and certainly knows Quebec that anyone else.

And is this just another bitter complaint that Canadians didn't elect the Tories?

Edited November 13, 2015 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post in quotes

[WestCanMan]

I find Hebard one of the better commentators, and certainly knows Quebec that anyone else.And is this just another bitter complaint that Canadians didn't elect the Tories?

i misunderstood her the first time I heard it, I wasn't in the living room. She said agenda not platform but her comments were as ignorant and biased.

Re-electing the Conservatives wasn't the main issue. Not electing Trudeau was the main issue.

I find it hilarious that Canadian voters see him as a positive person after 4 years of bitching, griping and acting like a spoiled kid. Him threatening to do no better than sabotage parliament for the whole term of the next govt if the CP got a minority was just another insight into who we just elected.

The 50% female cabinet was his first major move after being elected, and what's the solid reasoning behind that? There is none. It was all politics, and Canadians elected him to do what's best for the country not just to pla the politically correct buffoon. Doing what's best for the country is something something he completely neglected as a member of the opposition and he's still doing it as the PM.

[ToadBrother]

i misunderstood her the first time I heard it, I wasn't in the living room. She said agenda not platform but her comments were as ignorant and biased.

Re-electing the Conservatives wasn't the main issue. Not electing Trudeau was the main issue.

I find it hilarious that Canadian voters see him as a positive person after 4 years of bitching, griping and acting like a spoiled kid. Him threatening to do no better than sabotage parliament for the whole term of the next govt if the CP got a minority was just another insight into who we just elected.

The 50% female cabinet was his first major move after being elected, and what's the solid reasoning behind that? There is none. It was all politics, and Canadians elected him to do what's best for the country not just to pla the politically correct buffoon. Doing what's best for the country is something something he completely neglected as a member of the opposition and he's still doing it as the PM.

The Tories lost. Get over it.

[August1991]

I was just watching CBC at issue, I can't stand that foolish black haired francophone woman.

WestCanMan, you may disagree with/can't stand the CBC on occasion or even often.

But surely, since you pay for it, you should occasionally hear someone on the CBC saying something that you believe or agree with.

=====

IMO, the problem with the CBC/R-C is that it does not show the views of all Canadians.

If ever the CBC hires both Naomi Klein and Ezra Levant, and replaces Michael Enright with Mark Steyn, then I will believe that the CBC is not a State (read federal Liberal Party) propaganda bureaucracy. When Radio-Canada puts Richard Martineau and Joanne Marcotte and Mathieu Boch-Côté on air together, I'll believe that we don't have a "State Radio".

In this 21st centtury with Netflix and Facebook, Harper's error was not to fire them all. With the Internet, Google Translate and Skype, Canadians can communicate well enough on their own. Heck, without this $1 billion boondoggle, we'd have more money to help more Syrian refugees or install more solar panels.

Edited November 13, 2015 by August1991

[BC_chick]

And is this just another bitter complaint that Canadians didn't elect the Tories?

I notice you invoke this 'sore loser' argument often. Using this logic, anything any of us said about the Tories could've been sour grapes too.

[angrypenguin]

But Trudeau wasn't playing politics.

[Smallc]

I notice you invoke this 'sore loser' argument often. Using this logic, anything any of us said about the Tories could've been sour grapes too.

After a few months, the sore loser argument doesn't hold weight anymore. Right now, that's exactly what it is.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Chantal Hebert? She has always has something interesting to say, from a viewpoint I wouldn't come across too often. Can I be very superficial for a moment, though? That hobo look is a bit distracting. She could do with a major makeover. Even her hair parting is never quite right.

[Big Guy]

I enjoy what Chantal has to say. This 61 year old is very informed of what is happening in Quebec and often presents those views at the panel discussion. I also believe that she is as impartial as one could expect from any journalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantal_H%C3%A9bert

There have been suggestions in the past that she was gay and that had influenced some bigots views towards her but in these enlightened times, it seems to make no difference.

[Moonlight Graham]

The 50% female cabinet was his first major move after being elected, and what's the solid reasoning behind that? There is none. It was all politics, and Canadians elected him to do what's best for the country not just to pla the politically correct buffoon.

Trudeau's reasoning was that he wanted "a cabinet that looks like Canada". 50% of Canadians are women, so he wanted 50% of cabinet to be women. When you put it that way it kind of makes more sense.

[BC_chick]

After a few months, the sore loser argument doesn't hold weight anymore. Right now, that's exactly what it is.

Fair enough, but TB seems to be throwing that out quite liberally these days. Especially to that poster who was not saying anything other than a personal opinion.

[ToadBrother]

Fair enough, but TB seems to be throwing that out quite liberally these days. Especially to that poster who was not saying anything other than a personal opinion.

Read Postmedia. Every day for the last week has been some miserable anti-Liberal tirade by their gamut of right wing columnists. Don't tell me that this is the "sour grapes" period.

Doubtless there will be plenty of time to criticize the Liberals, and I suspect that time will come fairly quickly, seeing as Trudeau's first month in power is going to see multiple international meetings, several high profile files, writing a Throne Speech, opening Parliament and now the not-really-a-bombshell that the Tories' "surplus" was a fiction. But for now, there are just a lot of Tories posting here who just want to lash out because their party didn't win, and maybe even a few NDPers who can't accept that in the end the electorate returned them to near historical levels of popular support.

