Jump to content

The Conservative Leadership Race

Recommended Posts

On 7/12/2022 at 4:06 PM, mo32a said:

I just voted, and I notice Brown was on the ballot, so he may garner some votes.

He would never ever get my vote.

Just got my ballot and found the instructions a tad confusing so I asked a source with a degree in Political science for the answer.

‘All I want  to do is vote for ONE specific candidate. None of the others In my opinion have any chance of beating the turd.


“ Best advice is put down only Pollievre down as first choice only one time. Leave all other sections blank. The person that comes in last, only their votes are counted on the 2nd ballot etc etc. The people that voted for that losing candidate, only their 2nd choice picks are counted. If Your #1 choice made it through, your ballot will still reflect that. It’s very poorly explained regardless of where you look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kargokings said:

Fake News.   Sure hope this guy does not get the leadership of the Conservative Party as that would likely result in another Liberal Government.

Why do you say it’s fake News? I asked a nephew who runs a Real Estate appraisal business for an opinion and he answered this..


” True stat.  Very true.   Although it does provide opportunity for those that cannot afford homes to get into the market that otherwise could not.

What i love?  And for which i will use in my defence if anything goes sideways
Banks have economists, yet continue to loan money even when they know the market is sinking.  

Lets be honest.  Would you lend one million dollars knowing that you may very well lose 20% of it in 12 months?  Likely not.  But our banks will.  Make sense?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call it fake as it leads one to believe all Mortages are insured etc. 

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, payment deferrals on consumer debt peaked in June 2020. As at June 30, 2020, the following mortgage balances were in deferral:

  • 18.7% insured
  • 15.9% uninsured

Of the mortgage balance in deferral, 33.8% was insured and 66.2% uninsured. In figure 1,

  • the average outstanding balance of insured mortgages in deferral was $248,687. This was 20.6% higher than the average balance of insured mortgages that were not in deferral.
  • the average outstanding balance of uninsured mortgages in deferral was $283,313. This was 32.9% higher than the average balance of uninsured mortgages that were not in deferral.

Deferrals of insured and uninsured mortgages | CMHC (cmhc-schl.gc.ca)

General requirements | CMHC (cmhc-schl.gc.ca)

CMHC Mortgage Rules 2022 | WOWA.ca



Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Just got my ballot and found the instructions a tad confusing so I asked a source with a degree in Political science for the answer.

‘All I want  to do is vote for ONE specific candidate. None of the others In my opinion have any chance of beating the turd.


“ Best advice is put down only Pollievre down as first choice only one time. Leave all other sections blank. The person that comes in last, only their votes are counted on the 2nd ballot etc etc. The people that voted for that losing candidate, only their 2nd choice picks are counted. If Your #1 choice made it through, your ballot will still reflect that. It’s very poorly explained regardless of where you look.

I didn't find it that confusing, you can only vote for each candidate once, if you put a single candidate as your first and second choice, you have spoiled your ballot.

I voted for PP first and LL second, the rest were left blank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex Murphy: The appealing ordinariness of Pierre Poilievre 

Charisma is not the only reason for his popularity. The bungling Liberals have done much to aid that.

The Conservative leadership race is diminished by one. Mathematically 


A couple of weeks ago, Patrick Brown was running to be prime minister of Canada. Now he has signed papers to run for re-election as mayor of Brampton, Ont. This is either a considerable downscaling of his ambitions or a return to a more moderate assessment of his capacity.


It is doubtful however if it has had much, if any, impact on the success of Pierre Poilievre’s campaign, which continues to show unparalleled enthusiasm and very impressive grassroots support.


Naturally the sedate Mr. Poilievre faces some headwinds. It would not be a political campaign if there were not sturdy opposition and even furious criticism from foes both inside and outside his party. There is no spark without flint.


Naturally Poilievre faces some headwinds


Poilievre has the mixed gift of calling up the most — to my mind — intemperate, even furious reactions. Can this gentleman of deliberately limited flamboyance, and if not subdued then at least controlled disposition, really be — as a metropolitan sage recently opined — both “appalling” and possibly “the most dangerous politician in the country right now”?

Appalling? How? Dangerous? In what possible useful sense of the word?


Others shake with fear, or affect so to shake, that Poilievre’s leadership would mean the advent of “hard right-wing” politics, and even worse, the arrival of that most ominous atmospheric, the polar vortex of democratic politics — Trumpism — in this sweet and once untroubled dominion.


