Continental Corruption

Layers and layers of leftwing corruption are oozing out of the swamps across North America.

From Queen’s Park to Parliament Hill and beyond, lefties and liberals seem unable to silence their slimy secrets.

Some of these cover-ups and creative accounting methods may not technically be against the law but they certainly do seem to contravene the spirit of the law, and appear to benefit certain transgressors in power at the time.

So is this something only leftwing politicians do or have we seen examples of this from the other side as well? And do you see more examples of this kind of ethical malfeasance elsewhere in North America?

————————————————————————————-

Related articles of interest:

EXCLUSIVE: Morneau using ethics loophole to maintain ownership of shares in family business. CTV

Liberal tax reforms’ most lasting impact may be on Morneau’s reputation – John Ivison, National Post:

“The only takeaway for the vast majority of people is that a very rich man, who is taking advantage of tax loopholes to stay rich, was trying to close tax loopholes for people who are much less rich than he is.”

A Russian nuclear firm under FBI investigation was allowed to purchase US uranium supply – Sara A. Carter, Circa.

BREAKING NEWS! Morneau to put assets in blind trust.  But that’s not going to make this little “distraction” go away. Too little too late.

Morneau’s firm doing work for the feds; Has contract with Bank of Canada worth more than $8M – Candice Malcolm, Toronto Sun

And then there are the ghosts of Ontario’s email-gate rearing their ugly heads again.

More Breaking News – and from the Washington Post of all places!! Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canadian Government, Canadian Politics, Ontario Government, Provincial Politics, U.S. Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

149 Responses to Continental Corruption

  1. Liz J says:

    We have an Ethics Commissioner, not sure if that’s working too well at times. It seems ethics, like shame, are no longer part of the equation in politics or many other jurisdictions.

    I saw a clip of an angry Trudeau taking the questions posed to Morneau, whose body language said it all….he looked like a little boy being protected by big daddy. Attempts to cover up mean there is something to cover up!

    Like

  2. Greg says:

    I think politics can corrupt anyone. The big difference of course is in how the media covers it. When a Conservative or Republican strays it is immediately covered relentlessly by all the outlets. If a Liberal or Democrat strays, it may never get covered, and even if it does only reluctantly with a perfunctory single story to say that they did. It took Drudge to expose Bill Clinton, although everyone in the media knew. It took the National Enquirer to expose John Edwards. I don’t recall any conservative individual where the media held back. Now look at the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium deal. If a republican had done this every outlet in the US would be reporting this as a lead until someone went to jail. If a Conservative finance minister had done what Morneau did,, he or she would have been hounded into a resignation within hours.

    Like

  3. Liz J says:

    Look to Ontario for corruption in government…if it isn’t considered corruption they will have to invent another word. Federally we have “stuff” unraveling that could be pegged, we will see where it goes. The EC can’t put on blinders and still be called an “Ethics” Commissioner.

    Like

    • Greg says:

      Imagine if Mike Harris tried to hide $4B in deficit spending in a OPG account to be billed later. The entire front section of Torstar would be covered with articles from every reporter and opinion writer they have for months. Most of the stories would involve conservatives killing your grandchildren with future debt.

      Like

  4. Liz J says:

    How is it right for Wynne to be spending millions of our dollars advertising her goodies on prime time TV and radio? If there are loopholes we can be sure less than scrupulous politicians will find will use them to their advantage, not ours.

    Like

  5. Liz J says:

    The Wynne is borrowing money to give a cut in hydro rates, that really hasn’t sunk in. They may want to burn some midnight oil and try to make an asset our of debt.
    File under “How stupid do they think we are?

    Like

  6. Liz J says:

    Is the Ethics Commissioner going to take the fall for Morneau? Some thing just isn’t adding up here.
    If Morneau has taken action to put his assets into a blind trust, who screwed up?

    Like

  7. Anne in swON says:

    Morneau offered up a qualified mea culpa – “The Ethics Commissioner found me a legal loophole and I used it. I didn’t do anything wrong; nothing illegal about that, but I see Canadians want me to do more. So, back to the drawing board. Ooh, ooh, how about if I put all my assets into a blind trust? Tell you what, I’ll even throw in the family assets, too. Aren’t I a good boy! So everybody’s happy now, right? Am I off the hook?” That’s exactly what I saw as I watched this tax cheat today.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Yes, mentioning the word “loophole” says a lot about both the Commissioner and Morneau. Let’s pass out two tee shirts here!

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Ms. Dawson has been the Ethics Commissioner since 2007. How many new MP’s were elected to the governing party since then? Were any of them informed of this legal loophole? Why is this just now coming to light? Did Morneau just happen to discover this loophole?

        Like

  8. Miles Lunn says:

    I think parties on all sides of the spectrum can be corrupt although I do think the larger government is in size the more likely corruption is to occur as it is harder to detect. In the US unlike Canada GOP dominates most level of government and there are only 16 Democrat govenors (a record low), and only 3 states where Democrats control all three branches whereas over 25 where GOP controls all. By contrast in Canada it is the opposite as only Saskatchewan and Manitoba have conservative premiers, all others are Liberal or NDP. Up until 2000 usually Canada and the US swung in the same direction but it seems now are swings are out of synch so when country goes left like US in 2008 or Canada in the last couple years, the other goes the opposite direction. I also think political culture and tolerance of it plays a big role as the Nordic Countries despite being fairly socialistic have the lowest levels of corruption according to international rankings whereas the Mediterranean countries are the worst in Europe although the former are more left wing in terms of high taxation and a large welfare state whereas the latter more in terms of big bureaucracy and large government and I think that tends to lend itself more to corruption but also public tolerance plays a big role as the more politicians fear losing the more careful they are.

    Now in Canada, I don’t think all left wing governments are corrupt, Notley has largely stayed out of trouble on the ethics side, the problem with her is more her bad economic policies which are hurting Alberta and that not corruption is the reason she needs to be defeated in 2019. Quebec no matter what government seems to always have corruption so it seems more entrenched there. All federal governments since Pierre Trudeau asides from the short lived Joe Clark one have had ethical scandals, but usually it comes after they have been in power for some time not after only 2 years. Harper didn’t have his first major ethical lapse until 2013 when he had been in power for 7 years so if Trudeau is having them after only 2 years then there is trouble.

    As for the reason, I think both are living in bubbles thinking they have the next election locked up. Wynne assumes she can portray Brown as a right wing extremist like she did with Hudak, but so far every time she has tried to trip him up it has failed. Portraying Conservatives as right wing extremists only works if it seems plausible, doesn’t if it smacks of desperation and I see 2014 similar to 2004 federally whereas 2018 more like 2006 federally where the Liberal attack ads worked well in the former, but failed miserably in the latter. She also thinks by going leftward she can push the NDP down to the low teens, but I’ve got news for her, that ain’t happening. Maybe it will save them seats in downtown Toronto, but in Hamilton, Windsor, or Northern Ontario, those are staying NDP and would go PC before they would go Liberal. Her policies have really hurt those areas and the people there will remember that. So while we still have 231 days left until e-day, I am cautiously optimistic that at around 11 PM on June 7th Wynne will be giving her concession speech (as an added bonus I hope she loses her own seat too, which did narrowly go Tory federally in 2011 and we still got 37% in 2015 which was a bad election for us) while a few minutes later Brown is giving his victory speech but until that happens I always worry slightly what if they do get back in even though I don’t think they will.

    As for Trudeau, I think one just needs to go to ipolitics to see the arrogance of some of the Liberal commenters who blindly support everything the Liberals do and blindly oppose everything the opposition does and assume anyone who would even consider voting Tory has their brain screwed on wrong. While not naming names, the initials EH, JC, GEH, PK, TQ, and AL while BD for anti-Tory are all ones who fit this mold and I think much of the Liberal party thinks similar to those types. Most wrongly assume they have 2019 in the bag and while they may be slightly favoured, it is not in the bag especially not if they keep on acting like they do. I must say I actually prefer having a political discussion with an NDP supporter than Liberal. We may disagree on most issues but it seems most NDP supporters respect those with different opinions whereas today I find many Liberal supporters actually hate anyone who doesn’t think like them and is intolerant to those with different views. It wasn’t always that way, but I remember a decade ago, the party was generally a big tent party which most Liberals supported but the younger Liberals very much wanted it to be a progressive one and to purge all those who leaned right and Trudeau has more or less led that faction of the party whereas Martin and Chretien tended to believe more in the idea of a big tent party. A decade ago, I could have civil discussions with most Liberals, but I’ve always found millennial Liberals the most obnoxious and intolerant and they seem to be now in charge whereas the Boomer Liberals were generally a lot more open to others.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      You might be interested in this story of 800,000 deleted emails by the Notley government. Looks like an echo of the Livingston/Miller fiasco in Ontario. After all, there was that meeting between Notley and Wynne. http://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/opposition-questions-800000-deleted-alberta-government-emails

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Wasn’t aware of that so thanks for the info. Either way corrupt or honest, she is economically incompetent so needs to go. I don’t though like some think either side of the spectrum has a monopoly on corruption. As for Laura Miller I should note she was a campaign chief for Christy Clark in BC so she does help centre-right parties as long as they use the Liberal name instead of conservative and the BC Liberals are far more like the Ontario PCs philosophically than Ontario Liberals, but she seems to be more of a capital L liberal than small l one.

