Sign in to follow this  

On the Way to the 2019 Federal Election

Recommended Posts

Well it has started.  The Liberals are starting SCARE tactics.  Why would Russia give a damn who wins a Canadian Election?


The next Canadian federal election will be a target for Russian meddling: Sajjan

‎Today, ‎November ‎18, ‎2018, ‏‎3 hours ago | The Canadian Press

HALIFAX — With a federal election less than a year away, Canada’s defence minister is warning voters they will be targeted by online cyber-attacks and fake news as Russia steps up its efforts to undermine western democracies.

“We have taken this into account very seriously in our defence policy,” Harjit Sajjan said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

“We need to further educate our citizens about the impact of fake news. No one wants to be duped by anybody.”

Sajjan made the comments while attending a defence and security conference in Halifax, where experts, military officers and politicians representing democracies from around the world spent a great deal of time discussing cyber-warfare.

“When we stand up for human rights, and when we stand up … to nations like Russia who are going against the rules-based order … you become a target,” Sajjan said, adding that Canada’s decision to protest Russia’s annexation of Crimea has also raised Russia’s ire.

He said the Canadian government has a cyber-security plan that includes establishing the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security within the Communications Security Establishment, which is focused on collecting foreign signals intelligence.

Rose Gottemoeller, deputy-secretary general of NATO, stressed that Russia is not the only country using the internet to spread disinformation, citing a NATO report released Sunday that drew attention to North Korea, China and Iran.

The report, presented Sunday to a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting in Halifax, was discussed by NATO’s science and technology committee.

U.S. Democratic congresswoman Susan Davis told the committee that Russian interference continued in the early stages of the recent U.S. mid-term elections, although not on the scale seen during the 2016 election that saw Donald Trump elected president.

Last year, Facebook said hundreds of dubious accounts, likely operated out of Russia, spent about $100,000 on some 3,000 ads about contentious issues such as LGBT rights, race, immigration and guns.

Facebook later said an estimated 10 million people in the United States saw the ads.

Gottemoeller, who previously served as undersecretary for international security at the U.S. State Department, said democracies have to be ready to defend themselves — on the battlefield or in cyberspace.

“There’s a lot of creativity among the bad guys,” she said in an interview Sunday.

As an example, Gottemoeller pointed to the Canadian-led NATO Battle Group in Latvia, which has been subjected to a steady stream of fake news aimed at undermining the year-old mission.

“The Russians are pumping out a lot of reports about misbehaviour of Canadian troops and how expensive the (battle group) is for Latvia,” she said, adding that Canadian soldiers have taken a proactive role by letting local residents know why they are there.

“It’s a great example of how Canada… has made a difference pushing back against disinformation.”

Pauline Neville-Jones, chairwoman of the U.K.-based Advisory Board to Cyber Security Challenge, said Russian operatives use online algorithms to distribute false stories that are aimed at sowing division and distrust of democratic institutions.

“In the case of Canada, (the Russians) would find it very interesting to try to destabilize your relationship with the United States,” said Neville-Jones, who was David Cameron’s national security adviser before he became prime minister of Britain.

“That gets at the sinews of western democracy. It gets at the sinews of NATO relationships.”

Neville-Jones said the rise of social media has eroded the influence of traditional media sources, which has left citizens more susceptible to cyber-attacks. The best defence against fake news, she said, is to seek other news sources.

She said there was plenty of evidence of online interference in the 2016 U.S. vote, particularly from the Russians.

“Propaganda… has been one of the things they’ve always done,” Neville-Jones said. “They see international relations as a zero-sum game. If you’re losing, then I’m winning.”

NP_Top_Stories?d=yIl2AUoC8zA NP_Top_Stories?i=pSKT_ttpLaI:UhS0fhzaLk0:V_sGLiPBpWU NP_Top_Stories?i=pSKT_ttpLaI:UhS0fhzaLk0:F7zBnMyn0Lo NP_Top_Stories?d=qj6IDK7rITs NP_Top_Stories?i=pSKT_ttpLaI:UhS0fhzaLk0:gIN9vFwOqvQ


  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously now, the Liberal party is pointing the finger at others for lies, statistical manipulation and propaganda. There's those cows again, blaming the field mouse for all the crap in the pasture. 


Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sajjan says:

"We need to further educate our citizens about the impact of fake news. No one wants to be duped by anybody.”

Coming from this guy ...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

First you need to get the Media on your side.


Morneau's update bolsters struggling media with $600M in tax measures

The federal government is stepping in to help the struggling Canadian media industry with new tax credits and incentives valued at nearly $600 million over the next five years.

A temporary tax credit will be created for subscribers to digital news media sites

The Canadian Press · Posted: Nov 21, 2018 3:39 PM ET | Last Updated: 2 hours ago
Finance Minister Bill Morneau says the Liberals' investments will protect the vital role independent news media have in Canadian democracy. (CBC)

The federal government is stepping in to help the struggling Canadian media industry with new tax credits and incentives valued at nearly $600 million over the next five years.

"To protect the vital role that independent news media play in our democracy and in our communities, we will be introducing measures to help support journalism in Canada," Finance Minister Bill Morneau said in his speech to the House of Commons.

The full details of the program won't be available until the next federal budget, after the government receives advice from an independent panel from the journalism community.

The goal is for the program to be funded by the government but have no role for politicians to decide what constitutes a media outlet or who would be eligible. That way, the government hopes to avoid the appearance of conflict between a free press and government influence.

The program will likely cost the federal treasury about $45 million in 2019-20, rising to $165 million in 2023-24.