Pierre Poilievre? Surely not. There is a bookkeeper element to Mr. P.’s personality (and all hail the bookkeepers, as fine a class of people as you would wish to meet), which contrary to stale stereotype I mean as a compliment. Some of my best friends are bookkeepers. They are quiet, demure and sane.


He is far more temperate than wild, more disposed toward argument and analysis than squalls of rhetoric and unanchored demagoguery. And he has a distinct disinclination to pose. No flowing garments would be ascending to the PM’s office or taken on a tour of a foreign land, should Poilievre occupy the prime minister’s chair.

Indeed, Poilievre reminds me of another Conservative politician who stirred in his opponents the most unbalanced criticisms and accusations, and that is Stephen Harper. Another man of mild disposition, considerable powers of articulation, averse to “show” and display, but who nonetheless prompted savage rebuke and denigration from opponents and certain persons in the media.


I could see the dislike of Harper — this comes with political figures — but I could never understand the fury and excess of the dislike. Most of it struck me as contrived, a forcing of dislike that reality could not justify.


Now let us proceed to the stirring welcomes Mr. P. receives from audiences across the country. May he forgive me for saying this, but I suggest his gigantic charisma is not the full explanation for the phenomena. He has had much help.

Poilievre cannot take credit for the morass at Canadian airports. The mountains of baggage he cannot claim as his achievement; the purgatorial congestion, endless delays, heart-breaking cancellations, missed flights and flights that are no more, at Pearson (the king of our airports) — these are the superb accomplishments of others.


The situation calls for a slogan: Never have more people waited in line, for so little purpose, lost so much baggage, missed so many connections, and slept on the Toronto airport floor, to so little relief.


“ Never have more people waited in line, for so little purpose “


I offer as an addendum: When Canadian airports are a real mess, at least half the Canadian cabinet should be forced to fly Air Canada or WestJet exclusively. They should taste what they cause. They should meet the people in the endless security lineups. They should not be exempt from the conditions they have imposed. Ministers should shuffle with their carry-ons, pace by pace, like everyone else, and share the possibility that once they make it through the security line, they will be arbitrarily wanded, and learn as they get, finally, to the designated gate, that their flights have been delayed or cancelled. It is a good thing to be at one with your citizens.


I would also suggest Jagmeet Singh and his NDP party give a serious review of their decision to be the backup defence line to the supercilious Liberals. All Mr. Singh’s railing about billionaires is a thin fog of a lazy excuse. Which leads to another thought. A government that cannot run its own airports without misery and delay to its own citizens, should decline to offer its expertise on the world’s climate, and drop its prideful pretence that it has anything of consequence to offer on this subject. If it can’t shorten an airport lineup, what hope is there that it can lower the world’s temperature?


Likewise on the passport issue. A government, reduced to buying chairs for citizens waiting in overnight lineups to get their most fundamental document, is a joke. It may be that some Canadians looking on to this farce are giving thought to different leadership. And while Poilievre may not be a brilliantly magnetic option, the sight of someone who has at least some reasonable connection to ordinary life, the normal strains of work and living, and a plausibly modest sense of his own ability to change things, could have serious appeal.


This is a radical thought I know. But worth an airing. Better a person than a poseur.


National Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poilievre promises to approve jets at Toronto's Billy Bishop if plan is revived

Poilievre said allowing the downtown airport to expand would alleviate pressure from Pearson airport, which has been unable to keep up with increased travel volumes


Thu Jul 21, 2022 - National Post
by Catherine Lévesquet

Federal Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre has announced he would approve any revived proposal to allow jets at Toronto’s City Centre airport if he becomes prime minister. 

The push years ago by Porter Airlines to allow jets at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport faced fierce opposition, primarily from waterfront resident organizations championed by local city councillor turned Liberal MP Adam Vaughan. The proposal was killed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government in 2015.

In a press release, Poilievre said allowing the expansion of the downtown airport’s runways to allow for jets that can travel longer ranges than the currently permitted turboprop planes would alleviate pressure from Pearson International Airport, in Mississauga, which has in recent months been unable to keep up with increased travel volumes.

“Travel at Pearson is a mess right now,” he said in his press release. “There could have been way more flights out of Billy Bishop airport in downtown Toronto, meaning more competition and more choice, but the dreadful gatekeepers wouldn’t let it happen.”

“I will reverse Trudeau’s decision to side with them and allow jets to fly in and out of Billy Bishop airport to give people back control of their lives”.