        Like

  9. Anne in swON says:

    Does anyone know when this numbered company in Alberta was set up? This story sure looks like it has legs.

    Like

  10. Miles Lunn says:

    As a side note, tomorrow I will issue my midterm report card for the Trudeau government. While it was 2 years ago today they won, it will be two years on October 21st that the next election is held so October 20th, 2017 is the true halfway point. Since my blog tries to appeal to not just conservatives but as many as possible I will be fair and he will get some good grades, but lots of bad ones. On fiscal matters and ethical expect mostly Ds and Fs, but on social issues you will see some Bs but no As.

    On a side note to show the problems with PR, Netherlands finally formed a government after taking 208 days so one reason in BC we don’t need to go there. Another is down under in New Zealand, they formed a government and it came down to one man, Winston Peters to decide whether Bill English of the centre-right National Party would remain PM or Jacinda Ardern of the centre-left Labour Party would secede him and he choose the latter. While I have no stake in New Zealand elections, I believe voters not one individual should be the one’s deciding the next PM. That is why I plan to campaign and vote NO in the November 2018 referendum on PR in BC. BC has the highest support in Canada so if defeated there it will hopefully bury the issue, but if it succeeds I fear it will spread like wildfire across the country.

    Like

  11. Anne in swON says:

    I just watched a video interview between Shepard Smith and Jennifer Griffin during which it was claimed that the Boyle family release was “not a hostage rescue, per se. It was a negotiated release arranged by the Pakistani Intelligence Services.” “There was no quid pro quo; no hostages were exchanged and the US did not pay a ransom.” Strange turn of phrase, I think. Was there a ransom paid? This just gets curiouser and curiouser, to quote Alice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpMJJ5r2Vhc

    Like

  12. Liz J says:

    It may be time for some resignations, Morneau and Mary Dawson as well. Of course it will not happen. Just an oversight, Morneau being in charge of pushing a policy that benefits his firm, gaining $65K per month. It will be fine now, he’s going to sell his ownership in company!
    Could this be called simple stupidity of something else?

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      I’m beginning to understand the government’s reluctance to seek a replacement for the current commissioner and why her appointment has been extended more than once. She’s there until at least January 2018. Tonda McCharles indicates, however, that Morneau’s advisor was one Nathalie Trepanier and not Mary Dawson. The muck is getting deeper by the minute.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        Interesting. This sure is a strange story.

        Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        What’s also interesting to consider is who first broached the existence of this loophole? Was it Morneau or the EC? Morneau certainly would have access to the finest legal minds and would definitely have researched how best to handle his assets. From what we now know the EC has issued warnings in the past that this loophole should be closed so it’s unlikely that she would have “advised” him he could use it. We’ve been assured that Morneau is a man of great integrity. Would a man of great integrity stoop to such scurrilous behaviour? He needs to be removed as FM posthaste.

        Like

  13. Judith Davies says:

    It may be oversimplifying the situation, but I have always seen a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. It appears that the Ethics Commissioner does not recognize this. So if she is only interested in MPs following the letter of the law, perhaps we should change her name to Legal Advisor. Either that or get someone who understands the job.

    Like

  14. Liz J says:

    A finance minister in charge of pushing a policy that benefits his firm to the tune of $65K per month can’t be considered ethical or legal by any government standards…or loopholes.
    There needs to be a couple of resignations here, they both had to know better…if not they are not fit for their jobs. Is it stupidity or or are they being willfully obtuse thinking we all fell of the turnip wagon?

    Like

  15. gabbyinqc says:

    Re: corruption.
    As Joanne skilfully pointed out with her many links, corruption is alive and well in some liberal/progressive circles. While I agree that generally speaking no political parties have a monopoly on ethical lapses, I’m getting a little tired of the finger-pointing aimed at Quebec as the most corrupt among the provinces & territories. Quebec is distinct in many ways. One of those ways: it is supposedly more socially progressive than other provinces. Perhaps it is that notion of l’État-providence / Welfare State which somehow contributes to ethical lapses, as “the corrupt system” replaces individual responsibility. Trudeau himself, trying to backtrack from the “tax cheats” accusations levelled at small business owners, stated that the fault lay in “the system”. The more individuals think they’re gaming an impersonal system, the less responsibility they feel when engaging in unethical or even illegal activities.

    Maybe the more socially conservative populations are, the fewer the ethical lapses. “The fear of God” — of whichever denomination — may have something to do with it. And if you’re wondering, dear reader, I’m not a practicing _________ (name of religion).

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Good point although looking abroad having a large welfare state doesn’t in itself mean high levels of corruption. France and the Mediterranean countries have large welfare states and are quite corrupt, but Germany and the Nordic Countries by contrast rank very low in terms of corruption and also have large welfare states so I think cultural and historical factors play a big role. When it comes to more conservative countries, again a mix although most of the countries that are more conservative than us and more corrupt are also a lot poorer. GDP per capita is probably the biggest indicator at least on a global scale of corruption levels with those with high GDP per capita tending to have low levels and those in the developing world tending to be much higher. Latin America seems to be rife with corruption regardless of the ideology who is in power and off course Africa is largely run by despots. In Europe, the general rule seems to be the further south and the further east you travel the worse corruption gets while the further north and further west you go the less and interestingly enough in terms of standard of living as well as how long they’ve been democratic it also seems to follow that rule. Of the rich countries that have smaller governments, US is worse than Canada for corruption, but Australia, Switzerland, and Hong Kong are all countries with fairly low levels of corruption while the UK which has similar size government has similar levels of corruption.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Maybe your statistical approach to issues is more valid than mine, I don’t know. All I know is that human nature is imperfect. If societal conditions are such that unethical, immoral, or even criminal behaviour goes largely unpunished, then that kind of behaviour flourishes.

        Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Gabby, look no further for corruption than Ontario under the guidance of McGuinty and Wynne, both of whom are socially progressive. So the finger-pointing from my province can be taken with more than a grain of salt. It seems the longer any particular party is in power the greater the risk of corruption The Alberta PC’s are a prime example.

      Like

    • Liz J says:

      Quebec is a beautiful province, tenaciously protective of their heritage and rightly so. It is also rich in natural resources, in spite of which they are perpetually in have not status. Perhaps this is where they get the most flak and could be described as “gaming the system”.
      No question about it, they are more socially progressive than other provinces.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Yes, “perpetually in have not status” … but I attribute that to the État-providence mentality, or put another way, the “gimme” mentality. It’s not the only community in Canada to be always in asking mode, though.

        Like

  16. Miles Lunn says:

    Just posted my midterm report card for Trudeau’s government https://wordpress.com/post/afiscalconservativepointofview.com/56 . Overall grade was a C- but a few B’s lots of Cs, Ds, and even a few Fs while no As. While some may ask why I didn’t give him a D or F, I don’t think the government has been able to do enough to warrant that yet but certainly if it continues in its direction it could fall to that. Usually governments have to been in power for a while before I will give them a D or F and likewise also made some positive transformative change to get an A.

    Like

  17. Anne in swON says:

    Finally, a conservative with a backbone. Patrick Brown not only refuses to retract and apologize for his remarks re: Wynne being “on trial”, he’s actually doubling down. He may yet redeem himself in the eyes of many.

    Like

  18. Anne in swON says:

    Need a laugh? Read Colby Cosh’s tongue-in-cheek revelation that the attack on Bill Morneau is really an attack on another “Albertan”. Rex Murphy, you have competition, at least for now.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-hands-off-morneau-in-defence-of-a-great-albertan#comments-area

    Like

  19. Miles Lunn says:

    We have two by-elections on Monday while still four that need to be called. I am guessing Trudeau called the ones he did as he wants a good news story while left out the others so my thoughts on them.

    Lac Saint Jean – This was more a Denis Lebel riding than Tory one and in fact it was the only one of the 12 seats we won in Quebec that was outside the Quebec City region thus I would be surprised if we do manage to hold this. Liberals would love to win this as it is one of their weakest in the province but not sure they will. NDP isn’t likely to although I think if they plan their cards right Singh could still do well in some of the Montreal ridings in 2019, particularly those where Quebec Solidaire does well provincially, but probably not so much in the regions. I have had to make a prediction, I would predict a BQ win as this area voted 2/3 Yes in the 95 referendum and is Lucien Bouchard’s old riding so has a strong separatist sentiment as well as high levels of unionization who in Quebec unlike elsewhere the BQ does well amongst that being said any of the four parties could win here.