It's expected most of the expense will be for a new tax credit for media organizations to support the labour costs of producing original news content, but finance officials said specific amounts won't be available until eligibility details have been decided.

Conservatives critical 

Another temporary tax credit will be created for subscribers to digital news media sites.

Plus, the government will allow non-profit media organizations to apply for charitable status, enabling them to seek donations for which they could issue tax receipts. Non-profit media with such status would also be eligible to receive funding from other registered charities.

The Conservatives have already been critical of the Liberals for doing anything for the media industry, accusing them in recent days of using money to curry favour with journalists ahead of the next election.

"It would be unacceptable for the Liberals to even appear to be trying to influence favour with the media," said Conservative MP Peter Kent, who is himself a former journalist.

The Conservatives also are critical of the political plans of Unifor, Canada's largest private-sector union, which represents workers at several media organizations. Unifor has launched a plan to campaign against the Conservatives leading up to the next federal election and several Conservatives have argued this strategy calls into question the independence of journalists represented by the union.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you try and take out one of the possible opposition (leaders that is)


Liberals confirm they're running against Singh as byelections planned for February

The Liberals will wait until the new year before calling byelections to fill three vacancies in the House of Commons - including one that NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh hopes will finally secure him a seat.

NDP leader will have to wait until the new year to get a crack at a seat in Parliament

Éric Grenier · CBC News · Posted: Nov 21, 2018 6:04 PM ET | Last Updated: an hour ago. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh will get his chance to enter Parliament in February, when the Liberal government holds byelections to fill the three remaining vacancies in the House of Commons, CBC News has confirmed.

The Liberals recently called a byelection in the Ontario riding of Leeds–Grenville–Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for Dec. 3, leaving vacancies in three other ridings unfilled. That move was met with a chorus of criticism from the Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois and Greens, who demanded that votes also be called to fill the vacancies in the ridings of Outremont, York–Simcoe and Burnaby South.

As first reported by The Hill Times and confirmed to CBC News by a Liberal source, the Liberals intend to call the byelections early in the new year, with the date to be set for some point in February.

Singh announced he would be the NDP's candidate in Burnaby South in early August, before former NDP MP Kennedy Stewart had officially vacated the seat. Stewart announced earlier in the year that he would be resigning to mount what would turn out to be a successful bid for the mayor's office in Vancouver. The seat has only been officially vacant since mid-September.

The NDP leader is likely to have a tough fight on his hands. While the Greens have decided they will extend the "leader's courtesy" to Singh by not putting up a candidate against him, both the Liberals and Conservatives will contest the seat.

A recent poll by Mainstreet Research suggested the New Democrats were running third in the riding, though the poll showed a considerable number of undecideds and had a relatively high margin of error.

The Montreal riding of Outremont, vacated by former NDP leader Tom Mulcair over the summer, is also expected to be difficult for the New Democrats to hold: the Liberals are riding high in the polls in Quebec and the NDP has suffered a significant drop in support there.

The Liberals have yet to nominate a candidate in Outremont. The New Democrats have nominated Julia Sanchez to try to retain the seat for the party.

The Conservatives have nominated businessman Scot Davidson to hold the Ontario riding of York–Simcoe for the party, after the resignation of former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Van Loan in September. The riding is not expected to change colours.

The only opposition party leader that did not criticize the Liberal decision to hold off on calling the three byelections until next year was Maxime Bernier of the People's Party of Canada. As a newly-formed party, the PPC was not eligible to run candidates in any byelection called within 60 days of his application for registration with Elections Canada in October.

Once the byelections are called and the PPC nominates candidates — as Bernier has said he will do in all three ridings — his party will fulfill the final step to become an officially registered party, allowing the PPC to award tax receipts to its donors.

By law, the Liberals have until Jan. 30 to call the byelection in Outremont. The other two contests have to be called by March.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly promise lots of goodies that will only happen if you return the Liberals to power.


Highlights of Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s fall fiscal update

‎Today, ‎November ‎21, ‎2018, ‏‎26 minutes ago | The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Finance Minister Bill Morneau rolled out his fall fiscal update on Wednesday, framing it as the federal government’s response to dealing with the competitiveness challenges posed by aggressive moves south of the border. Here are the highlights:

  • Overall, new measures over the next five years will cost the federal treasury $17.1 billion, with almost a third of that coming in the 2019-20 fiscal year in order to boost investment in Canada.
  • Deficits won’t start to decline until 2021-22. In this fiscal year, Ottawa expects to be $18.1 billion in the hole, and the deficit will actually increase a bit next year to $19.6 billion.
  • The reason the new costs don’t bulk up the deficits even more is because a strong economy has handed Ottawa an extra $22 billion in revenues over the next five years, compared to expectations in the February 2018 budget.
  • The debt burden, as measured by the debt-to-GDP ratio, is expected to be 30.9 per cent in this fiscal year, before declining ever so gradually to 28.5 per cent in 2023-24.
  • New tax incentives to encourage investment in Canada are worth $14 billion over five years. The measures include allowing manufacturers and the clean-tech industry to write down all capital costs right away.
  • Ottawa is putting another $800 million over five years into its strategic innovation fund to buoy up investments across the economy. Of that $800 million, the forestry industry will get $100 million.
  • The government is setting up an export diversification strategy that aims to increase sales to countries other than the United States by 50 per cent by 2025.
  • Canadian journalism gets a boost through a bundle of tax incentives that Finance Canada estimates are worth $600 million over five years. The measures include tax credits related to hiring and subscriptions. They also allow news outlets to become charities that can take donations.
  • A new fund for social finance will allow charities and non-profit groups to finance new ideas. Ottawa will make $755 million available over 10 years in the hope of seeing $2 billion in economic activity and up to 100,000 jobs as a result.
  • Regulations, red tape and internal trade anomalies will get an overhaul as Ottawa tries to work with the provinces to streamline and harmonize business requirements across the country.
  • Morneau has fish on the brain. The fiscal update gives about $49 million a year to rebuilding wild fish stocks and towards setting up fisheries funds in Quebec and British Columbia.
  • Funding for Nutrition North will be enhanced by $13 million per year in order to bring down the cost of food in the North and to lower the costs of traditional hunting and harvesting.
  • Avalanche Canada gets a $25-million one-time endowment to bolster its work on avalanche safety.
  • The monthly deficit for September 2018 was $1.4 billion, smaller than last year’s $3.3 billion. For the fiscal year to date, the federal government is in the black so far, posting a $1.2-billion surplus, compared to a deficit of $6.2 billion for the same April-to-September period last year.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely, now Trudeau will not only control the CBC and its reporting, he’s going to try and make the entire industry beholding to his wishes through these handouts..and if for one second you think this money won’t come with strings attached, you are dillusuonal


