What is the End Game?

The recent exit of Maxime Bernier from the Conservative Party of Canada has caused quite the kerfuffle in Canadian politics. And no doubt Gerald Butts is salivating at the prospects.

But why did Bernier do this? What is his grand plan? The move will likely split conservative vote support and improve Trudeau’s chances of continuing his destruction of our country after the 2019 election.

As Andrew Coyne wrote, “The whole thing looks suspiciously like a personal vanity project.”

This discussion began towards the end of the previous post and readers are encouraged to continue here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canadian Elections, Canadian Politics, Conservative Party of Canada. Bookmark the permalink.

97 Responses to What is the End Game?

  1. Greg says:

    I don’t think Bernier will get much traction, although I, like many are sympathetic to some of his concerns. Scheer has taken a poor approach on trade, and it will be difficult for him to differentiate himself from Trudeau now that the fan is about to be hit with lots of brown stuff. I believe Scheer could have strongly criticized the Liberals for letting the trade file get to this point without appearing to side with Trump. Now we are faced with losing 100’s of thousands of automotive jobs (OEM’s plus suppliers) in Ontario or caving on dairy, softwood lumber, banking etc.

    Like

  2. Liz J says:

    Trump was handed a reason to get out of NAFTA…..just what he wanted. He will call the shots and Trudeau-Butts and company can explain that. We know however, the brain free voters here will blame Trump for all of it, Shiny will be first up to do so.
    Freeland has some things to answer for as well, of course she would have been coached by the same brain trust.

    Like

    • X_SADF_PARA says:

      Freeland is the Alexandre Daigle of politics; she and Trudeau are directly responsible for the tariff fiasco, both in their thinly veiled insults/bravado and in not knowing that Trump would follow through in his threats; I expected Trudeau to be totally incompetent however Freeland was supposed to be one of the liberal “stars”, but like Daigle, she has turned out to be a complete dud; or the other scenario is that they did know so as to get the “stand up to Trump” vote; the hardship and job loss being inconsequential to the Trudeau/Butts gang

      Like

  3. Greg says:

    Future Toronto Star headline ‘ Toyota pulling out of Canada – Why it’s Doug Ford’s fault’
    (Could also be CBC, CTV, Globe and Mail, Global)

    Like

  4. Miles Lunn says:

    Interesting take from Michael Taube which I generally concur with https://troymedia.com/2018/08/28/tories-better-off-without-maxime-bernier/ . All I can say is we really dodged a bullet here. Whatever short term pain Bernier’s defection causes, it would have been infinitely worse had he been chosen as leader. I was going to rank him ahead of Scheer, but thankfully I put him behind so my final ballot counted towards Scheer. My first choice was Michael Chong, second Lisa Raitt although she fell off before him so after Chong dropped off my vote went to Erin O’Toole who was my third choice and then when he fell off to Andrew Scheer.

    On NAFTA, I will try to do a blog later today on this, but lets wait and see. I think as Greg mentions we can still take a strong stance but get a deal without giving into Trump. Here is the reality Trump dislikes Mexico far more than Canada and Mexico has a hardcore leftist president so if Mexico can get a deal with the US considering the greater obstacles why can’t we. I actually think Chrystia Freeland is alright, the real problem is Justin Trudeau is incompetent and when you have an incompetent PM doesn’t matter how strong a cabinet is, they cannot save you. You need both a strong PM and cabinet and clearly Trudeau fails at that.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Michael Taube is awesome.

      Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Something’s gotta give, Miles. One way or the other it’s between the moneyed folks in the dairy cartel with no competition and the ordinary folks battling to save their very livelihoods in the dwindling auto sector. Trudeau has been given those two stark choices. All the rest may be negotiable. Oh, except the feminist bullcrap. What will our ‘crack negotiating team’ do in that reality?

