Jump to content

Election 2021


Recommended Posts


From Jody Wilson’s book…published in the Globe.


“ Jody Wilson-Raybould most recently served as the independent Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. The following is excerpted from her latest book, ‘Indian’ in the Cabinet: Speaking Truth to Power, which will be published Tuesday:

The sun was flooding through the third-floor windows of the Signature private plane terminal at Vancouver International Airport as I sat waiting for the Prime Minister to arrive. The terminal is distant and isolated, far from the bustling main terminal and the eyes of the public and the media. My husband, Tim, had dropped me off and then parked to wait for me among the cars of the Prime Minister’s motorcade. The PM was late. Building in me was a creeping realization that this was the beginning of the end. It was here. The time had come.

It had been three days since Robert Fife’s front-page story in The Globe and Mail set off a series of ongoing convulsions over the Liberal government’s attempts to “pressure” me on the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. As soon as the story broke, the Prime Minister said that “the allegations in The Globe story this morning are false. Neither the current nor the previous attorney-general was ever directed by me or by anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.” The government’s response over the next 72 hours had been a case study in hubris – at once both surprised that they had been caught and offended that anyone could think they would ever do anything wrong.

In the Indigenous political world I had come from, we always talked about how government practice, for generations, was to deny, delay, and distract when it came to Indigenous issues. I had heard that phrase – deny, delay, and distract – since I was a kid. The past three years had shown me that governments use that strategy far beyond their dealings with Indigenous peoples. Sometimes all Canadians are treated contemptuously. On SNC-Lavalin, few were buying it. And they were right to be skeptical. I wished it had not come to this.

I felt a familiar conflict inside of me that had been there my whole life: A deep desire to believe in people. To expect the best out of them. To want them to do the right thing. Almost a protective desire to see them do right. And yet simultaneously knowing that sometimes this does not happen. That when people act a certain way time and again, they are likely to repeat it, whatever my hopes and wishes may be. As I sat there in that room – a big room, all by myself – waiting for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to arrive, I asked myself why I felt that I had to try to help him out of this mess, to protect him. Especially when his government had been digging a deeper and deeper hole by the hour by not coming clean on how I was pushed to take over the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin to enable them to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA. Especially when his office had been telling their MPs to repeat lines they knew were not accurate.

I was anxious as I sat there. I could feel my lingering hope that I would be proven wrong and that everything was not as terrible as it seemed. I wished that the government would just admit their wrongdoing and deal with it openly and transparently. I knew the only way to deal with it was to tell the truth. Full transparency. It was as clear to me as sunlight. The Prime Minister had to simply acknowledge that the attempts to apply pressure were not proper and take concrete steps to address the wrong actions. Deep down I think I knew better than to expect him to own up. However, at that moment, I still wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I saw the Canadian Armed Forces Challenger land and pull up to the private terminal. 
As the Prime Minister walked up the stairs, I could hear him talking to someone moments before he entered the room. He greeted me in his typically physical and warm way, with a hug and expressions of appreciation. “I so want you to keep being part of this government,” he said. As always, from the first time I met him in Whitehorse in 2013, he reflected on the good we can do for the country. This is so Justin Trudeau. Taking control and setting the tone. Trying to remind everyone in the room – in this case me – who is in charge. “I don’t think that you leaked the story [to the Globe],” he said. Unless I told him otherwise, he added. A power play. He was trying to push the ball into my court. Looking back, I do not think the Prime Minister had a clue what I was going to say in this meeting. 

As it turned out, this was the first of three private meetings with the PM over the next 36 hours, before I eventually resigned from his Cabinet. That resignation – and everything that led to it – would lead to him tossing me out of the Liberal caucus and then removing me as the confirmed Liberal candidate for Vancouver Granville in the 2019 general election. The Prime Minister and I had not communicated since the Globe story broke – not even by phone – but the world had exploded around me. The public and media barrage was unlike anything I had ever experienced or could ever have anticipated. And it was a similar firestorm for the Prime Minister and his office. Intrusive, relentless, and everywhere.

