Talk:John Manley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Opening comments[edit]

Hi everyone. I am not sure how this works, as I am very new to Wikipedia, so please bear with me. I've had an interest in Canadian politics for a while, and right now I'm doing a research project on John Manley. Seeing as I'm doing research anyway, I figured I'd see what I could find and contribute to Wikipedia. Any advise/suggestions would be appreciated.

(posted by User:Scimitar) -User:Joshuapaquin


Manley was involved in a controversy when one of his protégées who was working at the Canadian Space Agency after working as a special assistant to Manley demanded that the head of the Canadian Space Agency back-date one of her expense reports so that she could have several hundred dollars. He refused to do so and was fired by Manley. A subsequent Parliamentary Committee investigation found that his firing was unsubstantiated (more details required).

What does this mean? It says 'he refused to do so, and was fired by Manley'. Just before, it says 'her expense reports'. Why would the protégé be fired, because she didn't backdate her report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Several days after Prime Minister Martin was sworn in, Manley declined the ambassadorial appointment, mostly because it would take him out of the country and "out of the loop" for fundraising and other political activities with a long-term view towards his own eventual bid to succeed Martin.

This is rather speculative. Can anyone provide a source? --Saforrest 17:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It seems like it is mostly speculation from different sources: [[1]] I am adjusting the text to reflect that it is speculative- User: Scimitar

On the other hand, the interview with La Presse (translated) mentioned later in the text explicitly says that Manley remained in the country in order to prepare for the Leadership. This article had been based on an interview conducted for La Presse. To me, that's not speculation. -Joshuapaquin 21:51, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It seems my edit was premature. How do you revert to the previous page? (I could just re-edit it, but I'd like to know how to do this for other situations)- Scimitar

To revert a page, click on the "history" tab at the top of the article. Then click on the revision date you want to revert to. You'll see what the page looked like at that time. To complete the process, click "edit this page" (you'll see a warning about this being an old version) and then "save". -Joshuapaquin 23:16, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

-The page has been returned to its original content. Thanks for the help- Scimitar

Heh, almost a year later I came back to the page, discovered the same paragraph and reacted the same way, i.e. finding the statement speculative. To keep myself from doing this next year, I've added a References section with the CTV story as the first ref. --Saforrest 04:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

John (Paul) Manley[edit]

If this discussion has already taken place elsewhere, please forgive this question: Why is the article entitled "John Paul Manley" instead of "John Manley"? HistoryBA 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

John Manley is a disamb. -b 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, about that... maybe it shouldn't be anymore. There are four JM's in Wikipedia; two are very brief articles, one is the politician, and the other is an American naval officer from the 18th century. I'm thinking that this page should sit at John Manley, with the current contents of that page put to John Manley (disambiguation). -Joshuapaquin 03:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Political ideology[edit]

"Manley is regarded by some as being from the centre-right of the Liberal party, favouring fiscal conservatism, although his budget included substantial spending."

This sentence is POV. Spending and "fiscal conservativism" are not antithetical - it depends on the kind of spending. Most so-called fiscal conservatives are capable of quite vast spending in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, etc. for corporations, but spend little on social programmes. If the distinction that is intended here is that, while creating a pro-corporatist budget he nevertheless supported social programmes, that should be stated - and supported with references, if true. Pinkville 01:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In Canadian political parlance, tax cuts are not generally considered "spending" because they're a decrease in revenue rather than an increase in expenditure. Anyway, I'll amend that to "substantial program spending" to make the distinction clear. -Joshuapaquin 06:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per request, everything seems to be in order here. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

[[John Manley (politician)]] → [[John Manley]] — Average user entering "John Manley" is very, very likely to be looking for information about the politician. Other uses can be done through disambiguation. Joshuapaquin 05:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support as nom. -Joshuapaquin 05:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canadian sovereignty versus foreign investment[edit]

I did a Google search of (Canada free trade agreement negotiations Geac computer metropolitan Life Rockefeller) and clicked on a link that explained some interesting things, then another one entitled "The Unhived Mind -> Just who is Mel Hurtig?"

In the information presented was a quotation from a Hurtig news paper article about foreign investment in Canada. Hurtig identified that over 2% of foreign investment in Canada was for new ventures and the remaining over 97% was for takeover of Canadian businesses by foreign corporations.

Hurtig claimed this wave of investment was triggered by huge Canadian funding / tax incentives introduced by the Liberal Party of Canada, and that the majority of branch plant companies import more components, layoff and downsize, etc, amounting to a net negative on employment and balance of trade, not to mention foreign control of the country. When the article was written, key mention of "this takeover of Canada policy" was initiated by John Manley when he outsourced a study of the benefits of foreign investment in Canada to a foreign consulting company (possibly linked to the CFR?), and that this report became the mainstay foreign investment policy of the party that eventually lead to the implementation of the policies that resulted in the Canadian funding of its own takeover by foreign corporations. Up until the time of the Hurtig article, Hurtig states that some 7,000+ Canadian businesses were taken over by foreign corporations.

While some Canadians are familiar with Canadian Conservative Party's Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's US-Canada free trade agreement negotiation controversies, they may not be aware that the sell off of Canada is not exclusively the fault of Conservatives, but, according to Hurtig's criticisms, can also be attributed to John Manley and the Liberal Party of Canada too.

Can any of the news paper article criticism of Mel Hurtig be referenced in this John Manley Wiki article to balance what appears to be the lauding of praise on Manley for his public service to Canada?

I was unaware that Manley was involved with the CFR, nor that he was a member of the board of Nortel Networks leading towards its failure and sell-off to many foreign corporations world wide? Oldspammer (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Manley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)