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Here’s what Derek Burney has to say. He was there when the Canada – US Free Trade deal was done. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlwzpGBU4AAt6qT.jpg:large h/t @nspector4

        Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Here is the thing, anytime one side gives something up, you ask the other side too. If the US didn’t subsidize their dairy, I think we could phase out supply management but it is not a level playing field. Admittedly this is a tough one to deal with, but we should have not wasted our time with all the virtue signaling and also have been at the table. But while we messed up earlier, that doesn’t mean we should take whatever is offered, but at the same time should be realistic.

        Like

  5. Anne in swON says:

    If Manny Montenegrino is correct (his prognostications have been on the money for the last year) Trump’s aim is to bring jobs back to the US. Ask yourself how he’s done on that front so far. Nafta is just part of that process. Getting Mexico to agree to pay their auto workers a minimum wage of $16 per hour will necessitate increased Mexican production costs and increased US import costs. Solution? Produce the same thing in the US for the same price more or less. As for Canada? Trump is counting on Trudeau’s intransigence on the issue of supply management so that he can apply tariffs to our auto industry and achieve the same effect. In that way he can bring the Canadian auto sector to its knees by moving Canadian jobs to Michigan and Ohio. Once the jobs are gone they’re never coming back. Trump owes his electoral success in large measure to his promise to Bring. Jobs. Back.

    Like

  6. Liz J says:

    Bernier goofed up big time. He should have stayed the course, waited for the right time to try again for the leadership of the Conservative Party. He was so close to winning, all he needed to do was bide his time. He has shown a side of him that isn’t really a winning quality in politics.

    Like

  7. joannebly says:

    I think it’s a shame that Scheer and Bernier couldn’t have met on some kind of common ground and worked together to defeat Trudeau. Really sad.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Miles Lunn says:

      From what I’ve heard from other Conservatives, Bernier was not a team player and wasn’t interested in compromising so other than fully adopting everything he wanted, I am not sure something could have been worked out. In some ways I actually see this as a good thing in the long run since if we don’t win in 2019 and have to choose a new leader, he at least won’t be the frontrunner as with Scheer it will be tough but not impossible to win, with Bernier he would just damage the party so badly we would be in opposition until at least 2027 if not longer and that would be terrible for the country.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        “Bernier was not a team player and wasn’t interested in compromising…” and therein lies the problem. I’m sure some of his elementary school report cards indicated that “Max does not play well with others.” Should he happen to create a new party would he take advice from others or would it become and remain HIS party? There has to be a happy medium between ‘going where a favourable wind blows’ and ‘my way or the highway.’ I wish I could remember where I read that Stephen Harper won his 2011 majority by campaigning on the right but lost in 2015 after governing from the left. Did anyone else read that? We do need a truly conservative party with truly conservative principles. Liberal lite with a few conservative perks thrown in for good measure isn’t going to cut it for many on the right.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Actually I found Stephen Harper campaigned more to the right in 2015 than 2011 although I think the results had less to do with spectrum and more circumstances. In 2011, the great recession was still fairly recent so people wanted a steady hand thus why the Tories won a majority. By 2015, there was a strong desire for change so the only way I think we might have been able to win is if we had changed leaders. I find as a rule of thumb, 10 years for one person and 15 years for a party with a change of leader is sort of the limit so in some ways I thought 2014 would have been a good time for Stephen Harper to quit as leader, otherwise leave at the top of your game as they say (if you look where the Canadian Alliance was in 2002 to where he took the party by 2011 it was quite an impressive feat so always good to quit on a high note). The Liberals were going to return to power eventually but at least if they lost in 2015, hopefully in 2019 they would have had a better leader as even if we may not like the Liberals, I think most of us would agree there are better choices out there for them than Trudeau.

          As for the media and various left wing activist, I think they no doubt played a roll in making Harper look worse than he really was but I think general fatigue. In addition if you look at provincial elections in around 2011, most were returning incumbents, even many with rather low approval ratings whereas by 2015 and shortly after most were resulting in change of governments so I think around 2011 the mood was stick with what we got whereas by 2015 it was more change. As for left wing groups like Leadnow, cannot stand them, but considering how effective Ontario Proud was in the last provincial election it looks like conservatives learned from 2015 and have upped their game since so not as one sided as it was then.