 I know the Prime Minister had always considered me a bit of a challenge – not political enough, too independent-minded, and ultimately not part of the inner Liberal crowd. I think I was foreign and incomprehensible to him. After all, I was from the other side of the tracks. I was an Indigenous girl from a small fishing village – Cape Mudge, on the southern tip of Quadra Island just off Vancouver Island. I am Kwakwaka’wakw. The PM did not grow up in my neighbourhoods, with the kids I grew up with. None of his family went to residential schools. My childhood memories are closer to Comox and Cape Mudge than Rockcliffe. My political point of reference was the Big House, not the House of Commons. To be fair, he did not choose how and where he grew up or who his parents were. But Liberals? Political parties? Not my world. 

With the ice cracked but not broken, I started softly, reminding the Prime Minister where I had always stood. “I got into politics because there are issues that I am seriously committed to helping resolve.” I recalled for him one of our first conversations when he was recruiting me for the party. We were in Whitehorse, and we had talked about our visions of the country and how we seemed to have similar views. I got involved with the Liberal Party largely because I believed we shared those views, and because I thought he would be a good prime minister and create a good team. I had believed all that …I’d said to him five and a half years earlier. As I repeated it in that big airport room, I found myself wondering exactly when I first realized I had been wrong. 

I got to the heart of the matter. “Since you brought it up, I did not leak the story, and it is absurd and offensive you would suggest that.” I wondered if he knew that I had warned Gerry Butts, his principal secretary, that I had been cornered by Robert Fife after Cabinet on February 5 as I came out of the elevator on the ground floor of West Block. Mr. Fife’s questions had been so detailed they indicated something explosive was coming. I rhetorically asked the PM about the leak: “Why would I ever do that?” There was so much I had come to Ottawa to accomplish. For Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. I had traded my life as I knew it to enter federal politics, just as I knew 337 other people had.

Taking myself down, which in any scenario was the most likely outcome of the story leaking, did not advance those causes. Absurd. Like so much else that was to follow. There is no question in my mind that the Prime Minister knew there were attempts to pressure me to avoid a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and while those attempts failed, thankfully, they were wrong and he knew it. Instead of simply addressing the issue publicly and accurately, the government was sending out talking heads – the new attorney-general, David Lametti; Marco Mendicino; Arif Virani – to make comments that evidence has now shown were not accurate or right. I told him that he should be telling Canadians the truth. The Prime Minister seemed to be listening intently. 

“I never directed,” he said, referring to interfering in my role as the attorney-general in relation to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. His public lines started coming, which were designed to deny responsibility and culpability. There are differences between pressure and direction, he emphasized. We talked about our soon to be infamous meeting with the clerk of the Privy Council on September 17, 2018, where I had asked him directly, when SNC-Lavalin was raised, 

“Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney-general? I would strongly advise against it.”

He repeated in that airport room that I was not shuffled from being Minister of justice and attorney-general because of SNC-Lavalin. To which I thought to myself,  oh yes, I remember Scott Brison resigned from Treasury, so, of course, you then had to move the attorney-general and two other ministers and elevate two MPs to fill one spot. Good grief!

As he went on, I suddenly blurted out, “I don’t want you to say anything further about what happened after September 17.” To this day, I am still surprised I said that. I know why I did it and why I wanted him to stop talking – I was trying to leave space open for a constructive solution to the mess the PM and his office had created and that, in my overly optimistic opinion, could still be found. Either the Prime Minister knew everything that had happened and did not care and was clearly lying to me and the country, or he did not know what had been happening during the months after September 17 to try to exert pressure on me and was not in control of his office. He was either complicit or incompetent!!

If it was the former, and the Prime Minister admitted it to me, there was nothing I could do to help address this matter. It was over. Either for him or me. Or even potentially the government. If it was the latter, lord help the country, there still would have been a way to admit everything publicly, address the wrongs, and do better – much better; there still would have been a way to preserve the credibility of our system and respect the rule of law.