Combo Of Unifor Union ‘Resistance’ & Trudeau’s $600 Million Media Bailout Ensures Conservatives Will Face Unprecedented Bias In 2019 Campaign. Not only will Conservatives have to overcome the Liberals, they’ll have to overcome an entire media establishment machine desperate to crush Justin Trudeau’s opponents.


The Conservatives always face a headwind from the establishment media.

Having worked for two student newspapers and spent time among many people who now work for establishment media outlets, I’ve seen that – while most reporters and media workers aren’t consciously biased – most of them tend to be pretty left-wing people, and as a result the media as a whole becomes a generally anti-Conservative institution.

However, two things that took place in the past week have ensured that the level of bias is about to go through the roof.

First, there was Jerry Dias, the head of the Unifor Union that represents over 10,000 media workers, who announced that he and Unifor would the ‘The Resistance’ to the Conservatives and ‘Andrew Scheer’s worst nightmare.’


Then, there was the Economic Update on Wednesday, where the Trudeau government announced a $600 million taxpayer-funded bailout of the establishment media.

Notably, Dias has previously called on the federal government to give the media more taxpayer money, and now Trudeau has obliged.

So, what we see now is the already institutionally-biased media now beholden to a union leader who wants to destroy the Conservatives, while also now being heavily incentivized to ensure that the Trudeau Liberals get re-elected.

As you can imagine, this will take the level of media bias to unprecedented levels. If we were in the United States, people would be going crazy talking about “collusion,” except in this case it’s collusion between the Liberal government, a massive union, and the media machine.

This is what Trudeau had in mind when he said the next election will be the most negative ever. An unprecedented level of bias and attacks are going to rain down on everyone who opposes him.







Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Morneau's update bolsters struggling media

The Lieberals are just buying good relations with their media

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of buying:

Were I to get all fuzzy and PC about it, I would say this is a courageous decision.

There is a pilot shortage in the RCAF now... I define it as the inability to out train the deficit without impacting operational tempo. Quite different than the one manufactured by industry to extort regulatory concessions. The industry's turn is next. The RCAF got there because of a lack of leadership, the industry because of too many MBAs... self inflicted in both worlds IMO.

The leadership component is multifaceted but, in the end, pilots are retained one at a time and lost in twos and threes. When you can't retain people who want to be retained, the big rock wall looms large in the windshield (not the mirror). Not as off topic as you might think, it's all part of the self inflicted head long rush to no where at great expense. RCAF pilots are pretty expensive to produce and you are paying for it.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


This is how Trump happened. Canadians will soon be chanting...” DRAIN THE SWAMP ! “

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a liberal galaxy, banning an obnoxious CNN reporter for poor conduct is control of the media.... and somehow, this isn't.

Where are all of those outraged anti Donnie folks. Is Anti Donnie Syndrome (ADS) part of a consistent commitment to liberal values or is it simply a reflection of partisan politics? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Coyne: Confirmation the Trudeau government is committed to deficits of choice, not necessity

‎Yesterday, ‎November ‎21, ‎2018, ‏‎7:24:51 PM | Andrew Coyne

The 2018 fall economic statement begins with a puzzle. Economic growth, it trumpets, is strong — the strongest in the G7 in, er, 2017. Unemployment is at a 40-year low; capacity utilization is back to pre-recession levels; profits are up; wages are growing faster than they have in eight years.

All this good news has produced a bumper crop of revenues to the federal treasury: an average of roughly $5.5-billion more annually over the next couple of years than was projected in the spring budget. Yet deficits are now projected to be … higher than expected — at $19.6 billion and $18.1 billion, respectively, about 10 per cent over forecast.

What explains this surprising result? Simple: as it has done throughout its tenure, the Trudeau government took the revenue windfall, and spent it — every last dollar and then some.

This is what the government calls “carefully managing deficits over the medium term.” It used to talk about reducing or even eliminating deficits. Now it seems devoted to doing whatever it takes to keep them in the $20 billion range, in perpetuity.

To be sure, the current set of projections, like its predecessors, shows deficits declining majestically in later years. But somehow in the here and now they never do. Once upon a time, this was supposed to be owing to a shortfall in revenues, the fruit of the Harper government’s supposed obsession with austerity.

By now this is not even pretended. The last Harper budget projected revenues for the current fiscal year at $326.9 billion, enough for a small surplus. The latest estimate has them at $328.9 billion — yet the deficit stands at $18.1 billion. Even allowing for a couple of billion dollars in accounting adjustments, it’s clear what is going on. These are deficits of choice, not necessity.

