Trudeau Digs a Hole for Himself in Davos

[Donald G]

Another immature, egotistical mistake overseas ..

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... f-in-davos

[Partmanpartfish]

removed.

[Donald G]

Interestingly the comment about harper was completely left out of the transcript that was returned to Canada. I wonder who caused that to happen and why ??

Seems outright dishonest and carried out to cover up for ineptitude to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/24 ... 62636.html

[Partmanpartfish]

It's not uncommon for a speech to stray from the transcript, unless he was reading from a transcript.

Seriously, given Harper's relentless and ugly attacks on others, you guys have zip to complain about.

You guys are just Not Ready to be on the losing side.

[The Green Barbarian]

You guys are just Not Ready to be on the losing side.

And you Trudeau-lovers are just Not Ready to accept that its going to be a long four years of watching the man you love make a complete fool of himself, and cause Canada a lot of embarrassment. Davos is just the tip of the iceberg.

Every now and then with Justin Trudeau the mask slips: when that bottomless reservoir of self-assurance of his, which in his best moments presents itself as graciousness and magnanimity, instead bubbles up as arrogance and hubris. For some reason this seems most often to happen when he’s abroad. Remember that post-election boast to the BBC about having left his critics “in my dust”?

This time, it was in the middle of his speech to the annual conference of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. For the most part the speech was chamber of commerce-stye boosterism, mixed with the usual assortment of buzzwords that festoon most of Trudeau’s speeches: diversity, infrastructure, middle class, etc.

But then there was that line that must have seemed too good to resist. “My predecessor,” he began, “wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.”

If ever there were a phrase for which the advice given to countless writers, to “kill your darlings,” might have been devised, this was it. There is always something classless and off-key, for starters, in taking a shot at your defeated opponent overseas — outside the family, as it were.

Moreover, this seemingly offhand bit of wordplay bespeaks a number of other attitudes and assumptions, none of them attractive. Consider, at its heart, the contrast he wants his listeners to take away, between “resources” and “resourcefulness.”

The canard is so common, the underlying assumption so entrenched among those of a certain set, that many readers may have missed it. But of course: resources are just something we pull out of the dirt. That’s easy. Any idiot could do that. If that was the view the rest of the world had of us — simple resource extractors — well, Trudeau would soon put that right. He would remake Canada’s economic brand in his own image: stylish, hip, clev— er, well, resourceful, at any rate.


Be clear on this. He chose these words for a reason. Indeed, he repeated the point, just to be sure. While acknowledging that Canada’s natural resources were “substantial,” he went on: “But Canadians also know that growth and prosperity is not just a matter of what lies under our feet, but what lies between our ears.” Because apparently getting at the one does not require the other.

The contrast is not only false, but insulting. Extracting bitumen from the oilsands, in particular, has required the most extraordinary feats of scientific ingenuity, of which humankind was not capable until comparatively recently. It is the furthest thing from easy.

If it strikes you I am making too much of this, there is a context. The prejudice to which Trudeau was appealing is extremely common. Remember the Globe and Mail debate on the economy during the election, and that question from the moderator to the leaders: “Do you have a jobs plan for industry beyond taking things out of the ground?” This was in Calgary, but the idea that we must get “beyond taking things out of the ground” seemed so natural that it did not occur to him that he was insulting the audience.

Which is to say, for a significant section of Canadian opinion, the prejudice against resources is not just random snobbery: it is a central tenet of their economics, or at least of their aesthetics. Every time some exquisite frets that Canadians might be condemned to remain “hewers of wood and drawers of water,” every time a luncheon speaker weighs in on the need to “move up the value-added chain,” what they are really saying is that “mere” resource extraction is not fit work for such an advanced nation, when everybody knows we should be in aerospace or biotechnology or whatnot. But resources? I mean I ask you.

In Trudeau’s case it emerges in that tiresome refrain, to the effect that the Harper government had foolishly put all of our “eggs in one basket,” betting the economy on oil and gas and thus leaving us exposed when the price of oil collapsed. Again, there is not a shred of truth to this. In fact, the entire energy sector — oil, gas, hydro, nuclear, the works — today adds up to just over 9 per cent of GDP. It was 10 per cent when Harper took office.