    Sturgeon River – Parkland: That is a safe Tory seat so I expect us to easily hold this one.

    Looking further ahead as there are still four vacant seats

    South Surrey-White Rock: Normally leans conservative but probably would have gone Liberal if Dianne Watts wasn’t the candidate last time around as she was a very popular mayor of Surrey who got 80% of the vote as mayor. This is a suburban centre-right type riding so will be a test if we have regained our ground in these constituencies which largely went for us in 2011, but swung Liberal in 2015. Otherwise it’s these types of ridings we need to be winning to have any chance in 2019. A loss here though doesn’t mean a loss in 2019, just means we have work to do.

    Battlefords-Lloydminster: Very safe Tory riding, should be an easy hold.

    Burin-Trinity-Bonavista: This is a very safe Liberal riding so easy hold for them but will be interested in the numbers. It was 80% Liberal and 12% Conservative in 2015 so if there is a significant tightening it could be a sign we have potential for gains in more favourable ridings in Atlantic Canada.

    Scarborough-Agincourt: Normally a very safe Liberal riding but has trended our way as we actually got a higher vote percentage in 2015, 38% as opposed to 2011 34% as well as has a large Chinese community where marijuana legalization is quite unpopular. So I give the Liberals the edge here, but an upset is possible. If we can narrow it to single digits I will be happy as that probably means we would win most of the 905 ridings which are more friendly to us.

    So in sum of the four vacant ridings we have now, two I am pretty certain we hold, one I think we might lose but still have a decent shot at holding, while another I think we are likely to lose. Of the two vacant Liberal ones, both are likely to stay Liberal but one we at least have a shot at whereas the other we don’t.

    Like

  20. Anne in swON says:

    Joshua Boyle seems to have developed a foreign accent between the time he spoke after arriving at the airport and Oct. 14 when the linked video was shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP4D2QIR2jI The accent mysteriously disappears when he is interviewed by the CBC on Oct. 16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sROB3S_Mno

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      He seems to be quite the actor. The whole story makes no sense at this point.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        He seems to speak very highly of Pakistan’s part in his “rescue” and how the west has mischaracterized the government of that country. He could almost be an ambassador for Pakistan and the Muslim faith.

        Like

        • Liz J says:

          Maybe he got a wee bit of brain washing, he may need to be deprogrammed!
          It will be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
          Why was his wife still wearing Muslim garb?

          Like

  21. Liz J says:

    Re the email wiping in the gas plant scandal, how is McGuinty squeaky clean? Why would Miller and Livingston think it was legal to destroy public records and act on their own? Who would that benefit? Who was in charge?

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Also, will Miller and Livingston take the blame, pay the price if they did not act on their own? Exactly where does the buck stop in Liberal governments?

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        With all the talk of this scandal you’d have to wonder what the BC Liberals were thinking to take on Laura Miller as the party executive director. She resigned when charges were laid in Ontario. The mind boggles.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I agree I thought it was stupid and I say as a BC Liberal supporter (note BC Liberals are a pro free enterprise coalition with both federal Liberals and federal Conservatives, otherwise keeping the NDP out is what unites the party). That being said it didn’t play a big role in the last election and was hardly brought up, but to think choosing her might have cost them one seat and thus delivered an NDP government would show the stupidity of the idea.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            It’s the principle of the whole thing. Whether it cost them any seats, no seats or even had it gained them seats, it was the wrong thing to do. The party knew that they were sending a message to voters and to the ROC that it didn’t matter what might have happened in Ontario she was being hired anyway. I’m sure there were others who were qualified to hold the position whose ethics were not under scrutiny. Party affiliation and outcome is irrelevant in the situation. The end does not justify the means.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            No disagreement, I certainly think it was a mistake to bring Laura Miller unless not until cleared which she hasn’t been.

            Like

  22. Liz J says:

    Wondering how hard Trudeau will fight over Quebec’s new laws on face coverings?

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Not very. If it were any other place especially Saskatchewan or Alberta he would go a lot harder. The Liberals are likely to lose seats in English Canada and they only have a 15 seat majority so to compensate for losses in English Canada they need to gain in Quebec and that means in the regions where Bill 62 is quite popular. Trudeau like on many issues will be shown to be a hypocrite here.

      Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      So far, our socksy PM seems reluctant to wade in for fear he’ll alienate Quebec voters. Meanwhile, Patrick Brown has tweeted his opinion: “Neutrality is not enough. If feds won’t lead Canada, and this racist law passes, ON must support a Charter challenge”.

      Like

  23. Anne in swON says:

    Britain is no longer Great. Instead this once proud nation is truly reaching the bottom of the barrel. Now, a country whose young men fought in both world wars to save it, goes from the sublime to the ridiculous as various police forces claim they can no longer afford to man Poppy Day parades. There’s enough in their budgets to police online speech. Oh, the irony! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5004427/Poppy-Day-cancelled-police-amid-budget-cuts.html

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Britain will be a lot less great if heaven forbid Jeremy Corbyn wins the next election. Not sure how much you follow British politics, but do you think May should stay on or get someone else and who? I personally think Boris Johnson should be the next Tory leader. From London so could help gain back urban areas, pro-brexit so can pick up some of the Northern Industrial seats they hoped to pick up but failed, moderate, and despite his tendency to say stupid things, he comes across as a regular Joe instead of elitists so connects better than most. Otherwise I would like to see Boris Johnson become the next PM of Britain.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        I agree with your assessment of Boris Johnson, although he threw me off for a while when he supported the Remain side. I don’t recall what changed his mind but was pleasantly surprised at how strongly supportive of Brexit he became. Boris does come across as rather unkempt and will likely never be praised on the pages of Chatelaine or Rolling Stone, thank goodness. As for Theresa May… she was a very weak Home Secretary and has carried that same skill set into her present position. She was a Remainer who now must somewhat reluctantly lead the exit from the EU. I’ll hazard a guess and say it’ll take a while.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Agreed. The only other good options I can think are:

          Ruth Davidson: Considering the party made big gains in Scotland despite losing in England and Wales that shows she has strong potential, although fairly centrist type, but maybe that is what the party needs to keep Corbyn out of 10 Downing Street.

          Amber Rudd: I like her, but if she does run she needs to switch constituencies. She only won hers by 300 votes and there was a stronger swing towards Labour in the South than North of England so there is a risk the Tories could win nationally but she loses her seat.

          George Osborne: Young and smart capable cabinet minister, but perhaps being too tied to austerity might hurt him and he does seem to have burned some bridges.

          Still I would take Boris Johnson over any of those three. Likewise it would be nice if Labour could get a new leader which likely won’t happen. Eventually Labour will return to power even if not next election so better to have a more moderate than hard left leader who will be less damaging. Corbyn is like your modern version of Michael Foot and Tony Benn which is why older voters who remember those two massively rejected him, it was the younger ones not around then who voted for him.

          Like

    • Liz J says:

      Right, the “Great” can be erased from Britain. Churchill must be turning in his grave.
      At this point they have almost zero chance of turning this disaster around, they have totally changed the demographic of their country and are continuing on that path.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Actually UK in terms of diversity is only 5% Muslim although in some cities it is as high as 20% and majority in a few neighbourhoods but far from a majority on a national level. Certainly immigration is a concern, but also there is a generational divide as a lot younger Brits are more internationalistic as you saw in the Brexit Referendum. With technology and many other things bringing the world closer together no doubt you are seeing a strong divide between those who fear their culture and history are being undermined while others who like the idea of removing barriers between peoples. How this will turn out is anybody’s guess but I suspect the strong polarization and divide is going to get worse before it gets better.

        I will say though I think our immigration levels should be higher than Britain’s. Britain is quite tiny in landmass so should have fewer not more people than Canada. That’s not to say we should have an open door policy, we shouldn’t but compared to most countries our immigration at least so far has worked fairly well. I think the idea of a points system which we have and Australia has is probably the best way to go as more skilled tend to assimilate better and also help more economically. I generally come from the more pro-immigration side of the Conservatives and while not a globalist, I am not a nationalist I rather believe in greater international cooperation for things that are international in scope, but also having things done at a more local level closer to the people most impacted and only dealing with things globally that are truly global problems in scope.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          In short, yes to immigration for those who are willing to accept and integrate into our way of life and accept our values. No, to all those who look to change our way of life or our values. Yes, to immigrants who apply and no to those who cross the threshold without permission (with certain rare exceptions).

          Like

  24. Liz J says:

    So Wynne is still suing Brown for defamation of character? Is this expected to go anywhere? I’d think it would highlight and give more publicity to the scandals under her watch.