The mathematical explanation, then, is simple enough. The policy explanation is harder to come by. If the economy is so strong, why are we still running deficits? The government spin is that the strong economy is because of the deficits — and therefore that deficits cannot be reduced, for fear of weakening it.

You understand. We must run deficits in bad times, to bring on the good times, and we must run deficits in good times, to avoid a return to the bad times. This is how you get $20 billion deficits as far as the eye can see.

Which would be tolerable, were we not in the tenth year of an expansion — at the very height, as that volley of data off the top was meant to show, of the business cycle. If we assume no future recessions ever, no problem. But factor in the growing number of threats to the expansion — ballooning U.S. deficits, rising interest rates, a gathering U.S.-China trade war, the chaos over Brexit — and the folly becomes apparent. Demand stimulus is all very well in bad times; otherwise, governments should make fiscal hay while the sun shines.

The news is a little better on the supply side. The government has at last noticed the threat to Canada’s competitive position posed by the December 2017 U.S. tax reforms, with their deep cuts in corporate tax rates. By noticed, however, I do not mean to say they have adequately responded.

Not so long ago, Canada’s corporate tax rate, federal and provincial combined, was roughly half the comparable American rate: a marginal effective tax rate (METR) of 17.5 per cent to their 35 per cent. Today, thanks to both U.S. tax cuts and Canadian tax increases, it is slightly higher: 21 per cent to 19 per cent.

Many economists and business groups have urged the government to seize the opportunity for broad-based tax reform: countering the U.S. rate cuts would not expand the deficit, as it has done in the U.S., if it were accompanied by a closing of costly and inefficient tax preferences. As a second best, many recommended some version of the U.S. tax bill’s immediate expensing of business investment.

What, in fact, did the finance minister produce? 100 per cent write-offs in the first year, four times faster than current depreciation schedules, for some types of investments in some sectors — only machinery and equipment, and only for manufacturers and clean energy producers. The rest of the economy gets a less dramatic acceleration of deprecation rates, albeit applied to a broader range of assets.

The result: the existing disparity in the rates applied to different industries and different investments is, if anything, widened — the very opposite of what tax reform should be about.

Still, at least this is somewhere in the right neighbourhood. Likewise, the statement talks the right language on trade, foreign and domestic: Expanding Canada’s already impressive network of international trade agreements and reducing barriers to interprovincial trade will help to offset some of the loss of competitiveness on the tax side. Certainly it holds much greater potential than the industrial policy busywork that so fascinates this government: the “five pillars,” six Economic Strategy Tables, technology adoption centres and so on, none of which will make a dime’s worth of difference.

But there’s a notable lack of detail: recitations of past actions, more than announcements of future steps. For example, the statement ringingly “reaffirms the federal government’s commitment to strengthening free trade within Canada.” This turns out to mean “working with provincial and territorial partners to accelerate action” on a handful of files. This would be a more impressive pledge if there were any visible action to accelerate.

“Working with the provincial and territorial partners” is exactly how we got into this mess — with a Canadian Free Trade Agreement, the latest of several failed inititiatives, with more pages of exceptions than inclusions. What’s needed is federal leadership: legislation under the trade and commerce power to establish a true and enforcable economic union, as is the case in self-respecting federations.

Oh, but you’re wondering about that package of juicy tax credits for the news industry, tucked inside the chapter on “Continued Progress for the Middle Class” with little advance fanfare. That deserves a column of its own.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the preferred seat of Jagmeet Singh is now open, will this change where he runs? But I guess that would depend on if Justin calls a byelection in the now vacant riding.

Liberal MP Raj Grewal quitting politics, citing 'personal and medical reasons'

Liberal MP Raj Grewal is citing "personal and medical reasons" for his decision to quit federal politics, according to a posting on his Facebook page.

'I feel I need this time to focus on my health and family'

CBC News · Posted: Nov 22, 2018 4:13 PM ET | Last Updated: a minute ago

Liberal MP Raj Grewal is citing "personal and medical reasons" for his decision to quit federal politics, according to a posting on his Facebook page.

"Yesterday, I informed the Chief Government Whip that I will be resigning my seat as Member of Parliament for Brampton East due to personal and medical reasons," he said in the posting.

"To the people of Brampton East, serving as your MP has been the greatest privilege of my life. This has been a decision I've struggled with for some time now and one I made with great difficulty and real sadness. But I feel I need this time to focus on my health and family."

His departure means the Trudeau government has another byelection to schedule. CBC News has confirmed the government intends to call byelections in Outremont, York–Simcoe and Burnaby South early in the new year, with the dates to be set for some point in February.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who held the Brampton riding at the provincial level, said previously that he wanted to run in the riding at the federal level as well. Singh is now nominated to run in the Burnaby South byelection.

Earlier this year, NDP MP Charlie Angus wrote to Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion asking him to investigate Grewal for inviting Yusuf Yenilmez, CEO of ZGemi Inc., to a number of receptions in India with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his delegation.

Angus noted that Grewal had listed the company, a general contractor in the Brampton area, as a source of income on his filing to the ethics commissioner.

In his letter to Dion, Angus said Grewal has "failed the test of principles" by promoting his partial employer's business and organizing "high-level networking opportunities."

The commissioners' office told CBC today that while it informed the public that an inquiry had been launched into Grewal's actions, it was unable to say whether that investigation had been completed or what the result was, citing privacy reasons.

Angus was later sanctioned by Dion's office for informing the media that he had made the request before the ethics commissioner had time to inform Grewal of the complaint. 