          Like

    • Liz J says:

      That’s what should have and needed to happen. I don’t want to hear the term “big tent” from Scheer or Bernier, they showed the opposite by not being able to reach some agreement. Good leaders in politics don’t shut out ideas from members of the team and become successful. Scheer had to be aware Bernier wasn’t happy and could have sat down with him and tried to work something out. It looked very much like Scheer wasn’t comfortable with Bernier around for whatever reason.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        It does appear that Scheer wants strict message control. But you could argue that other parties do too such as the Liberals and NDP not wanting pro-life people in their caucuses.

        Bernier has some good ideas but I think Miles is right that he is not a team player. You don’t undermine your leader in public. So perhaps it was inevitable that Maxime would get frustrated and leave the party. I wonder how Stephen Harper would have handled this? I don’t remember supply management being such a big issue a few years ago.

        Like

      • Florence Engelbrecht says:

        It takes both people wanting to work together. I am disappointed but glad Andrew Scheer is the leader.

        Like

  8. Liz J says:

    Maybe our Conservative leaders should defy the media, stop running scared.

    Like

  9. Miles Lunn says:

    Transmountain Pipeline is further delayed thanks to a court ruling. Not sure who to fault here but very unfortunate. I suspect if Conservatives were still in power, the pipeline would be far enough along it would be much harder to cancel. Certainly makes Trudeau’s decision to buy the pipeline look silly. Yes there needs to be consultation, but not the point it just gets inevitably delayed. Also with First Nations’ concerns, I believe the pipeline could be beneficial as it would mean jobs in those communities and also could cut a deal where they get to keep some of the revenue. That is why many bands are for the pipeline and not all of them are against it.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      I think most of us knew it was just a matter of time before the other shoe dropped and it sure was fast. But at least it’s only the taxpayers on the hook for it and not the company. This will make sure no oil company will ever dare to try to build another pipeline in Canada. We’re open for business, just not that kind of business. Sorry about your luck, oil patch workers. And the CBC is elated to be spreading the joyful news. (sarc)

      Like

    • Greg says:

      I think most of the First Nations groups against the pipeline are being paid by outside (and foreign) groups to protest.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Not necessarily, First Nations are a very diverse group so those opposed vs. those supporting it could be for a variety of reasons. My understanding is most in the Interior favour it while the opposition comes primarily from those in the coastal areas. Off course there are some bands that are quite corrupt too and it would be interesting to see their stance relative to the chief’s salary (I believe 80 chiefs make more than the PM does). I also don’ think you can blame it all on foreign funding, West Coast has always had a strong enviro nut and hardcore leftist element. A minority for sure, but there is a long history of aggressive environmentalism here, see the War of the Woods 25 years ago over logging in Clayquot Sound. After all there is a reason many people elsewhere in Canada call it the Left Coast.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          Who funds the “strong enviro nut and hardcore leftist element” in BC? You might want to check out Vivian Krause’s site to find out whose foreign tentacles have that kind of reach. Hint: The PM’s friend, George Soros, is a donor.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            It’s a mix, lets remember most unions use union dues to fund various left wing causes, CUPE and Unifor are some of the worst offenders. Many left wing groups also get taxpayer funding. Likewise with social media and internet, you don’t need a lot of money to run a campaign. I don’t think we can totally blame foreign influence, Canada and especially here on the West Coast has always had a strong left wing activist element. Otherwise even if we banned foreign funding for advocacy groups I don’t think it would end the various left wing groups as it seems nowadays left wing policies are quite popular in the downtown cores of most large urban centres. The good news is once you get into the suburbs and especially rural areas, people tend to be turned off by them.

            Like

  10. Greg says:

    Trans Mountain should be considered the biggest scandal in Canadian history. The government just spent $4.5B to buy – nothing. We heard about Bev Oda’s expensive orange juice for weeks. At least she got to drink the dang juice.

    Like

  11. Anne in swON says:

    Well, at least we have one government in this country we can count on as conservatives. “Ontario colleges and universities must come up with free speech policies or face funding cuts, the Progressive Conservative government said Thursday, delivering on a promise Premier Doug Ford made during the spring election.