Of course, even if resource extraction were every bit as cloddish as its critics imagine, it would still be worth doing, so long as the world was willing to pay us $100 a barrel for the stuff. Now that it’s fetching closer to $30, investors have ample signal to shift into other sectors, without the prime minister piling on. Still, for all his chatter about the need for economic “diversification,” the broad fundamentals of Canada’s economy are unlikely to change much. We are not as resource-dependent as he makes out, but neither, I suspect, will Canada be markedly more “resourceful” when he is done.

Harmless rhetoric, then? Hardly. Emotions are raw enough as it is in Alberta and Saskatchewan: witness the burst of outrage over Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre’s declaration of opposition to the Energy East pipeline. People there are feeling besieged, abandoned, even betrayed, the pipelines that would bring their oil to market held to ransom by opportunistic political leaders in the rest of Canada, while the federal government stands by. The last thing they need is their prime minister making lame puns overseas at their expense, or implying their livelihoods are infra dig.

[hobbyguy]

The reason that so many folks voted for Trudeau and the Liberals, voted for Mucair and the NDP? Because Harperism wasn't working for them.

Harperism is different than conservative values. It contains some of them, but it is different.

So they voted for "anybody else".

It is all Harper's fault lol.

[Partmanpartfish]

Perhaps a re-read of the rules before posting again. There is ZERO tolerance with personal attacks. Thanks.

My apologies to Donald if he viewed the post as a personal attack; it was not meant to be.

I don't however understand what is so terrible about: “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.”

To me, this seems to be simply a statement of the facts.

Are some on the right now troubled that Mr. Harper decided to put all of our eggs in one basket?

[Donald G]

by Partmanpartfish » Today, 9:43 am

It's not uncommon for a speech to stray from the transcript, unless he was reading from a transcript.

A transcript is a verbatim account of what was said during a speech that is made after a speech has been made.

As such a person can not deviate from a transcript. When the words and the transcript disagree it is the transcript that has been altered. Given the circumstances it is evident that the Trudeau speech was altered in the transcript to try to minimize the damage done by the naive PM Trudeau.

He obviously can still not quit campaigning and start acting as the Prime Minister of Canada.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

At least PM Trudeau didn't mention that Harper, last time he was in Davos, told the entire world about the change he wanted to make in the OAS eligibility from 65 to 67 before telling Canadians and disparage him for not being transparent. What a slap in the face that was. Not so much that he wanted to make the change but not telling us Canadians about it beforehand.
Harper has left the building .. without even saying goodbye may I add.
Time to get over it and get in with the new. PM Trudeau will not be perfect, no one is.

[Partmanpartfish]

^

The transcript of the speech was almost surely written before the speech itself, unless JT decided to wing it. The transcript was also likely distributed to news organizations before the speech.

I am sure, for example, there are small differences in Obama's SOTU transcript printed in the papers, and what Obama actually said.

Still, nobody has been able to explain what's so bad about, “My predecessor wanted you to know Canada for its resources. I want you to know Canadians for our resourcefulness.” It seems rather innocuous to me. It seems like a mountain is being made of a molehill.

[Donald G]

It appears that the definition of a transcript is not understood by everyone on this thread:

[tran-skript]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a written, typewritten, or printed copy; something transcribed or made by transcribing.
2.
an exact copy or reproduction, especially one having an official status.
3.
an official report supplied by a school on the record of an individual student, listing subjects studied, grades received, etc.

ALL TRANSCRIPTS are made after the act has been carried out or speech made.

[FreeRights]

Though you're right about the transcript definition, there was also a note on the transcript noting it may differ from a previous version. It then is clear that this isn't an issue in transparency, but rather a lack of understanding on our part on process.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Anyone in the world can simply go to youtube and listen to PM Trudeau's entire speech. Who cares about the transcript.

[Glacier]

[Donald G]

10/10 Glacier ..