More to come ...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the bullet points of the fiscal update....a personal issue with Trudeau..

“Avalanche Canada gets a $25-million one-time endowment to bolster its work on avalanche safety.”

How do other non-profits view this type of biased budgeting??


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, st27 said:

From the bullet points of the fiscal update....a personal issue with Trudeau..

“Avalanche Canada gets a $25-million one-time endowment to bolster its work on avalanche safety.”

How do other non-profits view this type of biased budgeting??


Raise confidence for business, Truly!


  • Calgary Herald
  • 23 Nov 2018
  • William Watson Comment

You can’t scroll through Ottawa’s latest fiscal update without being impressed by how much like North Korea we’re becoming. Not in terms of militaristic brutality: the military is hardly mentioned, although there is a reference to our acquisition of “ice-breaking capability” (which I take it means ice-breaking ships). And the overall policy program presented, with its gentleness and sensitivity, especially to female, Indigenous and francophone Canadians, is the furthest thing imaginable from brutal. In the GA+ of the $25 million allocated in this fiscal update for additional avalanche safety measures — GA+ being “Gender Analysis Plus,” you know — the document points out that francophones will now get greater exposure to avalanche safety information. (“This measure will be a direct benefit to Francophone Canadians,” it says, although 88 per cent of avalanche deaths occur in Alberta and B.C.) No mention of the gender breakdown of avalanche victims.

The North Korean-ness is not in any cruelty of the approach but in the propagandistic vacuousness of the fiscal update’s language. There are two main spending aggregates in summary Table 1.1: “Continued Progress for the Middle Class” and “Confidence in Canada’s Economic Future.” It used to be — a long, long time ago — that budgets mainly listed how government would spend and tax. But nowadays we spend on such things as “Confidence” and “Continued Progress.” How uninformative yet supposedly inspiring.

This never-a-clear-word approach carries over to the government’s own assessment of its record in 33 pages of appendix tables that are basically a checklist on the Liberals’ 325-promise 2015 election platform. Though the Department of Finance has a reputation for toughness, its grading of the government’s accomplishments is wonderfully supportive, an exercise in esteem-building. I didn’t do an exact count but “Actions taken, progress made” is the most frequent grade. But sometimes the grade awarded is “Actions taken, progress made toward an ongoing goal.” That’s the case, for instance, on “Advance Canada’s progressive trade agenda,” where the goal is not only ongoing, it’s up and gone. In still others, the mark is “Actions taken, progress made, facing challenges.” Here an example is “Balance the budget in 2019/20,” where “Facing challenges” puts it mildly (with the deficit now forecast at $19.3 billion).

In many cases, though, the government gives itself a “Completed — fully met,” as in “Priority: Strong Middle Class” and “Commitment: Raise taxes on the top 1% of earners.” We strengthen the middle class, it seems, by taxing everyone above it. Strangely, there’s nothing on “Dynamically push forward the building of knowledgebased economic power and a highly civilized nation by dint of science and technology!” Oh, sorry, that’s actually one of Kim Jong Un’s. Only a couple of the hundreds of Liberal promises get an evaluation of “Not being pursued.” One is “Establish a special parliamentary committee to consult on electoral reform.” As they say, only Allah is perfect. The word “pipeline” does not appear.

If we do look at money, the bulk of the billions goes to 100-per-cent first-year write-offs for manufacturers and processors — the goods-producers who have long benefited from goods fetishism in our governments. On the other hand, service providers and others can benefit from a first-year writeoff three times higher than normal. Both bonanzas are temporary, however, starting to be withdrawn in 2024, completely gone by 2027. The U.S. will not be going back to a 35-per-cent corporate tax rate any time soon. If we want to be competitive, we need to provide long-lasting relief, too.

Because it’s possible that the U.S. economy’s apparent Trump Bump may be more the result of deep deregulation than of tax cuts, Ottawa is also committing to a deregulation agenda. Naturally, this will be done in the usual Ottawa way: by establishing “a dedicated external advisory committee on regulatory competitiveness,” by “exploring” making regulatory efficiency a permanent part of regulators’ mandates (it’s not already?) and by launching a “full review … by 2020 to seek further opportunities to reduce administrative burden and ‘red tape’ on Canadian business.” By 2020, mind you! And notice how they put “red tape” in quotes, as if it’s not an established problem.

The government’s most startling pro-competitiveness move is a pledge to pay its construction bills promptly. Businesses often complain their biggest problem is customers not paying on time or, Trump Organization-style, not at all. Ottawa apparently has been guilty in that regard. Does it use Phoenix to pay bills, too? In any case, it will mend its ways, just as soon as it can pass enabling legislation. Why it needs a new law in order to pay faster it doesn’t say.

There’s one more move to help competitiveness: “…(T) he Fall Economic Statement reaffirms the federal government’s commitment to strenthening (sic) freer trade within Canada.” Well, that’s a relief!

I can’t believe Liberal promises to deregulate, pay bills faster and finally somehow free Canada’s internal market will engender great confidence among business people. But I don’t want to end on a down note. As they say in Pyongyang (in unison): “Let us make national sentiment and noble and beautiful lifestyle prevail throughout the society!”


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
‎Today, ‎November ‎23, ‎2018, ‏‎13 minutes ago

Ex-Liberal MP who resigned this week under treatment for gambling problem, prime minister’s office says

‎Today, ‎November ‎23, ‎2018, ‏‎25 minutes ago | Tom Blackwell

The Ontario MP who abruptly resigned his seat this week is being treated for a gambling problem that caused him to rack up considerable personal debt, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office confirmed Friday.