I'm as willing to give Trudeau a chance as I was Harper, and I'm sure I'll be every bit as disappointed. But it sure isn't time yet to declare the Government a failure.

[BC_chick]

I'm as willing to give Trudeau a chance as I was Harper, and I'm sure I'll be every bit as disappointed. But it sure isn't time yet to declare the Government a failure.

Sure, but nobody was declaring the government a failure this time. The poster was complaining about Chantal Herbert - an opinion which I don't share but it's a perfectly acceptable opinion.

Your 'sore loser' response was petty and I called you on it because you seem to be throwing it around very often. Many times unjustified.

[overthere]

Read Postmedia.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. I reckon you've entirely missed Michael den Tandt, one of their principal columnists? His columns appear very often in all the Postmedia papers.

Mike has been an absolutely relentless cheerleader for Trudeau for about 4 years now. And a Harperhater for much longer than that.

[Guest]

Trudeau's reasoning was that he wanted "a cabinet that looks like Canada". 50% of Canadians are women, so he wanted 50% of cabinet to be women. When you put it that way it kind of makes more sense.

I gotta say that how someone looks is one of the worst reasons for giving them a job. When that job is running the country, it just seems even worse.

I suppose the running is actually done by the Deputy Ministers, but still...

[ToadBrother]

I gotta say that how someone looks is one of the worst reasons for giving them a job. When that job is running the country, it just seems even worse.

I suppose the running is actually done by the Deputy Ministers, but still...

As others have pointed out, it's not as if previous governments used merit to choose cabinet ministers. I can't see how Trudeau's intent to make his cabinet 50% women is any worse than the ways that previous Prime Ministers have chosen cabinet ministers, and other than a couple of potential misfires, I think Trudeau has a pretty strong cabinet. All in all it was a sharper group than Harper had at the end. Did anybody seriously thinking Joe Oliver was anything other than a proxy for the PMO?

[overthere]

"a cabinet that looks like Canada".

Sikhs are 1.5% of our population , yet have 13% of the Cabinet.

Chinese are about 11% of our population, yet have 0% of the Cabinet.

No black persons, no Arabs, oh so many disenfranchised.......

[Guest]

As others have pointed out, it's not as if previous governments used merit to choose cabinet ministers. I can't see how Trudeau's intent to make his cabinet 50% women is any worse than the ways that previous Prime Ministers have chosen cabinet ministers, and other than a couple of potential misfires, I think Trudeau has a pretty strong cabinet. All in all it was a sharper group than Harper had at the end. Did anybody seriously thinking Joe Oliver was anything other than a proxy for the PMO?

So JT is just as bad as all those who came before him? Or are his reasons for picking on a basis other than merit better than all the other reasons for picking on a basis other than merit?

Edited November 13, 2015 by bcsapper

[ToadBrother]

So JT is just as bad as all those who came before him? Or are his reasons for picking on a basis other than merit better than all the other reasons for picking on a basis other than merit.

I think there is some merit in making a cabinet 50% women, and he has a large caucus to choose from. And while qualifications are important, you're never likely going to get a lot of qualified people in your caucus, even when you have 184 MPs to choose from.

In my perfect world, that's what I'd use the Senate for. Appoint experts in various fields of finance, industry, technologies, sciences, medicine, etc. to the Senate, and then, if you need to bolster the number of expert ministers, you can draw on Senators. Turn the Senate into a Chamber of Experts, or at least populate it with more experts, in the way that the House of Lords at least in part functions in the UK.

But in the short term, Trudeau had to fill cabinet positions, he has a large caucus with a lot of women, so 50% of the cabinet being female was not difficult. Attacking him because ministers aren't appointed on merit seems a rather empty accusation, to my mind.

[Guest]

I think attacking is the wrong word. I think he's wrong. I like to think those who are spending my taxes are doing so on a basis other than how they look. Which was my original comment in response to MG's post.

I don't think it is attacking someone to say you disagree with what they have done, or their reasons for doing it.

[Big Guy]

I have been watching "At Issue" on CBC for many years and find it very impartial and informative. The last four years, Bruce Anderson has been panalist but becasue his daughter is now on the Trudeau team, he has to leave the show. I have seen Jennifer Ditchburn as a guest panalist a few times and she held her own quite well. Jennifer has lots of experience on "Power Politics" also on CBC with Rosie.

I think Jennifer would be a good fit and hope she joins that group and adds a little zip and youth to "At Issue"

Edited November 13, 2015 by Big Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

Sikhs are 1.5% of our population , yet have 13% of the Cabinet.

Chinese are about 11% of our population, yet have 0% of the Cabinet.

No black persons, no Arabs, oh so many disenfranchised.......

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo!!!!!

[Topaz]

OK, now everyone listen to what she said and maybe the other two, exactly what they were talking about. Her comment start around 3:10.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/at-issue-the-past-four-years-1.3317099

[-1=e^ipi]

OK, now everyone listen to what she said and maybe the other two, exactly what they were talking about. Her comment start around 3:10.

So the at issue panelist's daughter was Justin Trudeau's communication person, she recently got married with Peter Mansbridge at her wedding. Peter Mansbridge's ex-wife Wendy Mesley hosts the National on Sunday. The other panelists such as Chantel and Andrew are known liberals.

Cronyism?