Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

On the Way to the 2019 Federal Election

Recommended Posts

KA CHING..... Trudeau throws another $53 mill of what was your and my money out the door to aid Venezuela.....millions here, millions there...pretty soon we’ll be talking about real $$$.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

KA CHING..... Trudeau throws another $53 mill of what was your and my money out the door to aid Venezuela.....millions here, millions there...pretty soon we’ll be talking about real $$$.

Not likely but maybe his trust fund will send some money to Venezuela but likely he will continue to use our money to "feel good".https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwidhcOvv6PgAhWUCDQIHRW_BPoQyCkwAHoECAYQBQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEdwsf-8F3sI&usg=AOvVaw1DElsivLw0DSL9OjFnHn7I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIME TO PAUSE AND THINK

You are the first line of defence against misinformation, Jennifer Ditchburn says.

  • Calgary Herald
  • 9 Feb 2019
  • Jennifer Ditchburn is the editorin-chief of Policy Options, the online magazine of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, where this article first appeared.
img?regionKey=srf9qyJOm5DOzfm%2fKg9s2w%3d%3d  

In 2019, an election year federally and in Alberta, what if we could we all resolve to be better consumers of online content? Could we train to become sommeliers of social media news shares, carefully discerning the provenance of a piece and determining whether it is authentic or just swill — or even poison? The implications of not taking more care in terms of what we absorb and then distribute online can’t be overstated. Information is being used as a weapon not just against parties and politicians but also against our sense of trust in institutions and our social harmony.

A report by the Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational Propaganda Research project, released in mid-December, said Russia used social media posts to suppress the African-American and Hispanic vote during the 2016 American elections. Russia’s Internet Research Agency used the segmentation of advertising markets offered by social media platforms such as Facebook to tell those voters that they should boycott the election. It encouraged right-wing voters to vote for Donald Trump and shared posts with them designed to kick up anger around minorities and immigration. The Russians also sought to drive a wedge among liberal voters, trying to “reduce trust in the political system.”

Information is being used as a weapon not just against parties and politicians but also against our sense of trust in institutions and our social harmony.

The Russian attack also spread “sensationalist, conspiratorial, and other forms of junk political news and misinformation.” If that doesn’t make you queasy enough, the Russians didn’t stop their online activity once they had been caught.

If you’re still not convinced that these campaigns are a threat in gentle and polite Canada, consider that during the 2018 Swedish election, 22 per cent of news content shared online with political hashtags was “junk news,” defined as deliberately misleading, deceptive or incorrect information.

In Mexico, the team of journalists behind Verificado monitored the misinformation that was circulated during that country’s recent presidential election on popular social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter and also shared as news items. Some of the cases were straight-out false stories about candidates, others misrepresentations of photographs. In one case, a video was manipulated and then presented on social media as evidence that presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (now the president) refused an interview because he was drunk. The majority of the misinformation in Mexico came from domestic actors, not from Russia, analysts have suggested.

These acts are not harmless. Beyond potentially swaying the results of an election, and poisoning our democratic process, they can also create dangerous tears in our social fabric. The idea is to polarize us and make us angry and distrustful.

“With all of the attention to ‘Nothing is true, and nothing is real, and everything is biased’ ... our worry is that we’re shifting to an ‘I don’t believe anything’ culture,” says Kathryn Ann Hill, executive director of MediaSmarts, a not-for-profit organization that promotes digital and media literacy. “That’s not a good thing because it’s a clear road to apathy, feelings of a lack of ability to have any investment in our political system or our electoral system — it’s a bad thing for democracy.”

Sure, we can look to our leaders and public servants to do something about this. Elections Canada, for example, has said it will be using artificial intelligence to try to stamp out as much disinformation about the electoral process as possible. The agency is also consulting with other countries to find out what they are doing. France passed a law against misinformation this past summer that would allow content to be removed from the internet after a quick judicial review. The legislation has been criticized as infringing on free speech.