Raj Grewal has also been looked at by the RCMP over an alleged conflict of interest being examined by the federal ethics commissioner, Trudeau press secretary Chantal Gagnon told the National Post.

The MP announced Thursday he was stepping down as MP for Brampton East riding, citing “personal and medical reasons.”

But it appears there is more to the story of his sudden departure.

“Earlier this week, Mr. Grewal told us that he is undergoing serious personal challenges, and that he is receiving treatment from a health professional related to a gambling problem that led him to incur significant personal debts,” Gagnon said in a statement.

“Based on these circumstances, we agreed that his decision to resign as Member of Parliament for Brampton East was the right one. We hope he receives the support he needs.”

Meanwhile, asked about a possible investigation into Grewal’s financial activities, a spokeswoman for Peel Regional Police, which encompasses Brampton, said the force could not discuss any active probe.

“We are not in a position to confirm details about any ongoing investigations and/or to release information about individuals who are under investigation … due (to) privacy considerations and to maintain the integrity of our investigations,” said Const. Danny Marttini-Chapman.

Gagnon said the prime minister’s office was not aware of an investigation by Peel Police.

Grewal himself could not be reached for comment, but a friend said he does not believe the MP has any kind of gambling issue.

“He’s a vegetarian guy, he never drinks, no gambling,” said Andy Grewal, president of Everest Transport, but no relation to the Liberal legislator. “I know him a long time. He’s a good guy.”

The friend said he has “no idea” why Trudeau’s office would suggest the member had, in fact, gone into hock with his wagering.

In an apparently unrelated matter, New Democrat MP Charlie Angus complained about Grewal earlier this year to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Angus said the Liberal had invited a businessman from the Brampton area to a number of receptions in India with Trudeau and his delegation.

The developer’s company, ZGemi Inc., was listed on Grewal’s ethics filing as a source of income, Angus noted.

Now it appears the police have also cast an eye on the matter.

“We are aware of inquiries by the RCMP regarding the circumstances that were the subject of a complaint to the Ethics Commissioner about Mr. Grewal earlier this year,” Gagnon said.

Grewal gave no indication of gambling or financial difficulties when he announced his decision to leave Parliament.

“Yesterday, I informed the chief government whip that I will be resigning my seat as member of Parliament for Brampton East due to personal and medical reasons,” he said in a Facebook post.

“To the people of Brampton East, serving as your MP has been the greatest privilege of my life. This has been a decision I’ve struggled with for some time now and one I made with great difficulty and real sadness. But I feel I need this time to focus on my health and family.”

In a Tweet about the resignation Thursday, the prime minister also failed to mention anything about gambling or large debts, saying only that he had learned Wednesday that Grewal “is facing serious personal challenges.”

“While it may have been a difficult decision, it was the right one. I hope he receives the support he needs,” Trudeau said.

(Updated at 16:30 with detail, comments on possible Peel Police investigation; at 17:10 with quote from friend)

• Email: | Twitter: TomblackwellNP

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will have the turd and the weasel sweating:

Lawyers for Vice-Admiral Mark Norman have taken aim at a key federal cabinet minister with new allegations about Treasury Board President Scott Brison’s links to the powerful Irving family and Brison’s role in the government’s plan to delay a supply-ship contract awarded to an Irving rival.


In the documents, Norman’s lawyer Marie Henein points to statements federal bureaucrats made to the RCMP. “Other witnesses statements contradict Brison on these key points, namely that the leaks did not impact the government decision to proceed with the Davie contract, and that the concerns at the Ad Hoc Committee were around the integrity of the contracting process,” her submission to the court alleged. “Rather, civil servants who attended and took personal notes of the Ad Hoc Committee meeting stated to the RCMP that a key concern was not having a satisfactory communications strategy for the Liberals to explain proceeding with a contract negotiated by the previous Conservative government.

“The request for the delay appears to have had nothing to do with the integrity of the contract for Canadians but rather with political messaging,” Henein alleged.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau will find a way around it. He always does. The blah blah blah um ah err...etec etc etc will start in earnest and the Liberal sheeple will suck it up like a hummingbird to a flower. Nectar to their ears.

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

“ According to the 2001 census, there were 12,965 Canadians working as journalists. In the 2006 census, there were 13,320 journalists.”

Nice gig if you can get it. This works out to an approximate pay raise for rack government just to pander to Trudeau .

More than 48 hours after it was announced that the Federal government will help finance the news media, none of the nation's top 3 outlets have reported on it.

Mainstream media still silent on $600 million bailout

More than 48 hours after it was announced that the Federal government will help finance the news media, none of the nation's top three outlets have reported on it.

On Wednesday, the outline for the next federal budget allocated $600 000 000 to bailout the news media, to help support independent journalism.

Yes, really.  First, something needs to be pointed out, any organization that receives federal funds to do something is by definition not independent.

How will this all work? The Liberals will select an “independent committee” that will allocate taxpayer money to “trusted sources’.

Again, the Liberals are having a very hard time understanding the word “independent”.

A committee selected by the government would be a Liberal committee since they hold all the power in parliament. If the committee is instead selected by the journalists, then they would have a heavy media bias.

One, the dangers of government interference in the media, and two, the lack of coverage of this story from the Main Stream Media.  As of right now, none of the top three newspapers in Canada (National Post, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star) have covered this story.

The dangers of government interference in the media

First off, the dangers of a quasi-nationalized media.  It is not hard for most people to see the dangers of a federal “bailout” of the news media.  When one political party wants to give you hundreds of millions of dollars and the other ones don’t, who are you more likely to support?