    The schools have until Jan. 1, 2019 to develop, implement and comply with the policies, which experts said were aimed at pleasing a segment of the Tory base that was outraged when some speakers and professors came under fire for their conservative views.” https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/develop-free-speech-policies-or-face-funding-cuts-ontario-tells-colleges

    Like

  12. Anne in swON says:

    Sheila Gunn Reid dredges up facts the msm seems to miss: “Every single Liberal MP voted against this Conservative motion to support Transmountain 2 months ago. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Who do these liars think they’re fooling with their fake outrage today?” https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/votes/42/1/450/ It doesn’t take a genius to recognize we’ve been well and truly set up to fail. Thank goodness Sheila’s there to remind us.

    Like

    • Greg says:

      Good find. This information should be included in every story about TM but it won’t. If only Scheer hadn’t banned Sheila and the rest of Rebel from the convention

      Like

    • Cara says:

      These liars aren’t fooling anyone at all Anne. That’s becoming clearer by the day IMO.
      The tragedy is that still too many left-leaning, MSM types will continue to make this a soft landing for Trudeau………although I’ve noticed even THAT is becoming harder for some of the usual suspects to do.

      Like

  13. Ruth says:

    With all this NAFTA talk and no deal, I really wish that James Moore, Gerry Ritz and Peter McKay would run for a seat again in Parliament. We need them.

    Like

  14. Anne in swON says:

    Sheila Gunn Reid is bright, brash, quick-witted and extremely knowledgeable. She far outshines any of the msm reporters. I started following her a couple of years before she joined the Rebel. For those who are interested you can follow her here: https://twitter.com/SheilaGunnReid

    Like

  15. Liz J says:

    Maybe Trudeau should rummage through his tickle trunk for some kind of super hero costume to dazzle the Donald and save the NAFTA fiasco he created…what is left after he gave Trump what he needs to get through midterm?

    Like

  16. Ruth says:

    from an article I read this morning……..”Supply management means that the Canadian 🇨🇦 dairy industry supports itself . The United States 🇺🇸 subsidizes farmers – these subsidies make up 73% of returns to farmers. THEY ARE NOT OPTIONAL. .
    . Without supply management, you would be paying for your milk at the grocery store and again in your taxes. Would milk be cheaper? No. An independent study showed that Canadians are already paying COMPARABLE , sometimes LOWER, prices for their milk products.”

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Anyone living close to the border knows that dairy products are much cheaper in the US than here so I will continue to buy American butter, cheese and cream as I have done for years. For example, I can buy four lb. of butter for the price of two lb. of any Canadian brand. The same with eggs, cream and cheese. As a result I’m not buying into the independent study you cite.

      Then to add insult to injury Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for more as this tweet from @SeanCaseyLPC indicates:
      “Just announced $2.6 million in funding for @CowsCreamery. This support will help Cows expand their space. Using the latest in processing technology, it will help reduce production costs and allow them to produce new lines of cheeses and butters.” https://twitter.com/SeanCaseyLPC/status/1035163201476980736

      Like

  17. Anne in swON says:

    It sounds as though the phenomenon of grooming gangs a la Rotherham and Rochdale is already prevalent in Canada. Let’s hope and pray authorities don’t hide from it as they did for so long in the UK. There is nothing mentioned about the perpetrators in the following story, which omission raises one’s hackles. https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8874228-girls-as-young-as-12-are-victims-of-sex-trafficking-in-waterloo-region/#.W4q0WOxwLV8.twitter via @bcbluecon

    Like

  18. joannebly says:

    Just thought I’d let you guys know that Sandy contacted me the other day and she has started writing again. You can read her columns at Jack’s Newswatch under the Opinion tab.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sandy says:

      Thanks for the heads up Jo. I often come by here but don’t leave a comment. I don’t know how much I will write at Jack’s, just once in a while I expect on issues that inspire me. He gives me a lot of leeway which is great and, for the most part, we are on the same wave length as it were. I really don’t want to write about Trudeau, however, as he is just such a loser. Still miss Harper! I hope Scheer gets a little more air in his sails to counteract Bernier.