The transport minister at the time the Liberals killed the plan, Marc Garneau, said then that the federal government would not reopen the tripartite agreement between Transport Canada, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Port Authority, which bans jets from flying out of the airport.

Poilievre said that, if he were elected prime minister, he would direct his transport minister to encourage Porter Airlines to put the proposal back on the table and move to reopen the tripartite agreement between the federal government, the city of Toronto and Ontario’s provincial government, in order to allow jets.

People wait in line to check in at Pearson International Airport in Toronto on May 12, 2022. Air Canada and Toronto's Pearson airport again claimed the top spot for delays on Tuesday, marking at least four days in a row where the country's biggest airline has placed No. 1 of any large airline worldwide. The carrier saw 65 per cent of its flights arrive late, while Air Canada Rouge and Jazz Aviation, which provides regional service for Air Canada, took third and second place respectively.

This is easier said than done, said Duncan Dee, a former Air Canada executive. “The federal government doesn’t have the unilateral authority” to open the agreement, and other signatories would have to agree to it, he said.

“And that would include city council in Toronto, who have constituents that are directly opposed to anything even remotely resembling more activity at the island airport,” said Dee, who was involved with the original discussions in Ottawa around this issue at the time.

Dee agreed that Poilievre “wouldn’t be very popular” with the Toronto waterfront condo owners and Toronto Island dwellers in light of the promise, but could rally support from airlines, business groups and even unions if he were to go as far as promising Canadian-built jets during the process.

“That would be a game-changer in terms of how many constituents he could bring on board to support it,” said Dee.

In December 2012, Robert Deluce, president and CEO of Porter Airlines, signed a purchase agreement for up to 30 Bombardier CS100 aircraft, making his airline the “Canadian launch customer” of the manufacturer’s new CSeries models.

But the conditional purchase order was dependent on changes in the tripartite agreement that would allow jets at the downtown airport where Porter is based. That put the federal government in a difficult position in saying no to a deal involving the Quebec-based plane maker.

Porter Airlines is looking to expand its offer to Eastern Canada as well as leisure destinations in Canada, the United States, Mexico and the Caribbean. It announced earlier this week the acquisition of 20 passenger jets from Brazilian manufacturer Embraer, which it plans to fly out of other airports, including Pearson International Airport.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conrad Black: Charest and Poilievre have an opportunity to build bridges between English and French Canada

Conrad Black - 2h ago
React15 Comments|
  • Share

The federal Conservatives are having an interesting leadership contest despite a new framework that seems ingeniously designed to make selecting a party leader as soporifically boring as possible. It is absurdly long, avoids the old-style convention of platitude-fests and suspenseful, shabby backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms. Instead, a computer will process a complicated ballot that reflects delegates’ order of preference of the candidates, followed by an antiseptic announcement of the winner. If a second ballot is required, there will likely be a charade of suspense and an hour of thumb-twiddling and coma-inducing punditry, though the machine will almost certainly have already produced the final result. The powers that be in all of the political parties would reinvigorate interest in Canada’s politics if they required a shorter campaign period ending at an old-fashioned convention. Two of the greatest political speeches delivered in Canada in the last 60 years were Pierre Trudeau’s candidates’ address to the federal Liberal leadership convention of 1968: “Yes, we (French-Canadians) must be masters in our own house (maitres chez nous), but our house is Canada”; and Claude Wagner’s address to the 1970 Quebec Liberal convention, which began: “We shall look each other in the eye and say what must be said — I am a federalist, period” (it was more dramatic in French). Endless campaigns leading to computerized print-outs like ATM emissions are helping to reduce our politics to tasteless pablum.