If media outlets are now dependent on government money to survive, and a government committee is deciding who gets money by being a “trusted source”, is it not more likely in this scenario that the media would be less likely to attack the government on the issue for fear of losing money?

Now, this might not matter for hard left publications like the Toronto Star, since Stephen Harper could revive a puppy and they would still call that a step towards fascism. But it is for the publications like the National Post, which in my opinion does a good job of presenting articles and opinions from all sides of the political spectrum.  For now…


The money will line the pockets of media moguls

Consider the comments of Paul Godfrey, the president and CEO of Postmedia Network, which owns the National Post, a self-described conservative who said he thinks the government’s move is good for democracy.

“I think the Conservatives that are standing up criticizing this are just trying to make political hay when there is no political hay to be made,” he told CBC News.

Government officials and media elites are claiming that this money will only be used for journalistic purposes and won’t go into the pockets of owners and shareholders.  However, if you have ever run a business you would know that this is impossible.

If you get a 10-million-dollar grant that has to be spent on journalism, one that is hard to define what parts of the newspaper industry are journalism and what isn’t, and two, bonus money used to pay journalists just means that there is more money left over for everything else in the business, like the owner.

We are subsidizing a dying industry

Another problem that might get swept away in the outrage or lack thereof is that we are subsidizing a failing industry with an outdated business model.  The newspaper industry is dying.  Journalism is now shifting into the technical sphere and social media.

Using taxpayer money to prop up the newspaper business just means that we will have to continue to do this forever if these companies want to survive.  A subsidy will just handicap the newspaper business in the long run, as it will prevent them from seeking out viable alternatives.

Not to mention the negative environmental impact of the newspaper industry.  Maybe someone should tell Environment Minister, Catherine McKenna, that newspapers are printed on plastic straws.  Then something might get done.

Not a peep from mainstream media sources

Now, what about those so-called “trusted sources”?  I am going to go out on a limb and assume that the top three newspapers in the country are considered trusted sources.   As of this movement, neither of them has printed a word on the subject.

One would think that this is newsworthy? It would also be safe to assume that trusted sources would report on a major story within 48 hours.  However, as if they were determined to prove my point, the Main Stream Media has not uttered a word about this story.

Can you say politically compromised?

So here we are, in an election year the Liberal Federal government has promised the media $600 million, and the conservatives have opposed it.  Who will the major media companies back in this race?  If the first 48 hours are any indication this is not a win for democracy.  At best, this is a massive bribe to influence an election.  At worst, this is the death of a functional 4th estate.


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the police investigation into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman will "inevitably" lead to "court processes," even though the military's second-highest ranked officer has not yet been charged with any crime.

The prime minister made the comments at one of the prime minister's townhall meetings in Edmonton on Thursday, after one audience member characterized the year-long RCMP investigation of Norman as a "witch hunt."


Trudeau did not elaborate on why he believes the case will end up in court, despite the RCMP having yet to lay charges, but did say the protection of cabinet secrets is extremely important.

The prime minister also predicted last April that Norman's case would end up in court, leading to accusations from the Official opposition Conservatives of political interference in the case.

Quotes from an article, Feb, 2018


I would hope the Mark Norman’s defense lawyer would call Trudeau to explain his “expectation” of why charges would be laid, before the rcmp were involved.....

I don’t think the liberals will come out unscathed in this one....whether the public cares is another matter, sadly.

Funny, but you don’t hear much of sunny ways or clear and transparent government much anymore.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Justin Trudeau’s reported ‘Kokanee Grope’ really matters

Anne Kingston: The prime minister’s woefully inadequate response ‘detonates his credibility as an authority on sexual assault’

Justin Trudeau’s reported “Kokanee Grope,” an allegation dating back 18 years, has unleashed the sort of polarized debate now routine as we grapple with the complexities and nuances raised by #MeToo. Some see it as a non-story; others a witch hunt overblown for partisan reasons; some say that it smacks of hypocrisy on Trudeau’s part. But it’s possible to believe that a political career should not be in tatters because of a single, two-decades-old allegation and also that the “Kokanee Grope” story is important. It matters not only because touching someone without consent is bad, disrespectful and potentially criminal behaviour. It warrants attention because Trudeau’s woefully inadequate 2018 response detonates his credibility as an authority on sexual assault sensitivity and awareness, and raises questions about his perceived privilege.

The facts are these: in August 2000, Trudeau was the subject of an editorial in the Creston Valley Advance, a local B.C. paper. The former prime minister’s son—then a 28-year-old high school teacher two months from delivering a stirring eulogy at his father’s funeral—was upbraided for reportedly touching one of the paper’s female reporters (“groped”  and “inappropriate handling,” according to the paper) at the Kokanee Summit, a music festival. Trudeau apologized “a day late” to the unnamed journalist, the editorial stated, who was also reporting for the National Post and Vancouver Sun. Trudeau is quoted: “I’m sorry. If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I would never have been so forward.”

Trudeau’s response, words he’s never disputed, reflect the power dynamics that routinely underline encounters later written off as “forward.” Maybe Trudeau was trying to be funny. But his words also suggest that touching a woman in a manner that bothered her would have been okay if she’d only been a reporter for some Podunk paper. The editorial picked up on this: “It’s not a rare incident to have a young reporter, especially a female working for a small community newspaper, be considered an underling to their ‘more predominant’ associates and blatantly disrespected because of it.” Trudeau’s quasi-apology also bristles with awareness of his image on the national stage. An unseemly mention in the Creston Valley Advance is one thing, in the National Post another.