The Public Policy Forum, in an August 2018 report on disinformation, recommended the creation of a “nimble organization outside of government for ongoing and long-term monitoring, research and policy development” around the issue. It also called for a legal requirement that all digital producers and disseminators of content identify themselves and their beneficial owners clearly on their platforms.

But we, as citizens, also have an important role to play. If only we could regard the triage of online content as something we do as routinely as separating the plastics from the paper for recycling.

It’s not going to be easy. A recent study published in the journal Intelligence linked susceptibility to misinformation to cognitive ability — something that wanes as we get older. In a December 2016 survey by the Pew Research Center, 23 per cent of respondents said they had shared misinformation online, either deliberately or unwittingly.

Political scientist Thierry Giasson, the lead researcher at the Research Group on Political Communication at Université Laval, recently convened experts on media education at a conference in Montreal. The goal was to answer some key questions about news literacy, media education and citizenship, and ultimately to produce a white paper for the Quebec government on expanding media literacy into the curriculum as a stand-alone area of instruction. The Canadian experts brought together for the conference hope to create a network that is focused on the issue.

Giasson points to the “30 seconds” campaign by the Fédération Professionnelle des Journalistes du Québec, which urges people to take 30 seconds to read a piece of online content before sharing it. “Look at the source: Where is this coming from? Usually a source is clearly identified. Is it a legitimate news organization?” Giasson says.

MediaSmarts has developed a range of resources for the public and for educators on authenticating information online. Says Hill, “Check the original source. Don’t assume it’s true because a lot of people shared it, or it’s going viral on social media.”

Plenty of us feel indignant when we get the calls from the telephone scam artists claiming to work for the bank or Windows or the Canada Revenue Agency. How dare they try to pull one over on me! But we’re not angry or smart enough yet about the foreign and domestic players who are trying to distort our democratic process.

Our New Year’s resolution as citizens should be to declare ourselves the first line of defence against the weaponization of lies.

Information is being used as a weapon … against our sense of trust in institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Encouraging!

“ Conservative Party has a clear lead over the Liberal Party just 8 months out from the election “

 

February 15, 2019

 

The latest National Campaign Research Poll conducted among 1,590 Canadians revealed that the Conservatives (CPC) held a clear lead (37%) over the Liberals (LPC, 32%), while the New Democratic Party of Canada’s (NDP) fortunes continue their decline with the party remaining a distant third (14%). Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada doesn’t appear to be having a noticeable impact on the CPC.

https://www.campaignresearch.ca/single-post/2019/02/13/Conservative-Party-has-a-clear-lead-over-the-Liberal-Party-just-8-months-out-from-the-election

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

February 16, 2019 11:58 am

Roy Green: Are the federal Liberals on a collision course again?

Roy Green By Roy Green Host, Corus Radio Network  

As the days pass since the initial Globe and Mail story of alleged PMO interference with former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has since resigned from the federal cabinet, the iceberg metaphor increasingly appears justifiable.

READ MORE: Jody Wilson-Raybould became thorn in Liberals’ side before SNC-Lavalin case

The Liberal party in general — and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in particular — have failed to skillfully navigate the growing threat of a possible and lurking national scandal. A scandal with perhaps sufficient punch to preclude a repeat of any 2015 federal election success.

#LetJodySpeak is the demand from the Twittersphere.

You know what this is about.  It’s about Ms. Wilson-Raybould, who, so far, continues to decline to publicly address media allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office was directly exerting pressure on the former attorney general to persuade federal prosecutors to disengage from beginning a criminal trial of Montreal-based engineering giant and Quebec legacy corporation SNC-Lavalin.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould declares solicitor-client privilege precludes her from publicly confirming or refuting alleged PMO interference.  Mr. Trudeau, it has been repeatedly stated, can free Wilson-Raybould from such restrictions. Hence #LetJodySpeak.

The prime minister has repeatedly delivered statements which only fuel demand for Ms. Wilson-Raybould to be heard.  Trudeau has accused his former attorney general and minister of justice of being inconsistent and claims that her resignation from cabinet did not mirror conversations they had.