      Like

  19. Miles Lunn says:

    John Ibbitson has an interesting column on four problems Liberals may face next election: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-trudeaus-troubles-mount-with-the-next-election-just-13-months-away/ . My thoughts are as follows.

    1. Initially it will probably help Trudeau as people like a PM who stands up to the US president, especially one as unpopular as Trump, but once the impact is felt especially if it triggers a recession, it could backfire. I am thinking Trudeau might, if no deal is reached call an early snap election for this reason. Obviously dealing with Trump is difficult and I am not sure the Tories could do a lot better with him, but they could have done more to get congress on our side and state governors since if there is strong support for including Canada, I think Trump would have a much tougher time pushing it through. This is what I think the Conservatives should point out that they favour a more sophisticated Canada-US relation that involves not just dealing with the administration but also congress and state governors. Also playing the virtue signaling was a huge mistake as that showed we weren’t serious at the same time Trump seems to change his mind every few days so tough to predict what he will do, I don’t think he even knows what he will do down the road.

    2. Outside of BC and Alberta not sure the pipeline will be a major issue but in Alberta no doubt will make holding onto the 4 seats they have that much more difficult and they barely won those to begin with. BC is a mixed bag, Interior is very pro pipeline but Liberals only won 2 seats there, Vancouver and inner suburbs more anti so actually this might be a slight blessing in disguise while in outerlying suburbs people generally pro-pipeline but not a major issue. Where things could get interesting is if Scheer promises to re-start Energy East. Opposition to it might help the Liberals in Quebec, but could cost them seats in New Brunswick where most support Energy East including even the provincial Liberals there.

    3. For the carbon tax, the New Brunswick election on September 24th will be the first real test as New Brunswick is fairly rural and PCs promise to make repealing it a central issue. Liberals aren’t going to do well in Alberta and Saskatchewan either way while in BC and Quebec, it won’t matter as no party with seats in the legislature is promising to repeal it. In Ontario, that could go either way as I suspect Ford’s approval rating will be pretty low as 15 years of Liberal incompetence left the province in a mess and cleaning up the mess is never easy or popular and Ford will probably want to make the tough decisions early in the mandate so he can recover in time for 2022 so like many governments I suspect early 2020 is when his popularity will bottom out. The real question here is does Trudeau return carbon tax money to the provinces or taxpayers. If he does the former, could hurt him in rural areas and suburbs when people notice the higher gas prices, but if he does the latter, people might like the rebate cheque and not want those taken away although the Tories could easily promise a bigger tax cut that would exceed the rebate cheques in size. I think 2019 will be the real test on the issue of carbon tax. If the Tories win, then it is probably dead for at least a decade if not longer, but if they lose, then its probably here to stay.

    4. This is the most difficult one to predict. Most don’t like Trudeau’s approach on the border, but the Conservatives have to be careful to not come off as intolerant. I find that if people even have a mere suspicion of intolerance even if untrue, they stick with the open borders politically correct one even if they have to pinch their nose. I actually think making this a major issue is very risky for both parties. It can work for the Tories but it is a fine line and if they cross it, it can blow up in their face so its not like other issues where there is more wiggle room. On the other hand if the Tories have a sensible argument that shows they support legal immigration but just against illegal, this could hurt the Liberals.

    With a lot coming next year, I think the election is very unpredictable and success will depend heavily on having good political instincts. Chretien had those meaning we would be toast against him, but Trudeau does not making him quite vulnerable. Scheer’s political instincts haven’t really been tested, but he strikes me as having better ones than Trudeau does, but worse than Harper, Chretien, or Mulroney.

    That being said even if Trudeau does get back in, at least unlike in 2015, you will have mostly centre-right provincial governments to balance things out so that is the one upside no matter what happens although getting rid of him would be better or at least reducing to a minority so we can defeat him in 2021 not 2023.