Conservative leadership candidates Jean Charest, left, and Pierre Poilievre take part in a leadership debate in Edmonton on May 11.
© Provided by National PostConservative leadership candidates Jean Charest, left, and Pierre Poilievre take part in a leadership debate in Edmonton on May 11.
With that said, the principal Conservative leadership candidates have emerged clearly. Jean Charest, the youngest cabinet minister in Canadian history in the Mulroney government, a former leader of the old federal Progressive Conservatives and a three-term Liberal premier of Quebec (where the Liberals are effectively a liberal-conservative coalition, as in British Columbia), has shown himself to be experienced, amiable, witty and well-informed. His policies are centrist and pragmatic. He is attached like a limpet to whatever policy seems to enjoy majority support, and is averse to anything that is hard to explain or can be portrayed as immoderate. If he is elevated by his party and elected prime minister, Canada would enjoy a quantum leap in the competence and good sense of its leader, with no diminution in his personal charm. Next to Brian Mulroney, Jean Charest would be the most formidably presentable leader the federal Conservative party has had since John A. Macdonald. Thoroughly bilingual, very experienced, unflaggingly moderate, he personifies the gracious and elegant tradition of French-Canadian political leaders — the school of George-Etienne Cartier, Ernest Lapointe and Daniel Johnson — though not of the stature of Wilfrid Laurier, Louis St. Laurent and Pierre Trudeau. He would substantially raise Conservative support in Quebec and lead a government that would balance ecological and commercial interests, would inoffensively end the absurd Justin Trudeau-era obsession with gender issues and would work with Indigenous leaders to improve the lot of their people and end the present government’s national prostration of luridly exaggerated guilt. Jean Charest would be better than what we have, but probably neither innovative nor even particularly conservative.

Pierre Poilievre has emerged as an authentic and thoughtful conservative who’s devoted to reducing authoritarian interference in the lives of Canadians, lowering taxes and promoting individual choice. He is a bilingual English-Canadian with a partially francophone background, and he would be only the second altogether authentic conservative who has led his party since the retirement of George Drew in 1956. Stephen Harper was the other and Poilievre would be a considerably more affable and imaginative promoter of conservatism than Harper was. Poilievre is firm but not inflexible and imaginative but not elastic. He would sell cutting-edge Reagan-Thatcher conservatism as a viable option, expand the moderate right, end the Conservative competition with the Liberals for the support of soft-left voters and leave the Liberals and the NDP to demarcate the border between soft and hard left.

I would support either of these men and have already expressed in this space the reasons for my preference for Poilievre. I should add that Patrick Brown seems to me to have once again been shabbily treated by the Conservative party apparatus, but he was unlikely to place higher than third.

What has been principally missing in this campaign, especially given that Charest was premier of Quebec and Poilievre is a French-speaking Ottawa MP, is the failure of both men to comment on Quebec’s repressive Bill 96. Most readers will know that this measure will effectively deprive the English language of any official status in Quebec, even in offices of the federal government and the workplaces of federally chartered corporations, and that it decrees reduced numbers of those attending Quebec schools and junior colleges where English is the language of instruction. In all respects, this is oppressive and profoundly offensive to the more than 75 per cent linguistic majority of this country (which provides Quebec with $13 billion in equalization payments annually). Next to the Trudeau government’s false and outrageous confession that Canada has committed genocide against Indigenous people, its complete failure to emit one muted squeak of support for the rights of the more than one million English-speaking Quebecers over Bill 96 is the greatest of its many failings. Because the government of Quebec has had to seek a large number of francophone immigrants from Haiti, North Africa and Lebanon, who have no interest in Quebec nationalism, in order to shore up the province’s collapsed post-Catholic birth rate, separatism doesn’t fly as it once did, but cultural oppression still has its allure.

The cowardly abdication of the federal government from criticism of this bigoted Quebec language policy, which will be a total failure anyway since even the most rabid Quebec nationalists would benefit from speaking the language of the vast majority of people on this continent north of Mexico, is not diminished by the fact that the federal Conservatives, under their former leader, cravenly abdicated with no discussion of the subject in lock-step with the Trudeau Liberals. Both principal candidates for the Conservative leadership can legitimately aspire to raising Conservative support in Quebec and neither is going to get any nationalist votes in Quebec anyway. They could pick up almost all of Quebec’s traditionally Liberal non-francophone population if they spoke up. Charest agreed with separatist Premier Lucien Bouchard in 1999 that Quebec could secede from Canada with 50 per cent plus one vote on a fuzzy referendum question, contrary to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s Clarity Act. His silence on this issue now is unbecoming. And Poilievre, in all other respects a tribune of personal freedom, does a disservice to his campaign by not denouncing Bill 96, which goes to the heart of Canada as a free, bicultural country. Serious aspirants to be leader of the Opposition must oppose this outrage now. The whole country is waiting for them to speak boldly, where Trudeau has surrendered.

National Post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Falken said:

Besides unsubscribing multiple times how can you stop the e-mails from the Charest camp (replied several times with each one getting more in your face)😡 

Everyone who's a member of the party is fair game for any and all marketing, phone calls and solicitations for donations.  In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's not possible to ever get off the list even if you let your membership expire!  Just add him to your spam filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Harper endorses Pierre Pollievre



That's pretty good but I'd rather just have Harper himself back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winner of one majority in five tries says Poilievre has what it takes


Wed Jul 27, 2022 - The Globe and Mail
by Andrew Coyne


'The party has not expanded its appeal to a broader section of the electorate. It has simply burrowed deeper into a narrow and highly excitable vein of it.'