Trudeau flatly denied any personal interference, telling reporters, “In terms of giving any direction, she (Wilson-Raybould) asked me if I would do that and I said, ‘No, absolutely not. It’s your decision to make.'”

READ MORE: Trudeau says report his office pressed former justice minister to drop SNC-Lavalin prosecution ‘false’

So why, then, was Wilson-Raybould removed from her federal justice and law enforcement portfolios?

Unnamed Liberals have engaged in sniping.  Jody Wilson-Raybould was not a team player, they complain.  Everything had to be about Jody, they suggest.

Today the prime minister tried again, assuring Canadians it was Scott Brison’s resignation from cabinet and government that caused Trudeau to “move things around.” Had Mr. Brison not unexpectedly chosen to leave politics, he said, Jody Wilson-Raybould would today be attorney general.

How does that even begin to make sense?  How does it make sense that the parliamentary Justice Committee, dominated by Liberal MPs, would refuse to call either Jody Wilson-Raybould or Gerald Butts, the prime minister’s principal secretary, to testify as it reviews claims of PMO interference?

It makes sense only if the objective is to project insincerity.  Mission accomplished.

That SNC-Lavalin engaged in multi-year lobbying of the Trudeau government, including numerous meetings with senior members of the PMO, to change Canada’s criminal code is on the record. What the engineering firm wanted — and eventually obtained in an omnibus budget bill — was for deferred prosecution agreements to be introduced into Canadian law.

DPAs are usually agreements on sentencing arrived at by prosecutors and corporations facing stiff punishment if found guilty following a criminal trial.

WATCH: Reaction to SNC-Lavalin interference allegations

PM denies SNC-Lavalin interference allegations

Were SNC-Lavalin to be found guilty of charges of offering $48 million in bribes to Libyan government officials, as well as engaging in an additional $130 million of fraudulent activity toward Libyan organizations, the company would have been staring at a 10-year ban on obtaining contracts from the federal government of Canada.

Perhaps the very survival of the company was at stake.

So here we are, just over a week since allegations of PMO interference with the former attorney general surfaced.

Let’s describe the allegations as the 10 per cent of the iceberg which is visible.  What has been offered by the prime minister and his Liberal party increases suspicion that the 90 per cent of the iceberg, which remains out of view, may indeed scrape the hull of the Liberal ship. How much damage it may do we don’t yet know.

We do know nothing is unsinkable, a point underscored by a fairly recent Ottawa/Quebec scandal: Sponsorgate. Remember?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This photograph (and others) of Harjit Sajjan cost Canadians $161,000

 
‎Yesterday, ‎February ‎18, ‎2019, ‏‎5:56:14 PM | David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

Taxpayers spent $161,000 for photographers to take images of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on his various trips in what the Liberal government says is proof that Canada is re-engaging on the world stage. That cost covers only travel and accommodations for the military photographers and does not include their salaries.

The amount covers 26 trips since late 2015 to locations such as India, Trenton, Yellowknife, Brussels, Ukraine, Latvia, Iraq and Africa.

The photographers accompany the minister on the trips and are not assigned to specific military operations.

The Canadian Forces stated in an email to Postmedia that the photographers can travel at a moment’s notice and have the security clearances needed to take images of the minister at meetings with allies.

Sajjan’s spokeswoman, Renée Filiatrault, said in an email that such photographers are used by the military and the minister to support communicating with the public in Canada and abroad. She noted that the minister travels to international meetings and to various missions.

“As with previous Ministers, they often accompany the Minister of Defence,” Filiatrault stated. “Our government promised to re-engage in the world and communicate openly with Canadians and we are doing just that.”

sajjanedited.png?w=640

Taxpayers spent $116,000 for photographers to take images of Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on his various trips in what the Liberal government says is proof that Canada is re-engaging on the world stage.