As I had in the past, I gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt – for what would be the last time. I made it very clear I did not trust the people around him and that he was being badly advised in this situation. He made it equally clear to me that he would never fire some of them. So I laid out the only other options that existed: The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) stuck with its current approach of changing its story over and over again, which would only make things worse. In which case I would resign. Or he came out and came clean, and we placed our trust in the truth and in Canadians.

I pushed this second option. He said he would think about it and that we would talk again. I left the meeting feeling hopeful – in hindsight, too hopeful. I believed the Prime Minister had actually heard what I had to say and would genuinely think about it. “I am feeling positive,” I told Tim as we drove back home to our condo. That feeling of optimism was short-lived. That evening, while we were out for dinner with my sister and our nieces, a second meeting was arranged for the Prime Minister and me at 7:30 the next morning at the Fairmont Pacific Rim in Vancouver, where he was staying. I am pretty sure I did not get a wink of sleep that night.

As the sun rose across Vancouver on February 11, I was still optimistic that the PM might take my best advice and come clean. When we arrived at the hotel, Tim dropped me off out front. I saw Gerry across the lobby as I entered. He did not acknowledge me, and I felt my positive feelings floating away. The Prime Minister again greeted me casually and kindly at the door of his top-floor suite. But I got the sense that not all was going to go well. He mentioned that his friend owned the hotel as he gave me a quick tour of his suite. It was just the two of us. 

The North Shore Mountains were glistening beyond the picture windows. There was a large sectional sofa and a coffee table with an odd, huge sculpture in the middle that looked as if it was made of glass. The Prime Minister walked over to it and kind of chopped and punched it with his hand, like he was going to break it. It was rubber. He laughed. I was on edge and uncomfortable, so seeing the PM joking around was very disconcerting. Perhaps it was his way of trying to break the tension – although I am not sure he felt any. It kind of made things worse. This all seemed like a game for him. 

The Prime Minister launched the conversation by saying he had thought a lot about what I had said the day before, and then gave me his version of the “Shawcross” doctrine. The doctrine is the principle that states the attorney-general must act with a “judicial mind” and not a “political mind” in exercising responsibilities with respect to criminal matters; it is, of course, something the PM and I had talked about before. Honestly, I cannot tell you how many people have told me they are experts on this doctrine since this SNC-Lavalin story broke. What has always been crystal clear to me – at that moment and throughout – is exactly what my role was as the attorney-general. In the PM’s description and questioning it was clear he had talked to others. I remarked, “You have been talking to a lawyer.” 

We then proceeded to cover the same ground as the day before. I recounted, again, the incidents where pressure was attempted, and he again had excuses or answers for everything. He repeated that he would not clean house or fire anyone, and then he offered up, “If we did, we would not be government in October.” I replied, “I would be surprised if we were in government if you did not clean at least some of the house in some way and call some type of investigation.” I added, “After all, if you are confident you did nothing wrong, then why would you not want to do this?”

This was about the maintenance of the rule of law and the fundamental tenets of our democracy. Surely this was worthy of our attention. He again insisted that no one would be fired. At this point, I could feel the conversation beginning to turn. It was going to get personal, and with that, a bit more heated. He asked if I trusted him. He also asked if I trusted his judgment to build a team. Ugh. Such questions. “I want to believe in you and trust in you,” I replied. “But it is hard to separate the two questions. I do not trust the people around you any longer.” I could see the agitation visibly building in the Prime Minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it. I had seen and felt this before on a few occasions, when he would get frustrated and angry.

But this was different. He became strident and disputed everything I had said. He made it clear that everyone in his office was telling the truth and that I, and by extension Jessica Prince, my chief of staff, and others, were not. He told me I had not experienced what I said I did. He used the line that would later become public, that I had “experienced things differently.” I knew what he was really asking. What he was saying. In that moment, I knew he wanted me to lie – to attest that what had occurred had not occurred. For me, this was just more evidence that he did not know me, did not know who I was or where I was from. Me – lie to protect a Crown government acting badly; a political party; a leader who was not taking responsibility??   He must be delusional!