So Stephen Harper thinks Pierre Poilievre is the best choice to lead the federal Conservatives, on the grounds that he is the candidate most likely to win the next election.

This is big news. After all, who knows more about winning elections than Stephen Harper: the leader who took a certain Conservative victory in 2004 – the year of the sponsorship scandal – and turned it into a Liberal minority; who in 2006 turned a certain Conservative majority into a Conservative minority; who eked out another minority in 2008 against the historically inept Stéphane Dion; and who, after finally winning a potentially realigning majority in 2011 threw it away over the next four years.

At the end of which – after nearly 10 years in power – he departed with next to nothing in the way of a policy footprint: at least, of a conservative policy footprint. The Harper Conservatives jettisoned every principle that he or they had ever stood for, from democratic accountability to a strong defence to balanced budgets to free markets. And they still won but a single majority in five attempts. They sold their souls, and got nothing in return; swung for the lowest common denominator, and missed. All that remains of Mr. Harper’s legacy, the sole basis for his reputation as an unbending conservative, is his scowl: a petulant Cheshire cat.

So Mr. Harper’s endorsement of Mr. Poilievre is a big deal, especially among those who think Mr. Harper’s example is to be emulated or his judgment is to be trusted. Still, the supposition, apparently widespread, that the most unpopular minister in a deeply unpopular government has now become an unstoppable political phenomenon, based solely on his ability to turn out the anti-vaccine vote, seems to have emerged from the same strange universe in which Mr. Harper is a master strategist and principled conservative.

The news that the number of Conservative Party members had ballooned, in the course of a largely uninteresting leadership race featuring a notably undistinguished field, from roughly 160,000 to 675,000 – some 312,000 of which were signed up by Mr. Poilievre’s campaign – has been widely hailed as a sign both of the party’s health and of Mr. Poilievre’s electability.

Were there any reason to think these new members were representative of the population, or even of Conservative voters, that would be a safe assumption. But as the vast majority seem to have been attracted by Mr. Poilievre’s message – that the government, in league with the Bank of Canada and the World Economic Forum, is watching your every move, and is preparing still greater terrors to come – there is ample reason to doubt it. The party has not expanded its appeal to a broader section of the electorate. It has simply burrowed deeper into a narrow and highly excitable vein of it.

It has, in short, engineered its own takeover by a fringe movement. The convoy supporters and single-issue zealots to whom Mr. Poilievre has successfully marketed himself may be sufficient in number to overwhelm a three-time-loser opposition party, but it is far from clear they offer the kind of base from which to take the country. That’s borne out by recent polling from Angus Reid, among others. Mr. Poilievre does better than his more mainstream rival, Jean Charest, among Conservative and People’s Party voters. He does worse among centrist and Liberal voters: increasingly up for grabs, amid rising discontent with the government, and crucial to the party’s hopes of winning a majority.

If it were just a debate between “turn out the base” vs “broaden the base,” indeed, the matter would appear to have been settled by recent Conservative election losses. Mr. Poilievre’s strategy, on the other hand, appears to be to turn out an altogether new group of potential voters: those who don’t vote. We shall see how well this turns out. The thing about non-voters, after all, is that they don’t tend to vote. Maybe Mr. Poilievre’s vague promises to give them back “control” of their lives will succeed where others have failed, even after the vaccine mandates have ceased to serve as convenient irritants. The leadership vote will be an early test.

But for every voter Mr. Poilievre excites to come out to vote for him, there must be another who is just as excited to vote against him. There can have been few more polarizing political leaders in recent Canadian political history. And if there is one thing ideally suited to the perennial Liberal strategy of stampeding the left-of-centre vote into the Big L corral, it is a polarizing Tory leader. If the Liberals succeeded at painting such relative milquetoasts as Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole as scary, heaven only knows what they will do with Mr. Poilievre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/26/2022 at 11:56 AM, Kargokings said:

Me too.  

Given a choice…Me Three…..but the reality is Pollievre is the best on offer. Has anyone else noticed the underlying panic about Pollievre in the leftist MSM. Much like they did with Scheer, they are doing every thing possible to shed a negative light on the man.