    Like

  25. Anne in swON says:

    I owe almost 49 years of my life to insulin therapy and now the Trudeau government wants to add insult to injury. In that time we’ve gone from boiling glass syringes for injections to insulin pumps (alas, too expensive for me) and from testing pee on a stick to the increasing reliability of glucose monitors. Living with Type 1 diabetes is challenging enough (I’ve been in the ICU twice on life support in an insulin coma prior to the advent of those little monitors) and to hear that they now want to take away the tax benefit truly infuriates me.

    Like

  26. gabbyinqc says:

    I hope you don’t mind, Joanne and readers of this blog, if I meander off topic. Joanne’s post was about corruption. My comment deals with intellectual corruption — particularly as it applies to the niqab issue.

    First of all: I oppose the wearing of the niqab (full-face covering) in Canada, no matter the reason. Prospective immigrants to Canada should be made aware that certain practices are simply not allowed here. They are not part of OUR cultural practices. In our interactions with fellow citizens, we show our face. Period. If the prospective immigrant or refugee cannot accept OUR cultural practices, she can go seek entry elsewhere.

    Having said that, I oppose the Quebec government’s Bill 62, which reportedly bans niqab-wearing women from receiving government services of any kind, unless they are granted a special dispensation — perhaps to be determined at a later time. This law solves nothing. It is unclear and unenforceable. Apparently ‘givers’ of gov. services can decide whether to provide said services or not. So, e.g. individual bus drivers, depending on their own bias — either pro or con the niqab — will be able to determine whether a niqab-wearer boards a bus or not. Ridiculous. The law is also unfair because those women who came here and were accepted into the country wearing it are now being told they cannot do so.

    So where is the intellectual corruption? In some of the arguments put forward, by both sides.
    Those against the ban argue that in a democracy, the government cannot tell you what to do, such as tell a woman — ESPECIALLY a woman! — what not to wear.
    Actually, governments of civilized societies tell their citizens — men & women — what to do in a myriad of situations. Has the no-ban crowd never heard of conventions, rules, orders, directives, acts, laws, bylaws, statutes, criminal codes — even dress codes! — that govern our daily behaviours?
    The no-ban crowd also argue against a law that affects only a small number of women. The numbers cited range from as few as 25 or as high as 100. Thankfully, only a minority of the Canadian population are scoff-laws … but would it then be reasonable to dispense with rules, regulations and laws altogether because those laws affect only a small % of the population?

    On the other side, the pro-ban crowd insists wearing the niqab is not a religious requirement. Unless they are well-steeped in the various sects of Islam, those making that argument should find a stronger one. I doubt that even the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, would venture such a pronouncement.
    The same goes for the “defending oppressed women” angle, especially these days, what with the number of ‘western civilization’ men being accused of alleged sexual harassment or worse. Taken to an extreme, a retort may be “See how well you treat your women? Is that what you want niqab-wearers to be exposed to?”
    A no-winner argument.

    Lastly, as I wrote at Jack’s Newswatch:
    Yesterday’s “scrum” on CTV’s Question Period as well as other pundits have often said Stephen Harper’s 2015 election loss was attributable to the Conservatives’ position on the niqab. Yet the same pundits claim Tom Mulcair’s strong stand on the niqab — i.e. he opposed the Conservative position — cost him a lot of support. So which is it?
    Mind you, the Canadian population also seems to be inconsistent. During the election, polls indicated Canadians supported the Conservative position
    https://tgam.ca/2y1pEyk
    Despite the headline of that article, Quebecers were not the only ones supporting the no-niqab position:
    “Eighty-two per cent of those surveyed supported the requirement, 15 per cent opposed and four per cent didn’t know or refused to answer. Support was highest in Quebec at 93 per cent and lowest in B.C. at 72 per cent.”
    So a majority of Canadians supported the Harper position yet they voted in the pro-niqab Liberals while rejecting the NDP who also held a pro-niqab stance. Clear?

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I think the media meant, the niqab ban hurt the NDP in Quebec where the majority of their seats were but not elsewhere, they lost elsewhere as many of their voters strategically voted Liberal to defeat the Tories. The media tend to argue the niqab ban cost the Tories in English Canada, although while I think things like the Barbaric cultural practice were unhelpful I don’t think that is the main reason we lost. While you had some regional like EI changes in Atlantic Canada or the environment in BC, nationally I think there were four main reasons we got defeated and none having to do with the niqab.

      1. Desire for change. Fair or not fair the public mood clearly seemed to be the government had passed it’s best before date and it needed changing. Obviously I know most here would say that was not the case, but just saying in terms of public mood not necessarily that it was the right decision.

      2. Success of strategic voting. The NDP vote dropped the most outside Quebec in competitive ridings where the Liberals were seen as most likely to defeat the Tories while they held or even increased in ridings the NDP was most likely to defeat the Tories, otherwise based on raw votes, we should have won around 120 seats not 99 applying a uniform swing, but strategic voting by progressives really hurt us.

      3. Large increase in voter turnout. There were 3 million new voters, mostly millennials and most went Liberal so very different electorate than 2011. If we had the same people vote as 2011 the Tories might have won a minority or it would have been close, whereas in 2011 had the millennials shown up in similar numbers Harper almost certainly wouldn’t have got his majority and we might have had prime-minister Jack Layton for a short time.

      4. Blue Liberals return home. Many Blue Liberals particularly in the 905 belt with memories of the Rae government at the last minute switched to the Tories to stop a possible NDP government. Polls in 2011 showed the Tories at 39% in Ontario, they got 44% so that suggests many Blue Liberals switched at the last moment to stop a possible NDP win. Without the NDP no longer a threat, that group largely swung back to the Liberals.

      Like

  27. Anne in swON says:

    “The law is also unfair because those women who came here and were accepted into the country wearing it are now being told they cannot do so.” They did have to uncover their faces to immigration officers, many of whom are men, so they must then have gained some idea that there are times/places when hiding one’s face is not acceptable. Laws do change and people must adapt or face penalties decided upon by legislators eg. the prohibition of smoking in restaurants and other public places/spaces. Should laws be enacted to ban face coverings then compliance should be expected. Perhaps the one in Quebec needs further refinement.

    Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      “They did have to uncover their faces to immigration officers …”
      Good point. Forgot about that and its implications, as well as the changes re: smoking.

      You’re right that “Should laws be enacted to ban face coverings then compliance should be expected.” That would have been the case years ago, when people still had a modicum of respect for politicians and our institutions. However, in the kind of climate aggressive talk radio hosts & now social media have engendered, where everyone feels justified in flouting the law, I doubt most people will docilely comply. Already there have been protesters who lined up at bus stops wearing all manner of face coverings supposedly to express their disagreement with the ban. Likewise, I expect some will show up to vote in the upcoming mayoral election with their face covered to get some kind of reaction.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Lunacy is infectious. Anyone who thinks for himself, who chooses not to go along with the narrative is far-right. With Brad Wall gone there isn’t a leader I would trust to right the ship, pun intended. Mr. Harper, the country needs you now.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          It’s true progressive dominate at most levels, but the Saskatchewan Party still remains in power until late 2020 at least and Manitoba has a PC government. Likewise in Quebec, Philippe Couillard while not a conservative is at least a right leaning Liberal while the Maritime ones are more centrist. BC, Alberta, and Ontario are the provinces much like the feds with truly left wing governments. That being said next year Ontario should swing rightwards and in Quebec a CAQ win is possible as is a PC win in New Brunswick.

          As for Harper, I think he would be best to wait 10 years before saying much. People when they throw a government out tend to still be angry for a while and don’t want to hear from them while after a decade people take a more even balanced view. Both Pierre Trudeau and Mulroney were widely despised when their parties were defeated but over time their public image greatly improved as their time in power became a more distant memory. I will admit it sucks having the left dominate at every level just about, but the one upside is when anything goes wrong they cannot blame the right, they have to own it.

          Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      It’s true the must uncover their face to an immigration officer, but it is always done with a female one. The rules for the minority of Muslims who wear the niqab (note the vast majority don’t wear full face coverings, most only wear hijabs which just cover hair not face and many don’t even wear that) is they show their face to a female officer in public. Women who wear the niqab are allowed to unveil as long as no non-male relative is in their presence otherwise only other females or male relatives can see their face no one else. Seems quite backwards but that is the rule the follow and it is customary we offer religious accommodations to religious minorities. I don’t like the niqab, but a ban would violate the Charter and I believe we should follow the Charter. Off course Quebec unlike the federal government has no qualms about using the notwithstanding clause, so even if the courts throw this out, the notwithstanding clause might get invoked, especially if the PQ or CAQ win next year’s election. Federally it is considered political suicide to use it, but in Quebec there doesn’t seem to be as big a backlash when it’s been used in the past.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        “It’s true the must uncover their face to an immigration officer, but it is always done with a female one.” Wrong – there is not always a female officer available, especially at border crossings with less use and a much smaller staff roster. Sometimes the urgency of a situation may necessitate speed of identification and a male officer may be the only one available. At other times reluctance to comply when only a male officer is available may result in the individual deciding not to attempt to enter and to return to wherever they came from.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Except for rural crossings, it’s pretty unlikely there wouldn’t be a female officer. All major land border crossings and airports would have one at all times. In those cases they probably just ask them to wait and can call someone from the RCMP detachment or if on the US side one of their officers are female they can ask them. But considering that the women who wear niqab mostly live in large cities I doubt very many of them bother to cross at rural border crossings but certainly could be an issue at some future point. I suspect most who wear them only go outside in places with a large Muslim population where people are somewhat used to seeing them, I doubt many would bother travelling to areas where people have never seen one knowing they would go a lot of nasty stares.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            Have you spoken with any border officers to confirm your stance? I have and my statements stand as facts.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Are they allowed to do this? I suspect if Trudeau finds out he will ask for changes. I am kind of surprised as I’ve never been to a border crossing where there wasn’t a female, mind you I always cross at the airport or a major crossing so you have at least 20 on staff at any given time.

