Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
In many respects, my best friends were dogs.
Negative is always more newsworthy than positive.
An optimist in Canada is someone who think things could be worse
Canada is the only country founded on the relentless pursuit of the rodent.
A revolutionary should neither look or act like one to get ahead in Canada.
The role of the federal government should be neutral toward culture just as it is toward religion.
What used to be considered conservative values... are increasingly becoming more mainstream values.
My personal political convictions are rooted in the populist political traditions of western Canada.
New Canada must be workable without Quebec, but it must be open and attractive enough to include a New Quebec.
Populism is about is alienation in large numbers of people, but aggravated and provoked by a deteriorating economic conditions.
During his long political career, my father was always active in communicating the Christian gospel from the evangelical perspective.
Do not ghettoize society by putting people into legal categories of gender, race, ethnicity, language, or other such characteristics.
What's the difference between a politician and a catfish? One is a wide-mouthed, bottom-feeding, slime sucker - and the other is a fish.
I was dissatisfied with the status quo back in the 80's, particularly how the West was represented in federation. I wanted to try to change it.
My first official consulting job, therefore, was for a scrap metal dealer (he resented the term "junk dealer") in East Edmonton named Benny Sugarman.
There are hundreds of Canadian communities that have given more thought to hiring their rink manager than they have to electing their member of Parliament.
As a result of listening to Aberhart, my father decided to leave the farm in 1927 to study at Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute, Aberhart's training school.
My religious training told me that in times of personal uncertainty one should seek God's direction through personal prayer and study of the Christian scriptures.
Besides my religious commitment, the greatest single factor that has enabled me to pursue my business and political objectives has been the security and freedom of my home.
There is a whole school of Canadian academics, media personalities, and politicians whose definition of a Canadian is a North American who fears or dislikes the United States.
In Canada, what I find what people are afraid of or worried about is politicians who denigrate the importance of the resource sectors, which are the basis of our trading capacity.
In fall 1967, I was given leave of absence by the National Public Affairs Research Foundation to move to Redondo Beach, California, to work on a short-term research contract with TRW.
Canada has had populist movements in the past, virtually since its inception. I don't think the central Canadian elites have ever understood populism at all, particularly the Western version of it.
Nothing disturbs me more than superficiality and mere sloganizing on matters of public policy, and the suspicion that what the speaker is saying represents the full extent of his knowledge on the subject.
When we classify an issue as a 'shield issue' it is usually because we feel that someone else occupies the high ground on that issue. We feel we can't win on that issue and so we adopt a defensive posture.
The trouble with "sacrifices as symbolic acts" is that the immediate impact on those for whom the sacrifice is made quickly fades, while the impact on those who actually make the sacrifice can go on and on.
When the initial effort of political and business leaders to influence public opinion on an issue is to threaten rather than to engage and persuade, they further arouse public opposition rather than win support.
Why not learn from the positive aspect of Canadian populism, which is the way to deal with it? Learn from the negative side, but it's more important to learn from the positive side, because it's an enormous amount of energy.
The first lesson, for all Canadians, is that the closed door, top down approaches to constitution making do not provide the public input or debate necessary to achieve a constitutional consensus that will be supported by the people.
When political and business leaders tell the public - any public - 'We don't trust you to make the right decision' - they prejudice that electorate against the very proposals they want it to accept and undermine public confidence in themselves.
Remember the referendum on the Charlottetown constitutional accord? The more Canada's political and business elites threatened Canadians that the country would disappear into a black hole if the accord weren't passed, the more Canadians opposed it.
I think the federal Liberals' micro-tinkering is not causing any kind of upsurge in public confidence. The challenge for Conservatives is how to not get caught in the same web. I mean, the public just discounts what political people and parties say.
Where you find all the worries about immigration, I think the way to handle that is to listen to the person that's got concerns, and then try to move that in a positive direction, as opposed to decrying it and saying, 'Don't even raise that, you can't raise that.'
There are more effective ways of tackling environmental problems including global warming, proliferation of plastics, urban sprawl, and the loss of biodiversity than by treaties, top-down regulations, and other approaches offered by big governments and their dependents.
There are more effective ways of tackling environmental problems – including global warming, proliferation of plastics, urban sprawl, and the loss of biodiversity – than by treaties, top-down regulations, and other approaches offered by big governments and their dependents.
For many years I have advocated 'redesigning Parliament' in a variety of ways - elect the Senate, do away with the 'confidence convention,' permit freer voting, strengthen the role of back benchers and committees, do away with ineffectual 'take note' debates, restructure question period, and so on.
I think on all the debate on immigration, and all of that, the class of person that should be given the benefit of the doubt is the genuine refugee that is just in real desperate strait. Some of them are in the United States illegally because of [human] trafficking. They were caught up in trafficking, and you can argue to what extent it's their fault, to what extent they didn't know what they were getting into.