I don’t like that Scheer lied. Let’s start with that. Especially since it is such a stupid lie. However, and I know this is going to sound strange, but in a way I’ve found the whole affair to make him more endearing by being more of an imperfect human. He is obviously embarrassed about having been a receptionist. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about it, but you can tell that for him, somewhere in his brain, this is something he doesn’t like about his past. Like I used to work in a tech support call centre (inbound only, don’t kill me). I used to actually tell people I was UNEMPLOYED during that time period instead of admitting I worked in a tech support call centre. I found it very humiliating. Now, as you can see, I don’t care. It was actually a good experience in some ways. So, I can relate to how Scheer clearly feels about it. But again, it is a really dumb lie.
Oh wait, I forgot to put on my hyperpartisan Kool-aid drinking hat. I wouldn’t want to lose my street cred for being a hyperpartisan Kool-aid drinker.
That fraking bastiche Scheer and his lying a$$! Frak that guy!
Watched the Elizabeth May Face to Face - Moderator seemed more even handed than Scheer. Climate change figured, obviously. Interesting hearing the farmer arguing for more recognition for carbon sequestration. Again housing affordability or childcare to allow housing affordability comes up. Interesting that there was at least some talk about technology and a post-work taxation approach.
Someone should have asked how, exactly, we reduce fossil fuel dependence across Canada. 18% of our power is tied to coal, natural gas and oil. I poked at the numbers and it looks like 4 Darlington nuclear plants (the current facility produces 3.5GW) would cover the gap. That would/should have been the big question for the Greens given their desire to dramatically increase out GHG targets.
I agree with your assessment overall. I also would have liked that to be a question. I remember in New Brunswick the Green Party candidate for premier was asked how he planned to reduce industrial emissions (a big part of his platform), and he said “I will promote increased tourism in New Brunswick.” When asked how he would do that his response was “By increasing adverstising.” (these are not literal quotes, but paraphrasing quotes). And I remember thinking, every province and city wants more tourism dollars. Tourism dollars are great. It is external money coming in. How can this guy be premier if he thinks he can significantly increase tourism just via increased advertising? And this was back in 2008/2009 when people were taking “Staycations.” It was just so absurd.
So, yes, I would very much like to hear the Green Party’s national plan for reducing emissions.
Come on, you’re just phoning it in. Try again with a derogatory nickname, and maybe an insult about his personal appearance. Check the National Post comments site for some tips.
I’m not sure a national plan makes a lot of sense. Nova Scotia uses coal for 50% of it’s power, Ontario generates 9% with natural gas, and Alberta uses coal for 45% and natural gas for another 45%. It seems very variable.
Honestly a federal plan to partner with heavy carbon provincial power systems to majority finance the construction of 3-4 Darlington type plants and electric grid extensions between provinces would seem like a decent idea. Construction jobs, uranium mining, retirement of old plants. Heck you could even expand connections to border states to sell excess power.
It’d take 20 odd years naturally but it would obviously move the needle.
I think obviously just continuously refer to “the receptionist” the way some sorts continuously refer to “the drama teacher,” as if there’s something wrong with either, and that they represent the sum total of each man’s experience.
Agreed that this is silly, no matter who does it. These jobs are good jobs. You get good experience in both. And both men have an abundance of other, excellent experience.
However, Trudeau never pretended he was not a drama teacher in a school. He did not claim (for example) to have taught Royal Shakespeare Company actors.
Scheer has made a claim that is false (that he had met all requirements to join a professional body, when in fact he had only completed one of four mandatory exams required to join that body)
So Scheer is a dual American whose only explanation about not disclosing that tidbit is no one has ever asked him about it.
Seriously - I mean wouldn’t a reasonable person assume that might be a relevant detail voters would like to know if you’re applying to be the top leader in Canada? Does he expect someone to have to ask him pointedly about every possible thing?
Who cares? Well I mean obviously some people care but there is nothing that says the perfectly legal dual citizen status has any bearing on being the leader of a party.
For the record I also thought these were stupid objections when people went after Michaelle Jean.
Who cares - that is the point. I really doubt most Canadian’s would care given how he gained the citizenship, his plan to renounce it and his entire background. But what I care about is knowing why he is hiding all that. It is a relevant detail if you want to be Canada’s PM. First the continual lying about being a broker - now this. Deceitful for no reason. His handlers must have known during this election people might, you know, check his background and ascertain a few things.
It’s not relevant. It’s also obvious that if a child has a parent from another country, in Canada they can have dual citizenship. This is not a new or sudden development right? I can only imagine he has had this citizenship state for a number of years.
As for deceptions, neither Liberal or Conservative has any real moral high ground here.
Let voters decide if its relevant to them. It isn’t to me - but the deceit certainly is. The stupidity is too - because he obviously made a mistake in assuming he could keep this hush hush.
I thought it was bullshit when Stephan Dion felt it necessary to renounce his French citizenship, which I don’t remember him publicly disclosing before it came out. What did you think?
I agree. I also thought it was bullshit when Elizabeth May was given grief over being born in the United States, even though this was never hidden, and she lost her US citizenship in 1978 (being the rule at the time, when she became a Canadian)
The problem is not someone’s citizenship by birth. The problem is when this is hidden for expediency. Scheer’s explanation of why he never said anything (“because nobody ever asked me”) seems shallow to me, particularly when he made a huge deal out of Michelle Jean’s dual citizenship.
This, to me, is the important part of this story. He gave someone grief for dual citizenship while maintaining silence about his own because “nobody asked me”. This is duplicitous behaviour and I don’t like it one bit.
I remember various right leaning people “having concerns” back when Jean was the GG, but I don’t remember Scheer specifically. I’m still trying to figure out why he owed it to anyone to publicly state his citizenship status. That lack of requirement would seem to undercut the “duplicity” factor but maybe not a hypocrisy one.
Scheer said in a blog: “Does it bother you that she is a dual citizen (France and Canada)? Would it bother you if instead of French citizenship she held U.S. citizenship?”
I mean, look normally, this would be a nothing burger. I care much much much much much MUCH more about policy than these things except for the hypocrisy and the lying. He’s lost the 3% I had given him earlier and back down to 0%.