            Like

  28. Liz J says:

    On the face covering “issue” we will have the activist types showing up at every opportunity. I just have zero time or tolerance for anyone going about in full face covering, nothing will change my mind on that. I would venture a guess, most people in this country feel the same way.

    Like

  29. Miles Lunn says:

    Any thoughts on tonight’s by-election. I suspect the Liberals chose not to hold Scarborough-Agincourt or South Surrey-White Rock as they fear they might lose the former and might fall short in the latter whereas Lac Saint Jean they think with their numbers up in Quebec they might have a shot and that would be a huge morale booster. As much as I hope we win Lac Saint Jean, realistically that was a Denis Lebel riding not Tory one so I don’t expect us to hold it, I personally predict a BQ win, but wouldn’t be shocked if the Liberals pick it up. That being said of the 6 by-elections held to date, our share of the vote has gone up in 5 of the 6 while the Liberals and NDP have gone down in 5 of the 6. Sturgeon River-Parkland, I expect we will easily hold that one, probably upwards of 70% maybe even 75% and if really likely maybe 80%.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Okay here is the update. I will do a brief blog on this tonight.

      Tories easily win Sturgeon River-Parkland and get close to 80% so no surprise in winning but good night as they are up and NDP and Liberals down.

      Lac Saint Jean was a Liberal pick up so definitely a disappointment, but this was more of a Lebel riding than Tory. The Tories are at only 23% which looks bad, but that is still higher than what they got in 2015 in any of the adjacent ridings so it means we have our work cut out for us in Quebec but haven’t totally imploded. I would recommend Scheer have Gerald Detell and Maxime Bernier get out more to promote the Conservative party in Quebec as I’ve heard the party is largely ignored and forgotten about there and in fact Scheer is even less known in Quebec than elsewhere.

      Like

      • gabbyinqc says:

        Lac St-Jean a Lebel riding rather than a Conservative one? I’m not so sure. Note its voting pattern:
        1949 – 1958 Liberal (Liberals in power)
        1958 – 1962 PC (PCs in power)
        1962 – 1968 Social Credit / Creditiste (Liberals in power with Pearson’s minority)
        1968 – 1984 Liberal (Liberals in power, with short PC intermission – Joe Clark 1979)
        1984 – 1990 PC (PC in power – Meech debacle)
        1991 – 1991 Independent (Lucien Bouchard)
        1991 – 2007 Bloc (Liberals in power after PC annihilation in aftermath of Meech & Charlottetown)
        2007 – 2017 CPC (CPC in power)
        2017 – ? (Liberals in power)
        So … it seems Lac St-Jean likes to go with the winning team. But it’s strange: this riding, supposedly so secular that some citizens objected to prayers at municipal council meetings, with the issue going as far as the Supreme Court, has voted for the Liberals, who support the wearing of the niqab. Go figure.

        Like

  30. joannebly says:

    This is the kind of thing that makes me want to give up on politics altogether. Liberals score upset victory in Quebec by-election.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Cannot recall ever having such a group of incompetents at the helm.
      It can also be a detriment to your health, just ask diabetics.

      We need to continue to call for Morneau to resign, even if he’s being managed, merely another front man, he should know better than to go along with bad advice.
      We are not in good hands.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Disappointment but lets remember of the 7 by-elections to date, Liberals have fallen in 5 and only gone in up in 2 whereas it is the opposite for the Tories. Most polls show Liberals up in Quebec but down in the rest of Canada so while disappointing we can still do a lot of damage to them elsewhere in the country. Also the Tories still got 25% which is better than they did before Lebel came on the scene in the riding so we have a strong base to work from. Quebec has always been a tough nut to crack and unless the NDP or BQ can rebound, it will be tough to beat the Liberals there. Only three times post WWII have Tories won the majority of seats in Quebec which were Diefenbaker in 1958 and Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 and in the case of Mulroney he had the advantage of being a native son. Lets see how the others go. I still think we have an outside chance at picking up Scarborough-Agincourt or at least dramatically closing the gap although if we lose South Surrey-White Rock might be a bit more worried. Nonetheless it seems the Tories are up in the Prairies, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada (yes still well behind the Liberals but at least closed the gap somewhat) while down in Quebec and flat in British Columbia. With British Columbia at least I think by 2019 having 2 years of the NDP-Green alliance under our belt could help as usually when we go left provincially we tend to go right federally.

      Like

  31. Liz J says:

    Anyone else confused about what “class” they belong in? I’m still not clear on the Trud’eau/Morn’eau version of what constitutes the Middle Class they keep talking about helping.
    Something doesn’t seem to be adding up. Math may not be their best subject.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      “Middle Class” = whatever group they happen to be pandering to at the moment.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        “Middle Class” is a buzz phrase for them, they really don’t know and don’t care. They are so phony, this kind of phoniness is palpable. Trudeau and Morneau , a pair of front men starting to look like a slapstick act nobody is laughing at.

        We also have the worst possible crew taking care of the business of NAFTA.
        How will we survive this mess?

        Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      I read somewhere that there are only two classes to speak of. The poor are always an add-on with this government. They are those “who are hoping/working hard to join” the middle class. So who knows where one class ends and the other begins. The government appears to be deliberately keeping the designations fuzzy. Another form of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        So now Morneau and company is out giving child care benefits to include people making $90K per annum…what class is that in in their world?

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          Gotta pay for votes somehow, Liz. It’s an incentive for the “Those Who Are Hoping to Join” (TWAHJ) class. /sarc

          Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Middle class basically is whatever people make it to be no real set definition. The only consensus is those living below the poverty line are not middle class just as those in the top 1% but where it falls in between depends on who you ask. Making only 30K a year would be considered struggling for many but since a large chunk of Canadians make under that amount, some would consider it middle class. Making a 100K a year puts you easily in the top 10% yet if living a large expensive city like Vancouver or Toronto, a person making that amount will probably live what we call a typical middle class lifestyle. They won’t have a mansion, expensive cars like a Rolls Royce, private yacht, or private jets, and they probably fly economy class unless on business (where the company pays for it). Thus the term middle class is very subjective, but off course that is what the government wants as most Canadians see themselves as middle class.

      As for their so called middle class tax cut, it was more of an upper middle class tax cut. If you made under 45K which 2/3 of taxpayer’s do, you get absolutely nothing. You make the average year round full time employee salary of around 50K you get a measly $90 tax cut and with all the other tax changes like CPP hikes, carbon tax, removal of tax credits you will probably in the end be paying more not less taxes. The tax cut was 45K to 90K so those making 90K to 200K got the largest tax cut of $670 otherwise it was really raise taxes on the top 1% to cut taxes for the top 10% since if you are making 90K you are in the top 10%. Dropping the bottom, not middle rate would give the middle class a real tax cut or raising the minimum threshold before being taxed which is only 11K would as well. If you take Erin O’Toole’s plan to drop the bottom rate from 15% to 13% that would mean a much larger tax cut for someone making 50K than Trudeau’s as they would get a $680 tax cut vs. $90 from Trudeau. Even Bernier or Raitt’s plan to raise the minimum threshold to 15K from 11K would be a bigger tax cut as that would mean a $600 tax cut instead of $90. So when Trudeau goes on how the Tories are for the rich, actually all of the Tories who promised tax cuts and give specific numbers (Scheer gave vague statements but not specific numbers although I am sure they will come in the 2019 campaign) would give the middle class a larger tax cut. Yes most involved dropping the top rate, but only to remain internationally competitive. Under Erin O’Toole’s plan it would go from 33% to 31% meaning the top combined rate using 2018 numbers would range from 45.5% in Saskatchewan to 52% in Nova Scotia. It would still be 51.53% in Ontario (this could change off course in 2019 if the PCs win next year) and fall back to 47.8% in my home province of BC (It is 47.7% for this year, but up to 49.8% due to NDP tax hikes) so still close to half your income and compared to other G7 countries all provinces would be above the UK, the highest taxed states would comparable to the lowest taxed provinces, Italy would be same as lowest taxed provinces, while Germany would be lower than all of them except Alberta and Saskatchewan. Only France and Japan would be higher. Under Chong’s plan the top rate would fall back to 29% which is what it was under Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper. This would mean our top rate would range from 43.5% to 50% (Ontario would be 49.53%, Quebec 49.98%, and BC 45.8%) so again only bring is down the G7 average and in 8 out of 10 provinces the top combined rates would still be over 45%, but at least not over 50% which is confiscatory level. Bernier who had the boldest tax plan (I excluded Rick Peterson who proposed a 15% flat tax as he was a minor player) would drop the top rate to 25% meaning it would range from 39.5% in Saskatchewan to 46.7% in Quebec (45.53% in Ontario and 41.8% in BC) so below the G7 average but in line with the US and close to the OECD average. Off course explaining this in ten second sound bytes doesn’t work thus Trudeau uses we will raise taxes on the rich to cut them for the middle class as that sounds quite appealing to most, but like anything the devil is in the details. And he knows few except perhaps those in the top 1% (who likely have accountants anyways) will bother to check the details.