 As he went on, I stared out the window over to the North Shore. I did not say anything for a while; I was struck with an overwhelming feeling of sadness and loss, and of deep disappointment. I knew then that the path that had led me to being the “Indian” in the Cabinet had veered in a different direction. The work was not over, certainly, but this man was not the leader I had thought him to be. It was clear. Now, it was clear.

I eventually told the Prime Minister that I was feeling uncomfortable and that I wanted to go. I told him the only option he had left me with was to consider whether I could stay in my position or whether I needed to resign, but that I needed to think more. Before I could leave, he started to talk in his aggressive and condescending way about how much work we had done and still had to do. I cut him off and countered, “Don’t blame me for this. This is not my fault.” 

I was laser angry in that moment. I felt him turning on me even more – I could see it in his face, his eyes, and in his mannerisms – because he wasn’t getting his way. I told him I had serious concerns and that my belief in him was very shaken. At some point, he asked me what he should say to the media. He had a media availability ostensibly on housing later that morning. He mentioned a line they were thinking of using: “Her presence in Cabinet speaks for itself …” Can you believe it? I told him I was not going to give him communications advice. How ridiculous. In my opinion, there is no spin on dishonesty. 

I got up and left. I had to think. “

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


“I did not want her to lie,” Trudeau said during a campaign event in Mississauga, Ont., where he started his public remarks by honouring the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. “I would never do that. I would never ask her that. That is simply not true.”

Of course he would never ask her to lie…he would pressure her, twist words, make inferences to get her to do what HE wanted…but no, he would never ask her to lie!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a famous president once said…….Watch your wallets!!


The federal NDP is promising $214 billion in new spending over the next five years, according to a costing breakdown of its platform commitments released Saturday.

The federal NDP is promising $214 billion in new spending over the next five years, according to a costing breakdown of its platform commitments released Saturday.

The PBO in its reports acknowledged uncertainty when it came to the revenue figures.

Singh conceded some uncertainty about the plan, saying it "hasn't been done before" but he argued it's "a real path forward" that "Canadians believe makes sense."

According to party officials speaking on background, the NDP promises are above and beyond what was contained in the 2021-22 budget proposed by the Liberal government and passed by Parliament earlier this year. Even so, the party is projecting lower annual deficits in most years when compared with the Liberal and Conservative platforms, in part, because of an abundance of revenue-generating proposals.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2021 at 9:20 AM, deicer said:

The Conservative platform sure looks different, now that it has numbers in it

Long ago, humans discovered it was impossible to make sense of the world without numbers.

More than 20,000 years ago, our ancestors figured out how to count, and to keep records of what they had counted. The earliest evidence is a tally stick from the Congo, known as the Ishango bone. Roughly 5,000 years ago, the Mesopotamians developed geometry and mathematics, writing down their results on clay tablets.

And on Sept. 8, 2021, the Conservative Party of Canada, whose election platform had hitherto been measured primarily in adjectives and adverbs, discovered numbers.

For the past three weeks, Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole has been running what this page described as the most progressive conservative campaign since the demise of the Progressive Conservatives. His style, tone and (uncosted) platform were all about reassuring swing voters. A series of proposals, from health care to child care, were put forward to demonstrate that, while a Conservative government would be different from the past six years under the Liberals, it would not be too different.

But now that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put numbers to the party’s platform promises, laying out the addition, subtraction, division and multiplication of costs, some real differences have been revealed – expressed in dollars and cents.


The sharpest contrast is between child-care plans. Until the PBO analysis, it was possible to believe that the Liberal and Conservative approaches were different, but not too different. The Liberals plan to give $29.8-billion to the provinces over five years to create more publicly supported, $10-a-day child-care options (they’ve signed deals with seven provinces to date); the Conservatives appeared to be promising to put the money toward giving working parents a direct infusion of cash, through a bulked-up child-care tax credit.

The relative merits of those two approaches would have made for an interesting debate. But not any more: Mr. O’Toole’s child-care platform is no longer anything like its prenumerical self.