    Like

  20. Anne in swON says:

    You might find the following article to be of interest: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-where-have-canadas-great-leaders-gone/ In all my years of following federal politics never have I seen such a motley crew of party leaders. Where are all these strong individuals who are needed in Canada right now? Trudeau and his cabinet have proven to be lightweight flakes when it comes to enforcing our borders, enhancing trade and being good stewards of taxpayers’ dollars?

    Like

  21. Liz J says:

    Things are shaping up as expected, Trump will be to totally to blame for the NAFTA kerfuffle and Trudeau and company will come out clean and clear…the media is working very hard to ensure it.

    Like

  22. gabbyinqc says:

    The Liberals always boast about how much consultation they do to ensure Canadians’ interests are being served. Well, they apparently didn’t do too good a job on consulting to get some indigenous groups onside to build the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

    Not only their only failure, that … nobody in the PMO seems to have read an op-ed written by Lino A. Saputo, Jr, the CEO and Vice Chairman of the Board of Saputo Inc. If you’re not familiar with the company …
    http://www.leadershipcanada.ca/2017-conference/ggclc-speakers-2017/lino-saputo-jr/
    “Saputo is one of the top ten dairy processors in the world, the largest cheese manufacturer and the leading fluid milk and cream processor in Canada, the third largest dairy processor in Argentina, and the fourth largest in Australia. In the US, Saputo ranks among the top three cheese producers and is one of the largest producers of extended shelf-life and cultured products. Saputo products are sold in several countries under well-known brand names.”

    So what did Lino Saputo say?
    https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2018/06/18/canada-can-end-dairy-trade-dispute-with-u-s-by-ending-pricing-irritant-saputo/#.W5AAES0ZN7Z
    Canada can end dairy trade dispute with U.S. by ending pricing irritant: Saputo
    By Ross Marowits — Jun 18 2018
    “… The irritant to U.S. farmers is the Class 7 pricing agreement struck in 2016 that has effectively restricted U.S. exports of ultra-filtered milk used to make dairy products, he said. …
    “Ultimately that changed the rules of engagement, changed the rules of the game with respect to dairy trade north and south. So to me, I think the simple solution on the dairy file would be the elimination of Class 7. I think it would be the smartest thing that Canada could do,” Saputo said.
    He said the powerful Canadian dairy farmers group has its head in the sand by calling for the preservation of all facets of the protectionist system. …”

    So there’s the big cheese himself (excuse me, I couldn’t resist) offering a simple solution to an apparent impasse and the Liberals seemingly haven’t heard about it. So much for consulting with stakeholders, eh?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      I think this government’s “consultation” was rather selective at best Gabby.

      I expect also that Trudeau knows that the simple elimination of the Class 7 pricing may end this standoff, however I think they’re stalling for one reason and one reason only.

      The longer Trudeau stalls and makes Trump look like the bad guy in all of this the better for his re-election in 2019. Too many are falling for it and the usual MSM types are only too happy to help tow Trudeau’s line for him.

      Like

    • Greg says:

      Thanks very much for this interesting information

      Like

  23. Anne in swON says:

    The CBC is playing its part well. The glee displayed on the faces of the news readers as they go through their paces ‘reporting’ on Nafta, Trudeau’s disclosure of multiple red lines his government will not cross, the Trump insider/s debacle, etc. is truly nauseating.

    Like

  24. Liz J says:

    There’s little left on the table for this to end well for Canada. Trudeau can wear his Captain Canada hat but we will all pay a price, lost jobs and skyrocketing prices for a wide range of commodities from what we eat to what we drive.
    The Conservatives had better start talking to prevent this silly drama dude from another term in Office.
    Whither the leader of her Majesty’s Opposition?

    Like

    • Cara says:

      “The Conservatives had better start talking to prevent this silly drama dude from another term in Office.
      Whither the leader of her Majesty’s Opposition?”
      Exactly! Not the time to stay quiet. What with the NDP imploding.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        NDP is doing poorly since there is very little difference between them and the Liberals. Its not like the 90s where there was a significant gap so since 90% of what the NDP wants you will get from the Liberals, why not if on the left just vote for the party who can win. Because of that Conservatives need to find ways to appeal to the Blue Liberals who Trudeau has completely abandoned and bring them into the Conservative tent which can be done.