      Like

  32. Liz J says:

    Bring on the insufferables, the Judge in the Sudbury bribery trials has tossed it all out, no charges laid.

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      Should our takeaway be is there is no such thing as bribery in politics? Was this a case of common maneuvering among political leaders and their operatives? Apparently. Maybe we should just take away that layer of our democratic process, let the leader choose the candidate.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        Remember too, this Sudbury case wasn’t run of the mill, this was a case of a Federal NDP MP switching to Provincial Liberals. It stinks. Not hard to deduct politics is the dirtiest game in town.
        Sorry for the multiple posts….

        Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      No different than Mike Duffy being acquitted only problem is that came after the 2015 federal election rather than before. The burden of proof to convict someone is quite high so legally it might not meet that. But the burden of proof needed to throw a government out is much lower and with many not just this, mess ups by the government there are plenty of reasons why they should be defeated next June. The only thing I hate is having to wait until then I wish we could get them out sooner.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        I wish we could get rid of them sooner too, Miles.

        Wynne is so swarmy I’m sure she’s got lots of tricks up her sleeve between now and the election. I think we all really need to keep our eye on the ball and do everything we can to support any viable “Anyone But Liberal” candidate. JMHO.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          So far it seems Brown has not taken the bait. Wynne has tried to throw everything at him to trip him up and each time she tries she fails. Unlike Hudak, I think Brown is more politically astute and will be tough to trip up. Her real only hope and our fear is she runs enough negative ads with outright lies painting Brown as a right wing extremist and so the public votes Liberal out of fear of the PCs as Brown does need to make himself more known so the ads will blow up in the Liberal’s faces, which hopefully after the policy session in November we can do. The other is make ridiculous promises and hope fear of losing those will cause people to vote Liberal, but I think its pretty easy to call them out on them if you have a credible leader, which I believe Brown is.

          Like

  33. Miles Lunn says:

    I’ve posted my take on last night’s by-elections https://afiscalconservativepointofview.com/2017/10/24/by-election-results/ . Quebec has always been a tough place to win for Tories with 1958, 1984, and 1988 being the only times post WWII they won the majority of seats. So I think South Surrey-White Rock and Scarborough-Agincourt will be the big tests for us. If we can hold the former and either win or come close in the latter then good news, but if the Liberals win both and by sizeable margins in the latter then I will be worried. Battlefords-Lloydminster we should easily hold and Bonavista-Trinity-Burin should stay Liberal although shifts will be interesting to see if the Liberal lock on Atlantic Canada is still there or is there some movement as some polls suggest. Outremont will be the big test for the NDP as I figure with Singh, the NDP is finished in the regions of Quebec and any seats they do win there will be more to popular local candidates such as Guy Caron or Ruth Ellen Brousseau (remember the Vegas girl, she is actually fairly popular and using the uniform swings hers is one of the safest NDP ridings in Quebec). On the other hand Montreal has more your younger diverse crowd whom Singh appeals to.

    If we look at the polls for now, we still have a ways to go, but we are doing a lot better than a year ago. In Atlantic Canada, the Liberals have a solid lead, but it is 20 points whereas a year ago it was 40 points and we are up about 10 points as we only got 19% last federal election there whereas we are now polling in the high 20s. So we may not beat the Liberals there, but I think we can pick up a few seats and stop a complete Liberal sweep.

    In Quebec the Liberals are in front, but only high 30s which is not too dissimilar to what Chretien got in Quebec in the 90s, the big difference is he only faced one opponent whereas the opposition is now divided amongst three parties thus why the Liberals with less than 40% could win over 80% of the seats in Quebec. That being said Quebec is known to change on a minute’s notice so still time for things to change.

    In Ontario, the Liberals won by 10 points, 45% to our 35%. Most polls show the Liberal lead only 1 to 2 points with both parties just under 40% so if the polls are correct we would pick up around 20 seats from the Liberals including many in the 905 belt. Karina Gould and Jane Phippott would lose their seats while it would be a nail biter in Maryam Monsef’s, while Catherine McKenna would lose hers to the NDP. So in Ontario things maybe aren’t great, but much better than in Quebec.

    In Sask/Manitoba, we are ahead but lets remember Tories are generally a lot stronger in Saskatchewan than Manitoba whereas Liberals are the opposite and the NDP somewhat stronger in Saskatchewan so either the status quo or slight gains.

    In Alberta, we have a massive lead, but the Liberals are still polling close to the 25% they got and with the strong rural/urban divide the four Liberal held ridings could flip back or they could stay Liberal, would be close either way. But with only 5 non-Tory seats in Alberta we have little room for growth there.

    In British Columbia we have a three way race with the Liberals, Tories, and NDP being between a quarter to a third while the Greens surging to 15%. So tough to say how the province would break but with lots a close three way splits could go either way but unlike other provinces we benefit from strong splits on the left. That being said usually when we have an NDP government provincially, British Columbians turn to the right federally. It may not be showing in the polls yet, but the NDP government is still in its honeymoon phase, but won’t be by October 2019.

    So I wouldn’t get too depressed yet about the political scene. No doubt it’s been a tough few years for conservatives, but I still think there are still chances to improve things.

    Like

  34. Liz J says:

    There’s one thing we haven’t heard addressed re face coverings and the full burka tent…public safety. It’s not too far fetched to be very concerned on that front.

    Like

  35. Liz J says:

    Look out, the Feds are tossing out the big bucks, gonna fix that crazy Phoenix pay mess with another $93 million…yes siree. Deficit? What deficit?

    Like

  36. Miles Lunn says:

    Apparently with economic growth being stronger than expected, the Liberals rather than trying reduce the deficit and balance the budget are going to spend more keeping the deficit large. Anyone who knows anything about economic cycles and interest rates will know two things.

    1. The strong growth we have now won’t last forever, it will slow down and this will cause the deficit to rise when that happens.
    2. Interest rates are likely to go up making borrowing more expensive.

    Also anyone who knows anything about Keynesian economics would realize Trudeau and Morneau are not Keynesians. Keynes argued to run deficits during slow downs while running surpluses during strong growth not perpetual deficits, otherwise government spending should be counter-cyclical to offset the market rising when growth falls and falling when growth picks up whereas with Trudeau and Morneau they just want to keep spending like crazy regardless of market conditions.

    Like

  37. Anne in swON says:

    Morneau-gate (and the LPC along with it) is really starting to stink. The Globe seems to be the only paper of record to mention the defeat (163-141) of an NDP motion to close the loophole employed by Morneau that has caused the current brouhaha. https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-defeat-ndp-motion-to-close-conflict-of-interest-loophole/article36708818/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

    Like

  38. Anne in swON says:

    Miles, here’s a story you might get a laugh out of. I sure did. Correctional Services Canada had to figure out their own way of strip searching a transgender individual at a women’s prison. They only had to bend the rules ju-uust a little. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-womens-prison-left-to-cope-after-getting-male-inmate-who-identifies-as-female

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      One that will be interesting is if there is ever a court case between a Muslim and transgender. I am a strong supporter of accommodating every minority and I certainly believe due to the high suicide rate amongst transgendered people and the rise in hate crimes against Muslims very much sympathize with the discrimination they face. But here is an issue I could see coming: Transgendered people want to use bathrooms of their choice, but in Islam it is prohibited to have Awrah (parts of the body that must be covered, which for males is everything above the knee cap and elbow and below the neck while for females everything except feet, hands, and face) exposed to a someone of the opposite sex unless a Mahram (that means a relative or spouse) so somewhere that could lead to a conflict in rights and will be interesting which side the courts would come down on.