It turns out that the Conservatives would replace the nearly $30-billion in child-care transfers to the provinces with just $2.6-billion in child tax credits to individuals. The Conservatives will honour the first year of deals signed by the Liberal government, delivering provinces a one-time transfer of $3.1-billion. But thereafter, the Tories would replace child-care transfers with a child-care tax credit, worth approximately 91 per cent less.

The Conservatives would, however, spend $24.1-billion supporting the least well-paid Canadian workers. The Canada workers benefit is a tax credit for low-income, working Canadians; the Tories would double it, to $2,800 a year for individuals and up to $5,000 for families.

It’s an excellent idea that will reduce poverty without reducing the incentive to work. But no matter how good it may be, it isn’t a national child-care plan.

The Conservative platform also promises spending to encourage business investment and hiring. A proposed post-pandemic Canada Jobs Surge Plan would offer a wage subsidy to companies that take on new workers. Cost: $7.6-billion over two years. A program of tax credits to encourage capital investments would cost $13.8-billion over three years.

But the PBO’s costing of the Conservatives’ signature promise of an extra $60-billion over 10 years in unconditional health transfers to the provinces reveals that only $3.6-billion would flow over the next five years.

Without numbers, the Conservative platform appeared to be one thing. With numbers, it’s a very different thing.

The Conservatives could argue that their platform aims at fiscal responsibility and lower deficits. They could argue that, in their view, the country can’t afford a national child-care program, or a big increase in provincial health transfers – the latter a promise the Liberals aren’t even making – by reason of Ottawa’s postpandemic fiscal situation.

But such arguable propositions aren’t what Mr. O’Toole spent the first two-thirds of the campaign arguing. It isn’t what the largely prenumerate version of his platform said. Quite the contrary.

All of which leads to a question whose answer is beyond the ken of numbers, and entirely within the realm of philosophy: Why? Why did the Conservatives do this – to voters, and to themselves?

Yeah but he is planning to defund the CBC. That alone makes it worth voting for him. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, st27 said:

The federal NDP is promising $214 billion in new spending over the next five years, according to a costing breakdown of its platform commitments released Saturday.

The federal NDP is promising $214 billion in new spending over the next five years, according to a costing breakdown of its platform commitments released Saturday.

The PBO in its reports acknowledged uncertainty when it came to the revenue figures.

Singh conceded some uncertainty about the plan, saying it "hasn't been done before" but he argued it's "a real path forward" that "Canadians believe makes sense."

According to party officials speaking on background, the NDP promises are above and beyond what was contained in the 2021-22 budget proposed by the Liberal government and passed by Parliament earlier this year. Even so, the party is projecting lower annual deficits in most years when compared with the Liberal and Conservative platforms, in part, because of an abundance of revenue-generating proposals.

This is a quote from Wolfhunter I saved 3 years ago. Applies even more now that we have a chance to right the ship SS-CANADA

The evolution of democracy under an extended Liberal incumbency is much like feeding “free access corn” to Meat King chickens. They will gorge themselves at the trough until their bodies outgrow their legs and they collapse under their own weight. That’s not a joke BTW… ask any farmer.

The greedy brutes simply don’t know when to stop and they need to be reigned in for their own good and it needs to be done in a firm and timely manner… “cold turkey” if you will. They don’t like it at first and will flap their wings and squawk in protest.

In a similar manner, left wing, socialist governments will eventually collapse under their own weight; just imagine the effect of 30 years of our current Liberal government. We have a history here, conservatives know they have but a brief time to save the flock before they elect another free feeding proponent who will refill the trough for them.”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAKE UP PEOPLEKIND !!!! Trudeau will find any and every way possible to strip you of your last cent !!!


“Why, for instance, has the Canada Revenue Agency suddenly begun demanding Canadians report the sale of primary residences on their income tax returns, under threat of an $8,000 fine if they fail to do so?”


Say no to home equity tax before it's too late

People spend their entire working lives paying down their mortgages. They then use the value of their homes to fund their retirement or help their children. They shouldn’t have to give a single cent of it to the government.

Now, the Liberals say they’re not planning to introduce such a tax. Good to hear. Then again, the notion is without a doubt floating around in the ether.