The story lay fallow for close to two decades as Trudeau ascended to the country’s top office. No surprise there. Anyone who stumbled on it pre-#MeToo would see an isolated case reported in a low-profile outlet: then and now, such allegations are only taken seriously if more than one woman (ideally at least a half dozen) come forward. There’s also human psychology at play: Trudeau’s image in the mass media over the years has been “dreamboat,” not “creep.” After #MeToo exploded, however, it was open season on past behaviour. And no one was leading that rallying cry more than Canada’s self-declared feminist PM who’d declared a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, assault and misbehaviour.

“There is no context in which someone doesn’t have responsibility for things they’ve done in the past,” Trudeau told CBC News last January. In that interview, the PM expressed confidence no one could accuse him of the kinds of behaviours that brought down several high-profile politicians. “I’ve been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people’s space and people’s headspace as well,” he said, a comment that suggests he’d either forgotten that long-ago apology or believed it would never come back to bite him. Trudeau highlighted his activism against sexual assault; he was one of the first male facilitators at the sexual assault centre at McGill students’ society, he boasted. There, he said, he led “conversations—sometimes very difficult ones—on the issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics.”

The 2000 editorial rose from the archives last April when the satiric gossip magazine Frank ran a compare-and-contrast between it and Trudeau’s statements about sexual assault, calling out hypocrisy. No one paid any heed until a series of stories referencing the “grope” appeared in Buzzfeed, the Toronto SunBreitbart News and the New York Times.
The Times’ report addressed the much-circulated belief that the 18-year-old editorial was recycled on right-wing outlets as part of a  bid to embarrass the PM before the G7 summit: “Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not,” it concluded.

Trudeau, normally front and centre of such discussions, went mute. The PMO issued a statement echoing his past remarks: “As the PM has said before, he has always been very careful to treat everyone with respect. His first experiences with activism were on the issue of sexual assault at McGill, and he knows the importance of being thoughtful and respectful.” It ends: “He remembers being in Creston for the Avalanche Foundation, but doesn’t think he had any negative interactions there.”

Coming from a prime minister with a reported history of dealing with “issues of consent, communications, accountability, power dynamics,” the statement was tone-deaf and oblivious. It doesn’t even rise to the standard of an “I’m sorry if you were offended by my behaviour” non-apology. It’s an “It never happened, I don’t think” answer with enough wiggle room should the woman ever decide to come forward and take on a prime minister (notably, the PMO statement focused on Trudeau being in Kokanee to attend a charity fundraiser, downplaying the fact it was also a beer-company-sponsored music festival).

The troubling power dynamic underlining Trudeau’s 2000 statement—”If I had known you were reporting for a national paper I would never have been so forward”—that conceded unwanted behaviour had occurred is again on display. If the woman was so affected by an alleged interaction with Trudeau that it become the subject of an angry newspaper editorial, it’s safe to say it was “negative” from her point of view. And her point of view is what matters here, not what Trudeau “doesn’t think.” It’s not about him. Anyone sensitive to the nuances of reporting about any form of personal assault should know that.

The matter is complicated by the fact that, just as #MeToo has emboldened people to come forward, the unnamed journalist isn’t talking, as is her prerogative (Maclean’s attempts to contact her went unanswered). That has created an odd news stasis and vacuum. A Canadalandpodcast recently called out Canadian media for failing to report the story more fully. Host Jesse Brown suggested a double standard was at work “protecting Trudeau.” That’s news to Lorne Eckersley, the publisher of the Creston Valley Advance, who has been deluged with media inquiries for weeks. “Every CBC outlet in every city has called,” he told me. “It does get a bit tiresome.”  The paper has tried to dig into the story, Eckersley says, and so far has come up empty.

As a National Post investigation published days ago (after the Canadaland podcast) indicates, there can be no “He said, she said” traction seen in #MeToo stories when neither principal is talking. The Post story confirmed that the journalist reported her encounter with Trudeau to the Creston Valley Advance‘s then editor and publisher who both believed and supported her. She “was distressed,” the editor recalled. The reporter wanted the alleged encounter to be made public, the Post reports, saying they understand she wrote the editorial.

The story is now bigger than an an 18-year-old editorial and an allegation many have dismissed as minor compared to the savage sexual assaults of which Harvey Weinstein et al. have been accused. But its ordinariness is one reason it warrants attention. Even in 2018, young women have to contend with physical encroachments, particularly in the workplace. We see it in the vile harassment of on-camera reporters and the sort of daily harassment recently alleged against Prince Edward County winemaker Norman Hardie (Hardie admitted to some charges and denied others in an apology). Unwanted touching is often extended under the guise of friendliness, the colleague with the “You looked stressed, I’ll give you a massage” line. Or there’s the guy who sees women’s bodies as real estate to be annexed, particularly when these women are perceived too low in the pecking order to say anything or to be believed. But such seemingly minor intrusions accumulate over time and become corrosive, eroding a sense of autonomy. That’s why they need to be called out.

The story now is the straight line that can be drawn between Trudeau’s quasi-apology in 2000 and his vaguer statement in 2018, just as #MeToo is reframing cultural understanding of consent and accountability for historical behaviour. That movement has seen many men, including Anthony Bourdain, reassess past behaviour and apologize for it. Trudeau’s certainty that he has always been “respectful of people’s space and people’s headspace” appears to leave no space for similar self-reflection. That’s a problem.

A bigger one, of course, is that any admission on the Prime Minister’s part would subject him to the high standards of behaviour he demands from others. The fact he refuses to make himself accountable to those very standards is why the “Kokanee Grope” matters.



Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this