      Like

  39. Liz J says:

    I may lead a sheltered life, I don’t see that many hate crimes against Muslims. I have no time for activists who do set ups either. I expect with the new ruling in Quebec we will see more of it.
    JMO.
    It’s got nothing to do with women who wear head coverings, it’s about those who completely cover their faces.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Actually according to stats kept from police forces, hate crimes against Muslims have doubled since 2012 and they are in the top 4 groups most targeted for hate crimes. Jews have the highest rate for being targeted while Blacks and First Nations are also right up there. I too oppose the face coverings and if there is a way to restrict them and make it charter compliant then I am fine with it, but I believe all governments should follow the Charter. While we may not like the Charter or rulings I do believe it is important to have checks and balances as I’ve seen elsewhere in the world far too many governments abuse them. And note while we had a left wing government federally when the Charter was introduced, 8 out of the 10 provinces had centre-right governments at the time. Only Quebec with it’s PQ and Manitoba with it’s NDP didn’t, everywhere else had a PC government or in the case a Social Credit government and without the provinces signing on it would have never passed. In fact the notwithstanding clause was added at the insistence of the provinces and likewise Property rights not included due to objections of the Saskatchewan NDP who was defeated that year and PEI who worried it would affect their Island zoning as Trudeau Sr., opposed the notwithstanding clause and on property rights he was indifferent but it was included in the draft but not final one.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        Section 33 of the Charter, the Notwithstanding Clause, was opposed by Trudeau but without it the Charter would not have passed.

        The unelected SCC get to interpret cases brought before it according to Charter dictates. Great tool to absolve governments from making tough or unpopular decisions …blame the SCC, blame the Charter, warts and all.

        Like

  40. joannebly says:

    I love reading the debates going on here, and everyone is being civil in spite of differences of opinion. This is excellent!

    Like

  41. Liz J says:

    It’s odd to hear critics of the Quebec law on face coverings say it targets Muslim women. Are there any others who wear full burkas to include full face coverings?
    I also get tired looking at media interviewing women wearing head scarves, it’s misleading, people will assume the law forbids head coverings. It doesn’t.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      I personally have no problem with head scarves. But the full face covering that leaves only slits for eyes (niqab?) is very problematic for me – especially those which even have a screen over the eyes. In our society this is very difficult to comprehend and know how to interact.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      As someone who has been to three Muslim majority (Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia) countries and one city in Russia (Kazan) that is 50% Muslim, I never saw one local in any of those areas wearing the burqa. Asides from Kazan, Russia, most wore the hijab (headscarf), but the two women I saw wearing a burqa (Turkey and Malaysia) were both tourist from elsewhere. In fact 90% of the women I’ve seen wearing them have been in three cities: Toronto, London, and Paris so it is not a requirement in Islam to wear it and it is largely confined to the Arabian Peninsula and a few others. While in Saudi Arabia most women wear the burqa, globally only a tiny percent of Muslim women, probably less than 5% wear the burqa. Ironically 50 years ago, no women outside the Arabian Peninsula wore it. In places like Syria, Iran, Pakistan, and Algeria you never saw it 50 years ago, it is only worn now due to the spread of Saudi influence who have tried to spread a radical sect of Wahhabism. Rather Islam requires both men and women to dress modestly, but the requirement they cover their face is not found anywhere in the Koran. In fact as Tarek Fatah pointed out, people historically (both men and women) wore face coverings in the Arabian peninsula when traveling outside to protect from sand storms. Otherwise no different than who we cover our faces when it is -30 outside but we don’t on a normal day when its on the plus side nor do we when inside.

      Like

  42. Liz J says:

    It’s like putting a wall between the wearer and all who they come in contact with. It’s at the very least unfriendly, and worse, it’s shunning the people they encounter. I will never deal with anyone who stands before me with a face covering….nothing else I can do other than vote against politicians who are for it.

    It angers me to hear politicians spouting off about governments don’t have the right to tell women what to wear….this is beyond stupid when referring to something as odious and insidious as face coverings. Time to nip it in the bud before we have more activist types coming out.

    IMO It needs to be banned across the country but there are no politicians with the guts to do it even as a safety provision.

    How long before we have an MP or MPP wearing a face covering in our houses of parliament?
    The more rope we give out the more they will grab onto.

    It will be interesting to watch how far this goes. If I’m considered a racist or bigot for wanting to see the faces of people among us then I’m fine with that.

    Like

  43. Anne in swON says:

    They tell us we can’t tell women what to wear or not wear until they flash the “cultural appropriation” card at Hallowe’en. Then anything goes eg. little girls can’t dress up as Indian princesses. In fact, “cultural appropriation” takes care of a lot of choices. Funny that.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I suspect if wearing a Halloween mask any place that required identification would require you to take it off. Also another one which I wonder if anyone will mention this is most of us do cover our faces completely (unless you live on the West Coast like I do, but I did in Toronto when I lived there for 10 years) when it gets brutally cold in the winter and we are outside although we remove those coverings as soon as we come inside and that is done to protect from the elements not to cut us off from society.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Note that I mentioned little girls as the targets not grown women; that dressing up on a specific day usually doesn’t entail having to identify oneself to obtain a service. Unmasked Mom or dad frequently accompanies the child to supply said identification, should it be required. And sometimes a comment is just a comment. Lighten up.

        Like

  44. Liz J says:

    We dress to suit the elements we face at any given time. Some things are not comparable, this is one of them.
    Halloween is all about fun and hiding your identity is all part of the fun. Many don’t believe in Halloween, they do not have to partake.

    We have things like Christmas concerts in our schools scrapped because it might offend or make those who do not share the tenets this land was built on uncomfortable. It’s not how it should be, people can opt out if they are not comfortable, it shouldn’t bother them if they don’t believe. Sadly, it’s not the immigrants as much as the politicians who are selling us out.
    We have plenty of evidence the Socialist creep has come into full bloom.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      There’s been a slow but steady dismantling of western traditions, values and culture. We’ve been apologizing for anything and everything. This trend has been more noticeable since 2001. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Something has to replace it. All the while we’ve been normalizing cultures and behaviours that run counter to everything we’ve ever believed in or practised. And you’re right, Liz, our politicians are at the forefront of this shift in their never-ending search for votes. It’s not just socialist creep; it’s also cultural creep. A scarf over your face to prevent frostbite and a niqab to display piety are false equivalencies.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        We are also paying millions to men who left the country of their own free will and were apparently tortured….this is being revealed today, the amounts each will receive is not yet clear.
        It’s hard to figure what role Canad played in their torture or how we could have prevented it. So many questions.

        I’m wonder if there will be compensation sought in the Boyle case which to me is clear as mud right now. If he was tortured will he be in line for few million as well?

        Like

  45. Miles Lunn says:

    Most recent Abacus poll which usually has the most Liberal friendly numbers (I am not saying they have a Liberal bias, just saying Liberals tend to do better in their polls whereas for Forum it is Tories, for Ekos it is Greens etc.) shows them only four points ahead and Tories tied in Ontario at 42%. If Singh can eat into the Liberal numbers we could win a lot of seats in Ontario at 42% but if a two way race somewhat harder but still would gain about 20 seats in Ontario although not enough to win the election. http://abacusdata.ca/canadian-politics-update-a-more-competitive-political-landscape/

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Abacus Data = Bruce Anderson = Liberal bias = take with a grain of salt

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Still a four point deficit is in line with other polls and 35% with almost two years to go is not a bad result at all, if anything the fact a supposedly Liberal biased one says this means things could be worse for the Liberals. Sure it would be nice to be in the lead, but I am not complaining about 3 to 4 points behind as we still have almost 2 years left and few Canadians even know who Scheer is. If you look at the trends and the directions, it is favourable for us while not so favourable for the Liberals. Quebec seems to be though the biggest thing the Liberals have in their favour since if they weren’t doing so well in Quebec they would be in much bigger trouble.

        Although to be fair I don’t think any pollster deliberately tries to slant things in favour of their party for the simple reason pollsters actually lose money on political polling, they do it as a loss leader hoping that by having poll numbers close to the actual results they can attract more clients. Their income comes from doing polling research for companies on their products.

        Like

  46. Anne in swON says:

    About that tip line to report honour-based violence the CPC was scolded and mocked for, it seems it might have been a pretty good idea. I wonder whether the parties that condemned the idea are having second thoughts. “Gatineau police have charged a man for allegedly beating his teenage daughter over the course of more than a year because she refused to wear a hijab.” The police are commending the courage of the young victim in coming forward and urging others to report similar honour-based violence (their words). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/gatineau-man-allegedly-beat-daughter-hijab-1.4373785

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      We already have 911 so have a different tip line seems counterproductive. I am not sure these cases happen so often that it would make financial sense to have a separate line (forget about the political correctness part). That being said I don’t believe claiming it was part of their cultural tradition is an acceptable defence.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        “The release also included some phone numbers for local resources for victims of violence.” The list includes associations that specialize in what these particular victims are experiencing, with whom they may have a greater rapport, who would have a better understanding of the situation, who would not be merely responding to one 911 emergency call with the expectation of a speedy resolution so they can get to the next call. The victims require much more than a one time rescue. Granted, the police would then have to pass the case on to someone else who would then be faced with tracking down further assistance. It makes sense to provide the numbers of these agencies which exist to assist victims such as these.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          Don’t these also qualify as tip lines that can be used by anyone who suspects honour violence is being committed on anyone else?