So much so, that New Brunswick Liberal candidate Jason Hickey said in an online interview that such a tax was coming — before seeming to walk it back a few moments later.

What’s really going on?

As Lorne Gunter wrote in a recent column: “Why, for instance, has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) suddenly begun demanding Canadians report the sale of primary residences on their income tax returns, under threat of an $8,000 fine if they fail to do so?”

They say it’s to monitor people who are possibly engaged in house flipping and not properly declaring their profits. That’s quite a lot of data they’re pulling in though, about all housing sales.

Whenever government sees a financial transaction going on that they aren’t yet taking a piece from, they invariably start to think about the possibilities.

The Liberal platform does include one form of home sales tax: “We will establish an anti-flipping tax on residential properties, requiring properties to be held for at least 12 months.”

This isn’t for secondary residences. It’s for primary residences. Although the platform clarifies that one can be exempt if a quick sale occurred because of death, divorce, employment issues and others.

That said, this is the beginning of a slippery slope. Once such a policy is brought in, it’s not too difficult to imagine them widening it to capture more homeowners.

This is why — despite Liberal protestations that they’re not planning a home equity tax — Canadians need to speak out in advance and reject it flat out.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 1:23 PM, deicer said:

Maybe you are right in that Trudeau may not put more in my pocket. 

However, they aren't as quick to cut as the conservatives have proven to be.

And like a box of cereal, I don't like paying more to get less.

Perhaps you like other to pay more so you won't get less. The conservatives could do us all a big favour by cutting all the money going to pay people not to work while businesses have trouble finding employees. 

Sorry, but just one of many reasons to toss out this economic disaster of a government.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting how it has become so easy to blame Trudeau for paying people 'not to work'.  

So does this mean that Trudeau's policies are affecting companies globally?  Or should one look to the root cause of businesses requiring slave labour and now complaining because society won't accept that type of work anymore?


It also pertains to inflation.  Is Trudeau also responsible for the global rise in inflation?


Maybe the failings of American style capitalism need to be addressed before they start blaming the 'workers'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'I wish I had never met you,' Wilson-Raybould told Trudeau, she reveals in her new book 

Wilson-Raybould says she's mad at herself now for having once thought Trudeau is an 'honest and good person, when, in truth, he would so casually lie to the public.

On the day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau formally removed Jody Wilson-Raybould as justice minister and attorney general, she approached her successor at the cabinet swearing-in ceremony to deliver a cryptic warning.

First, she congratulated David Lametti on his new role and offered her assistance in the transition.


“Then, purposefully, with (Privy Council Clerk) Michael Wernick standing within earshot, I offered Lametti a warning: ‘Be careful, all is not what it seems,'” Wilson-Raybould writes in her new book, Indian in the Cabinet. “I looked directly at the clerk when I said it. Lametti replied, ‘Noted’.”

Wilson-Raybould’s book, which hits bookstore shelves this week, recounts the story of how she cautiously but optimistically entered politics, became Canada’s first Indigenous justice minister, and then fought against the control exerted by Trudeau’s top staffers Gerald Butts and Katie Telford until it erupted into the SNC-Lavalin scandal


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 8:15 AM, deicer said:


Ridiculous statements don't have credibility. Signatures happen to allow the system to work due to the high number of people that will not pay their bills. 

As if every other country doesn't have similar. Sign a cheque, sign a lease, sign your will, etc, etc.

Perhaps, tell us the real reason, you don't like America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while Trudeau is busy trying to get re-elected in an election that he called in the middle of a pandemic, that parliament voted against having….another international embarrassment following our cowardly exit from Afghanistan:


Canada left out as U.S., U.K., Australia strike deal to counter China

The United States, United Kingdom and Australia are forging a new defence pact meant to contain the military might of China in the Indo-Pacific.

The pact, dubbed AUKUS after the three countries’ initials, does not include Canada, raising the prospect that Ottawa could miss out on intelligence-sharing between some of its closest allies……

Canada, for instance, is the only one of the Five Eyes not to have banned Huawei Technologies from its 5G network. Intelligence experts fear that the Chinese firm could use such access to collect sensitive information and turn it over to Beijing’s spy agencies.