Postmedia asked for the cost figures after receiving emails from military personnel who noted what they considered excessive spending on photography for Sajjan’s social media accounts.

On Friday, Sajjan’s staff posted a number of photos on Twitter of the minister meeting NATO officials in Brussels. Those images were taken by Canadian Forces photographers who accompanied the minister. That latest trip was not captured in the figures provided.

Such international meetings also often have official photographers assigned to events to produce imagery for the participants.

The DND did not have figures available showing how much was spent on photography for previous defence ministers.

.@Richard_T_Lee has the experience and the drive to be a strong representative for the people of #BurnabySouth so get out there and #VoteRichard! Advance polls are open from 12pm-8pm today. Find out where to vote: https://t.co/nsCTL2pXsL pic.twitter.com/BfZsYkzWCA

— Harjit Sajjan (@HarjitSajjan) February 18, 2019

 

Questions about such official photography have been raised before. In August 2016 CTV News revealed that that the government spent $17,000 on photographing Environment Minister Catherine McKenna. That money was for photography for 15 events, including a conference in Vancouver and the images were used by McKenna’s department on social media channels, including Twitter.

After the spending was revealed, McKenna acknowledged that savings could be made. “Pictures are an important part of how we transmit our message, but we need to do it in a way that is mindful of taxpayers,” she told journalists. “Previous governments used photographers as well but we can do better, and that’s something I’m committed to personally.”

When he was asked about the issue at the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters that such official photography was “certainly one (area) that we are looking at as perhaps not the best use of public funds.”

In 2015 iPolitics reported that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government spent more than $2.3 million to photograph Conservative cabinet ministers since it had come to power.

The price-tag was revealed in a government response to a Liberal MP’s order paper question in Parliament. The spending covered 2,483 events that the government hired contract photographers to cover.

As a result, Veterans Affairs Canada faced criticism for spending $118,200 on photographs of ministers at various announcements while at the same time as cutting front-line services to veterans. Taxpayers spent more than $13,000 for photographs of then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird during the week he was at the United Nations.

The Canadian Forces and some federal departments also have their own photography teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is why I seem at odds with most voters; I can't imagine a universe where the Liberals are still doing as well as they are or holding at 50% support in the Maritimes. I don't think my views have changed much since I was 19 yet it seems the world has changed around me. Perhaps that's what old people say just before they go to "a home." Still, I wonder how much it will take, how much will be enough? It all seems self destructive and completely unsustainable to me.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the PPC wasn’t robbing the Conservative vote, a Conservative majority would be all but guaranteed. My heart says to vote PPC but my brain tells me Conservatives are the only alternative at this point. What is interesting is the sudden drop in Green support. It appears they are spreading themselves out everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

My heart says to vote PPC

Agreed. The PC's have simply become old school Liberals and I want no more of them. Scheer needs a focus group to decide anything. It will be PPC for me and the chips will fall where they may.... I take comfort in knowing that Canadians will get exactly what they deserve.

 The danger (as with many things) is over thinking it yet I fear a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP. On the plus side, that might just be the lesson people need.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Agreed. The PC's have simply become old school Liberals and I want no more of them. Scheer needs a focus group to decide anything. It will be PPC for me and the chips will fall where they may.... I take comfort in knowing that Canadians will get exactly what they deserve.

 The danger (as with many things) is over thinking it yet I fear a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP. On the plus side, that might just be the lesson people need.   

Or even worse, The Green Party, if they get anyone elected. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Or even worse, The Green Party, if they get anyone elected. 😀

Actually I think the Greens would be easier to deal with as they are only crazy about one thing.... the NDP are off the charts on virtually all counts and the Liberals are now closer to the NDP than they are to their roots as old stock Liberals; a position currently held by the PCs IMO.