        Like

  25. Anne in swON says:

    Will the virtue signalling of this government never end? How did women ever accomplish anything before there was government intervention? This comes from Sun columnist @anthonyfurey: “As Trans Mountain is against the ropes, the government releases a statement decrying how the energy industry is “gender-imbalanced” and must be rectified” https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-resources-canada/news/2018/09/canadas-g7-presidency-advances-gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment-in-the-energy-sector.html

    Like

    • Greg says:

      Trudeau’s doing everything he can to have gender balance in the energy sector, by getting rid of all the jobs men have.

      Like

  26. Liz J says:

    With the help of his adoring media he will have no trouble making himself look like a hero, he may have an outfit for the role in his tickle trunk. Let’s hope the voters of this country, those who care about it, are smart enough to inform themselves and know exactly what’s going on.

    Now he’s going to apologize for the boatload of Jews turned away by Mackenzie King to the horrors of Hitler’s Germany. All who know that history are heartsick at the mention of it , man’s inhumanity to man or in Trudeau speak peoplekind’s inhumanity to peoplekind. There will be a lacrimal flood for dramatic effect.

    Like

  27. Anne in swON says:

    What’s happening behind the scenes in the United States is nothing less than a blatant attempt to overthrow a democratically elected government, a soft coup. These kinds of machinations are what we’d expect in a third world setting. Where are the pollsters to ask where the average American stands on all of this subterfuge? And have you noticed that the CBC, since establishing what they term a “partnership” with CNN a couple of years ago, has moved solidly into the leftist camp and doesn’t even attempt to hide it? Why is this partnership (no matter how it may be nuanced) between an independent American news outlet and a taxpayer-funded Canadian news outlet countenanced? When were we taxpayers consulted?

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Either Trudeau’s been playing with his Alphabits cereal or somebody’s given him a thesaurus for entertainment – ‘entropy’ and ‘responsibilizing’ in one day.

      Like

  28. joannebly says:

    Boy he sure got a ribbing on twitter for that. There is a new hashtag now: #EntropyIsOurStrength

    Like

  29. Anne in swON says:

    If this isn’t a case of trying to have it both ways then I don’t know what is. After the CPC passed a resolution at their recent convention to stop ‘birth tourism’, where Canadian citizenship is conferred upon any child born on Canadian soil regardless of the status of the parent/s, Gerald Butts called the policy “a deeply wrong and disturbing idea.” Fast forward to the present and we find this CBC headline “Birthplace doesn’t necessarily guarantee citizenship, feds argue at Supreme Court”. with the feds being the Liberal government. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/birth-tourism-citizenship-supreme-court-1.4815898?cmp=rss#pq=bam3f1

    Like

    • Liz J says:

      What a sham fest we are seeing from the Trudeau/Butts Entropolous…..we can all invent words.
      Has the CPC resolution calling it what it is, “birth tourism” made them take notice and realize it’s as bad as it is so described?
      It’s gonna be a fun time rolling into 2019, there will be more and more words invented I’m sure.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I don’t however support moving away from Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis for citizenship. At the very least any person born on Canadian to soil to a person legally residing here should be a citizen even then are just a recent arrival without landed immigrant status or citizenship. I don’t want to go down the path most European countries have where citizenship is granted based on that of your parents not place of birth. We do already exclude some from birthright citizenship, notably children of diplomats and I presume for pre-clearance customs officers if they have children while working in Canada they are also excluded. Perhaps if birth tourism is a concern it can be changed to say one must be a resident not visitor. A better solution is to do what Australia did which is any child who was born in the country and still lives there on their 10th birthday is a citizen so that would eliminate some of the issues, but by and large I think people are making a mountain out of mole hill. There were only 300 birth tourists last year and numbers half been cut in half since 2016 so my guess is they are becoming stricter with issuing visas and I think denying visas to those who wish to come to Canada for this reason is a better solution.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Molehills can and do grow eg. family reunification.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I guess unlike some in the Tories, I am fairly pro immigration and believe we need to be careful. I actually think it is a dumb strategy on both parties to play identity politics. Most Canadians are proud of our diversity, but only a minority take political correctness to the extreme Trudeau does although the percentage who do is growing, but still not a majority. I think Gerald Butts is trying to use this as a wedge issue is he is hoping some Tory candidate will make an outright racist remark and he knows if it comes down to a choice between an ultra politically correct party and party that contains racist, he knows Canadians will choose the former even if with their nose plugged. If Harper were still leader he might be more reluctant as Harper had a much stronger control of candidates than Scheer does or at least that is what many think. At the same time the Tories need to be careful since 20% of Canadians were born abroad, 40% of Canadians have at least one foreign born parent so if the party comes across as intolerant it will kill any chances of winning. Better to focus on pocket book issues as that is where elections are generally won and lost. Harper in 2011 and Ford in 2018 won by doing well in the ethnically diverse 905 suburbs and the Tories in 2019 will likely have to do the same if they wish to win a majority. John Ibbitson if you read his articles has some very good takes on this and what the Tories need to do.

          Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            Birth tourism does not equate to immigration in any way whatever.

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            Your last comment leads me to wonder whether you have forgotten that some of us who post here are legal immigrants who applied to come here and make Canada our home country. We employed no subterfuge and followed the rules to the letter. I, for one, have not forgotten and I resent anyone who skirts those rules. Tiptoeing around the issue so the Liberals and NDP can use it as a cudgel to win an election will not work.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I agree with Anne in SWON that we don’t want to be encouraging illegal immigration, but we live in a 10 second universe and our opponents will call it racist, when it is not, and sadly when you have the racist label applied, the swing voters tend to not vote for that party. Better to do what Ford did in Ontario. NDP promised a sanctuary province and rather than attack it, he ignored the issue and left it to third party groups like OntarioProud to attack it and it worked. Helped prevent an NDP breakthrough in Southwestern Ontario while at the same helped ensure the Tories picked up the 905 ridings they needed so best to leave it to third party groups like OntarioProud to do the attacking. And they also have algorithms to target the correct people too.

            Like

          • Cara says:

            I’m not buy it either Anne.

            I find it interesting that the only identity politics being played is by the Trudeau government, and those who want to make excuses and exceptions.

            The left will always play that fear card of making us very afraid that if we stand up for what’s right we’ll be labelled racists or something worse. It’s how they operate to silence us.

            Not this time.

            Like

  30. Anne in swON says:

    Tucker Carlson has it right. He states that the phrase “Diversity is our strength” has one purpose and that is to shut out alternate opinions, to make dissent all but impossible. Going along to get along is submission and displays weakness and an unwillingness to challenge the narrative of an increasingly authoritarian government.

    Like

  31. gabbyinqc says:

    “Diversity is our strength” …

    That slogan sure sounds hollow when, in my neck of the woods, there’s a pundit/political commentator/analyst seen and heard constantly, practically everywhere. He’s on twice a day on Montreal’s Anglo talk radio CJAD, which is affiliated with a bunch of other stations whose slogan is “I Heart radio”, so he’s probably heard on those stations too; he’s on the French TVA news channel; he’s on the CTV Montreal channel; AND he’s a poli-sci visiting professor at the Université de Montréal, shaping young minds for the future, dontcha know?

    Who is that, you ask? Tom Mulcair.

    Like

  32. Anne in swON says:

    What’s the right thing to do with “explosive remarks from an unnamed source” delivered against the prime minister to whose caucus the unnamed source would seem to belong? Roy Green made a completely different decision than the New York Times did. This raises the question of which prime minister is/was the topic of this “torrent of innuendo and accusation ranging from personal attacks to performing the duties of prime minister at such volume”? https://globalnews.ca/news/4434645/roy-green-anonymous-sources/

    Like

Comments are closed.