The U.S. and Australia are both currently locked in trade wars with China. Canberra has been feuding with Beijing over Australian demands for an investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The U.K., meanwhile, is in a diplomatic dispute over China’s sanctions of British legislators for criticizing Beijing’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. In response, the British parliament barred China’s ambassador from an event.

Washington first threatened to cut Canada out of intelligence sharing in 2019, unless Ottawa acted on Huawei. Mike Pompeo, who was then secretary of state, told Fox Business that “we won’t be able to share information” or “work alongside” countries that allow Huawei into their 5G networks.

The Canadian government has said for three years that it is trying to decide what to do about Huawei. Ottawa has still not come to a decision……..

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office would not answer questions about AUKUS, including about whether it had been involved in discussions over the pact, or whether it had asked to join or wanted to join in the future. Alex Wellstead, a spokesperson for Mr. Trudeau, referred The Globe and Mail to the government’s foreign affairs department. The department did not respond to questions by deadline.





Remember….Trudeau promised “Canada’s back!!”….. yup, back of the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Junior said:

Ridiculous statements don't have credibility. Signatures happen to allow the system to work due to the high number of people that will not pay their bills. 

As if every other country doesn't have similar. Sign a cheque, sign a lease, sign your will, etc, etc.

Perhaps, tell us the real reason, you don't like America.

Welcome back.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

OTTAWA -- Canadians have chosen minority governments in four of the last six federal elections and Monday's vote seems likely to produce a fifth.

Whether it will be a Liberal or Conservative minority is anyone's guess.

Polls suggest the two parties are locked in a dead heat, neither within reach of winning a majority of seats in the House of Commons -- much as they were in 2019 when Justin Trudeau's Liberals won a relatively stable minority.

But that doesn't mean this election will produce the same result.

Here are some things to keep in mind about how minority governments are formed and what another one might look like:

Another minority looks likely but it could be very different from the last one | CP24.com



Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, st27 said:

And while Trudeau is busy trying to get re-elected in an election that he called in the middle of a pandemic, that parliament voted against having….another international embarrassment following our cowardly exit from Afghanistan:


I really don't see what was cowardly about recent events in Afghanistan. Something happened with the US and we left a long time ago. Whatever happened on Canada's part recently was likely to happen no matter who was in power.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex Murphy: Tales from the front lines of Trudeau's vanity election
Rex Murphy  8 hrs ago
Canada must 'learn from' the pandemic crisis in parts of the West, Tam says
Apprehensions at the southern border surpass 200,000 in August

A scattering of observations as we face electoral doomsday.blanc, Liberal candidate and Trudeau's minister of intergovernmental affairs, in Halifax on Sept. 15, 2021.
Here we are in the last and bitter days of this needless vanity election. The prospect of a majority for either the Liberals or the Conservatives is seen as very slim. Should the result be a minority Liberal government the inutility and opportunistic cast of the election will be cruelly highlighted. Justin Trudeau will have called an election during a surging pandemic only to be returned, weakened, to the status quo ante.

Only in Canada, you say. Pity.

A Globe reporter tweeted during the crowded and possibly-contrary-to-Ontario pandemic protocols rally in Brampton, Tuesday night, “If you want to end this pandemic, go out and vote Liberal, (Trudeau) says.”
What? Is this medical advice? Now, voting for a Liberal government has many signifiers. But, is it now a vaccine? If so, it a one-jabber or a two-jabber?

I had not realized that the way to kill pandemics was outside modern medicine and its many miracles. By Trudeau’s declaration, it is to vote Liberal. In an election called by a Liberal during a pandemic. Before any election had to be called. Perhaps so that the “cure” could be announced at a crowded COVID-inviting rally held by the Liberals during the election they didn’t have to call.

There was a quite telling moment recently when Trudeau was skillfully and respectfully interviewed by Neetu Garcha of Global TV in British Columbia. At the end of the exchange he condescended to tell Garcha that she hadn’t asked the right questions. Now just as a matter of manners, a prime minister lecturing that polite and intelligent interviewer was uncalled for, rude, and smug as hell.