          Like

          • joannebly says:

            Exactly. And this kind of thing should be separate from 911. It needs to be more nuanced and used by social services for follow-up as well as police.

            911 is for emergencies requiring immediate action.

            Like

  47. Miles Lunn says:

    Actually this may surprise some, but many Southern states the Burqa would be technically banned. Back when the KKK was really strong, many states brought in state laws against face masks to try and find a way to ban the KKK without infringing on the 1st amendment so those face covering laws intended to go after the KKK would likely also make the burqa banned.

    Like

  48. Miles Lunn says:

    I was wondering what the thoughts are here on strategic voting next time. Obviously for most of us it would be easy to vote Conservative, but I am thinking specifically of Ottawa Centre, which is Catherine McKenna’s riding. I cannot stand her and would love to see her defeated in 2019. Unfortunately only the NDP is capable of defeat her, so would this be an unusual case where a Conservative should strategically vote NDP to defeat her. My riding Vancouver Centre is a safe Liberal one unfortunately so no need to vote strategically. I wouldn’t recommend strategic voting in very many ridings, but this is one of the few I would and to make it up for it, if a Tory I would recommend campaigning in some of the other Ottawa area ridings which I think we can win back. Like most city central ones, it tends to be a Liberal-NDP battleground, it’s once you get out into the suburbs the Tories are competitive and can pick up seats.

    Like

  49. Liz J says:

    Miles, I with you on McKenna, she is way over her head and she was billed as one of their brightest! She has proven them wrong! More attitude than aptitude.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I think when you go from 36 seats to 184 seats in one election it means your cabinet will be mostly made up of rookies thus all the issues. When Harper first won, he went from 99 seats to 124 seats so most members already had some experience the party never saw a dramatic increase in seats so for rookies you could give them junior portfolios and then move them up or demote them depending on performance.

      But for Catherine McKenna, I find she typifies the idea of a Liberal elitist in terms of being arrogant and looking down on those with different views. While no Liberal supporter ones like Chrystia Freeland and Ralph Goodale have probably been the most solid and the latter off course has plenty of experience in previous governments. Having a fresh and youthful cabinet isn’t always the best, experience matters.

      Like

  50. Anne in swON says:

    It looks as though Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley, a liberal, is having a bit of a melt-down. US jets from Selfridge Air National Guard Base, a mere 69 km downriver from Sarnia, and a stone’s throw from the St. Clair River border, have trespassed into Canadian air space on several occasions. He claims they have flown through downtown Sarnia (oops!) which is spitting distance from Port Huron, MI. Bradley claims he has “heard a couple of stories where it’s petrified people.” It’s gotta be that Trump fella, I’ll bet. Way to fabricate an international incident where none exists. Those fly-by’s have been a part of life for citizens near the St. Clair for as long as I can remember. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/u-s-jets-screaming-over-downtown-sarnia-a-sign-of-militarized-border-says-mayor-1.4372697

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      For curiosity is Sarnia-Lambton the riding you live in? Just curious so as we get closer to the election as well as the Ontario next year we can discuss what is going on locally. My riding Vancouver Centre is a solid Liberal one unfortunately (cannot stand Hedy Fry) although provincially mind Vancouver-False Creek did go for the centre-right BC Liberals. It was though one of the few ridings in Ontario the Liberals came in third last federal election. Also the Tories holding this was the first time since 1962 that the riding elected an opposition member thus breaking its streak as the longest riding to always back the winning party. Provincially though much less a bellwether as went Liberal in 1999 while went PC in 2007, 2011, and 2014.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Yes, although I live south of Sarnia along the river so Bradley is not my mayor. There was some controversy about his behaviour: “In the summer of 2016 Sarnia City Council approved of a 90-day suspension of Bradley’s pay following an integrity commissioner’s recommendation. The report concluded that Bradley verbally abused, harassed and bullied city employees creating a “toxic environment at city hall” which lead to abrupt resignations of Sarnia’s city clerk and planning director.

        Council decided on October 24th, 2016 to relocate Mayor Mike Bradley’s office to the Sarnia Transit building until a new office can be built for him at City Hall away from staff.” I do have to give him credit for refusing to march in the 2015 Labour Day parade when both our conservative MP and MPP were uninvited to participate by the Sarnia & District Labour Council. Voters like him; he’s been mayor since 1988.

        Like

  51. Miles Lunn says:

    Here is an interesting one I found with none other than Terry Milewski. He seems to really hit Melanie Joly hard so it seems the media love affair with Justin Trudeau might be starting to die down, especially recently as even pro Liberal papers like Toronto Star have been critical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHEyWmIrybs

    Like

  52. Liz J says:

    Surprise! Surprise! Electricity rates will rise after the next Ontario election. We need to build more bird blenders and have surplus energy to give away in the fuddled world of Wynne and company.

    We have Ottawa making a bid for Amazon to set up in that city but they may not get passed hydro rates in Ontario.

    Like

  53. Miles Lunn says:

    For our Ontario viewers you will like this one http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2794/ontario-horserace-october-2017/ . If those numbers hold Wynne might even lose her own seat which would be sweat. I show the Liberals only winning 11 seats under this although with incumbency may be a bit better but not enough to survive. Looking at those with a good shot to survive, I would think if this poll turns out to be true and play out Eric Hoskins or Mitzie Hunter would be the only two choices they are left with unless they want to go outside of caucus, but until the PCs do something that would anger people there would be no guarantee of holding the seats they have in a by-election.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Should the liberals be tossed out, who do you see vying for the leadership? I can’t see Wynne remaining as leader even if she wins her own seat and her party loses. In fact I doubt if she’d choose to return as a lowly mpp.

      Like

      • Hard to say, but certainly Mitzie Hunter and Eric Hoskins. Charles Sousa if he wins his seat, but based on the current polls that very much in doubt. There is always Sandra Paputello who I think they should have chosen in the first place or maybe Deb Matthews. I expect we will have two leadership races in Ontario after the election as whomever doesn’t win will resign. Howarth has had three kicks at the can so if she doesn’t win doubt she will get another unless they move up to opposition. Wynne will not stay on if she doesn’t win, in fact if the results are as bad as the polls say I suspect she will resign on election night.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          If Hoskins were to throw his hat into the ring he’d have a problem with his fellow MD’s. People are not very happy with the way the LPO have been treating doctors by cutting their pay over the last few years, not to mention the LPC’s tax plan targeting small businesses.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            True enough, just mentioning his name as if the Forum poll pans out in a general election there won’t be very many Liberals left. Lets remember federally in 2011, the Liberals got 25% in Ontario yet won only 11 seats so I mention him more due to the fact his seat is one of the safest Liberal seats in the province. When you lose the Conservatives did in 2015, you at least have a large caucus with many to choose from, when you lose like the PCs did in 1993 your choices are a lot more limited. Although one can always go outside of caucus too and if they have a bad enough route that might be the best option for them. In fact getting someone not connected with the Wynne/McGuinty regime would probably be best for them, but I hope they do choose someone from the current regime so we can beat them again in 2022 as Brown will need more than one term to clean up the mess he will be left with.

            Like

  54. Liz J says:

    Some new and pathetic ads out against Patrick Brown. They sure are not topics people are concerned about with so many people struggling to pay bills.

    Like

  55. Liz J says:

    The “judgement” rendered in the Sudbury bribery trial seemed rife with convoluted loopholes.
    For the layman, it seemed like clear evidence.

    No bets on the judgements rendered in the gas plant fiddling.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      I’d be curious to know why, in this judge’s opinion, it’s legal to offer a bribe to an aspiring candidate yet bribery becomes illegal upon becoming a candidate. I would have thought bribery during any step of the electoral process would be illegal.

      Like

  56. Liz J says:

    It’s odd, well maybe not, but Mike Harris is still being used by the Liberals as ammunition decades on but Dalton McGuinty is all but white washed off the political map, the essence of Mr. Spic and span.

    Like

  57. Liz J says:

    If the politicians we elect to take care of and manage our affairs of state are a reflection of the people, maybe we better pay more attention and take note. Some of the stuff happening and being uncovered should give pause for at least some concern.

    Like

  58. Liz J says:

    I’m guessing Wynne won’t interfere with the college professor strike, number she wants union support and two, it’s a distraction from her other messes.

    Like

Comments are closed.