I admit to understanding none of it. We elected a government (with a majority) who had as an election promise the introduction of a carbon tax. Fast forward a few months and the people who wanted it no longer do. They also promised enhanced gun control measures, higher deficits, more immigration from countries difficult to vet, etc etc. The rest of the debacles are classic Liberal in nature and close to what reduced them to tattered shreds a few years ago. The people of Canada still seem to want more.... voting tactically in a situation where people don't think tactically is tricky. It's why great chess players sometimes get beaten by novice players and why people who are lost are harder to track than those with a destination.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

admittedly the only reason we got what we did was because People became disillusioned with harper.  he made some errors on policies that the populace took offence to and wanted him gone and voted him out.  The people did not Vote JT in, they voted Harper out BIG difference.

So yes we got stuck with all of the baggage that JT brought but that doesnt mean that the population actually wanted it.  As sick and twisted ans that is, it is the reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, boestar said:

The people did not Vote JT in, they voted Harper out BIG difference.

 

A common sentiment (perhaps) but not relevant or BIG IMO. His election promises were there for anyone paying attention to see, assess and consider. In his defence he is working on those very things and the fact I don't like it is irrelevant as well. 

I remember the machinations of the "anyone but Harper" crowd (as I do the Airline MBA crew) and it always struck me as self defeating and short sighted in comparison, especially when judged against his policies and promises. We got exactly what we voted for and I doubt anyone could offer a credible argument that it is not so. 

 Elections are about choices (for good or ill) and that's the way of it..... reality 101 I guess. Surely no one thought he was kidding, right? And no one (who voted Liberal) should feel duped. Thus far, nothing has come as surprise. Hopefully, if Democrats are elected next time around in the US, similar sentiments will not be forthcoming about the "green new deal." It's all there right now for all to see and consider. Same same IMO. So, when Democrats say they voted "against" Trump and not for "the deal" .... well, it's too late then eh? You either want politicians to keep their promises or you don't. 

Question for any Liberal voter then..... what did you think was going to happen?

I know you are a motorcycle guy so here is a video you might like. The rider was OK but it illustrates my point. I don't consider this an accident worthy of analysis and there is nothing to learn as a result (except maybe braking technique and steering control prior to impact). I submit that no other outcome was likely given the choices he made.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep.  seen this video before.  The sins were there several turns before the final one.  Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you dont.  If you are unlucky 10% of the time watch out for that 10th curve.

Going back to the topic.  Truth be told we saw the signs during the campaign but the "get harper gone" group (I admit to not being a harper fan as well) didn't pay attention to the signs (just like the rider) until it was too late.  

Now that ill fated rider had a choice about his riding.  We on the other hand didnt have much of a choice. 4 parties and 4 not so great leaders. 4 not so great platforms.  And what would have been the best choice running on a campaign of "but he has nice hair"  had they grown up and ran a decent campaign they would have had the majority.

Playground politics is for the playground.  I lost all respect for the blue team with their campaign.  i already had little respect for the red team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our energy industry is in crisis, but Trudeau is too busy doing damage control over SNC-Lavalin to act

Diane Francis: If Liberals are dead set against oil and gas, they should let voters know — and then get out of the way for the Tories to win this fall

Diane Francis: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau won’t deploy the constitutional tools he has to build Trans Mountain and other pipelines.Riley Smith/The Canadian Press
 

The Liberal government’s pre-occupation with its recent SNC-Lavalin scandal, and not the pro-pipeline and anti-carbon tax convoy that parked in front of Parliament Hill last week, is a metaphor for what’s been wrong with Canada.

The SNC-Lavalin scandal involves the usual suspects, backroom manoeuvres, secret meetings with powerful operatives, unexplained resignations, demands for special treatment, leaked information, and indignation and dire predictions by Quebec’s elite.

By contrast, the pro-pipeline convoy was public and transparent: Scores of vehicles crossed the country from Alberta to gain attention and support for the country’s most important and beleaguered industry, oil and gas.

“It is time Canada has a prime minister that is proud of our energy sector,” Conservative leader Andrew Scheer told the rally of convoy participants.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau snubbed the protest, remaining closeted with his Liberals doing damage control amid the fallout from the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

  • Thanks 1

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.

Guest
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