If I can inject a personal note based on some years in television, the smart and gentlemanly (yes, it’s a word) response would have been, “You’re good at this. Toughest interview I’ve had since the campaign began. Congratulations.”  Justin Trudeau is photographed with Jody Wilson-Raybould on Jan. 14, 2019, on the day it was announced she was being demoted to veterans affairs minister from justice minister, after she resisted Trudeau’s attempts to have her intervene in charges against SNC-Lavalin.© Provided by National Post Justin Trudeau is photographed with Jody Wilson-Raybould on Jan. 14, 2019, on the day it was announced she was being demoted to veterans affairs minister from justice minister, after she resisted Trudeau’s attempts to have her intervene in charges against SNC-Lavalin.
Talking down to a woman, as the movie types say, segues nicely into Jody Wilson-Raybould’s new book, which I recommend not only for the SNC-Lavalin stuff and the Trudeau sketches, but also for its revelations on how the Liberal cabinet is ruled by the staff ninjas of the PMO. A revelation which comes at me almost as a horror story is that cabinet ministers were never supposed to communicate directly with the prime minister. None had either his phone number or his email address. They instead had to file through the praetorian guard of Gerry Butts and Katie Telford. I knew backbenchers were almost always treated as servants of the PMO. But cabinet ministers?

The book’s real theme is a storyline from JWR’s initial, eager, full faith in Justin Trudeau as a transformational leader and as a prime minister who would finally deliver on promises to the Indigenous peoples, to her complete disenchantment and disgust (these words are a fair description) with him. She even upbraids herself for being so naïve early on. The hardest line in the account is the terrible statement she made directly to him: “I wish I had never met you.”

And that also — here’s that word again — provides a segue (we’re going from book to book) to another topic.

We learned this week that China, or as we should always say in reference to that country, the Chinese Communist government, has a curious, but selective, appetite for Canadian biography. Trudeau’s autobiography is like a Charles Dickens story — Oliver Twist say — except turned upside down. Its title in China is not Common Ground, as here in Canada. It is (drum roll) The Legend Continues.

As the Sino book blurb might say: “The inspiring story of Justin Trudeau tells of his birth into the most famous and powerful family in Canada, his remarkably untroubled youth, and his ‘play’ and course-jumping years at university. It treads lightly on his ‘blackface’ hobby and follows his challenging careers, including as a snowboarding instructor and a part-time bouncer, until, in his early 40s, he made the casual saunter into the leadership of a whole country. A true legend’s life arc. This book has something for hardly anyone, except for the offspring of super-rich celebrities, or scions of hereditary monarchs. (It is a five-star selection for the popular radio program “Beijing Reads” with commentators from the CCBC, the Communist China Broadcasting Corporation).”

Terry Glavin: The giant panda in the room — why the Trudeau Liberals don't want to talk about China
Jesse Kline: Jagmeet Singh's Fairy Tale about ending oil 'subsidies' is about killing the industry
Readers, I know, will be thirsty for my personal evaluation of these two illustrious life stories. Not since The Confessions of St. Augustine. I prefer to go with a nutritional metaphor to signal my estimation of these works. “Indian in the Cabinet” — a good 16 oz. ribeye, tastiest of steaks. “The Legend Continues” — a plate of arugula, the well-known, bland, cruciferous vegetable.

I’d say about 40 years ago Canada missed the boat, in not appointing Hazel McCallion as governor general for life. (As it has also been shameless is permanently exiling Don Cherry from the Order of Canada, this latter the purest example of snob-bias from the liberal elite in modern Canadian history.)

I base this observation on her observation after she attended the great rally in Brampton, Ont. “I think there should not have been an election during the pandemic. Governments have been saying ‘stay at home, stay away from groups.’ Then an election is called which is bringing groups together.” Hazel is wise beyond her (many and deserved) years.

There are many more stories in this naked election, but let us halt for now.

National Post

Link to comment
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.


  • Create New...