Proof positive Conservatives have a winner in Pierre 

Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Proof positive Conservatives have a winner in Pierre 

You're the third person I've heard say that in 24 hrs.

Makes you wonder if CBC (and their ilk) even realize how badly they've hurt their brand and how much they've negatively effected journalistic integrity across the board.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

Makes you wonder if CBC (and their ilk) even realize how badly they've hurt their brand and how much they've negatively effected journalistic integrity across the board.   

Hurt their brand?  Haha, you're funny.  The CBC thinks everything is going swimmingly - how could it be otherwise when their paycheques and bonuses keep getting larger?  And, in the unlikely, (IMO) chance that things do take a turn for the worse for them they still won't own the problem but will blame it on the "extreme right-wing" fringe, MAGA, homophobes  and white male misogynist colonials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poilievre Derangement Syndrome is at an all-time high!

Last week, Conservative party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre released a video that went instantly viral and drove the left completely insane. His message was that Canadians can reclaim their freedoms and their way of life in the same manner that people reclaim barn board. The left believes that anyone who uses the word “reclaim” must be a “racist” and a white supremacist so, naturally — Poilievre’s video drove them all insane.

Also, a viral clip of a Nigerian official pretending to faint while being grilled about allegations of corruption may have just given Trudeau’s cabinet a new strategy for avoiding questions in front of committees.

Plus, British Columbia NDP MP Rachel Blaney didn’t want to go back to work after the Canada Day long weekend so she gave her staff and herself the day off on Monday in solidarity with “American people who are pregnant.”

Finally, Jagmeet Singh takes home the Ratio of the Week Award for getting very upset at the “shameful” government he is propping up through his coalition with Justin Trudeau.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is written by Leslyn Lewis.

A political prisoner is defined as “a person imprisoned for their political beliefs and actions.”

This definition begs the question of whether Trucker Convoy organizer Tamara Lich is a political prisoner.

In a previous letter, I outlined the fact that the first judge who detained Tamara was a former Liberal candidate, and the crown attorney who prosecuted Tamara had donated over $17,000 to the Liberal Party since 2013.

The fact that that we have to ask if Canada has political prisoners, speaks to the state of our declining democracy. But there seems to be no depth that Justin Trudeau and the Liberals will not sink to in order to control our thoughts, actions and even our democratic institutions.

We never imagined our government would invoke the Emergencies Act without exhausting existing options and without a request from law enforcement – but that happened.

We also never conceived that Canadians could be targeted for their political views, their property confiscated and their bank accounts frozen out of a political vendetta – but that too occurred in our democracy.

These events have sent tremors into the hearts of Canadians, some of whom have picked up and left this country out of fear that we are descending into a full-blown dictatorship. Some patriots I’ve met have even been put on a terrorist watch list just for attending the Freedom Convoy protest.

Tamara was recently released from jail after being arrested for allegedly breaching her bail conditions at a civil liberties awards gala event. Tamara, who is a 49-year-old Métis grandmother with no criminal record, spent 49 days in jail awaiting trial for charges stemming from her role as a Freedom Convoy organizer.

The Crown argued that she was a danger to the public and would likely reoffend, despite the fact that all of her charges were non-violent in nature.

In this extraordinary case, Tamara appeared before the court 5 times relating to bail conditions – [see the table summary of her case at the bottom of this email].

A Political Prisoner? Summary of the Evidence

Here are the facts leading up to Tamara’s latest arrest and bail hearings:

  • Tamara’s original bail conditions prohibited her from communicating with any convoy organizers EXCEPT in the presence of her lawyer or through her lawyer.
  • The alleged bail breach happened at a civil liberties awards gala where Tamara was receiving an award on June 16th, 2022; she was seen interacting with fellow convoy leader, Tom Marazzo. There were pictures and a video that showed her sitting at the same table as Mr. Marazzo and giving her acceptance speech. Upon returning to the table, she passes by Mr. Marazzo, touches his back and whispers something in his ear. The entire interaction lasted no more than 3 seconds. No breaches were related to the content of her speech.
  • An Ontario warrant for her arrest was issued on June 22nd. In an unorthodox move, on June 24th the Ottawa Crown Attorney extended the warrant to Canada-wide status so Tamara could be arrested in Alberta. However, still without a valid warrant that could be executed in Alberta, Tamara was still arrested by police in Medicine Hat on June 27th. The following day, the Crown in Alberta obtained a remand “to enable police in Ontario to get the warrant endorsed for arrest in Alberta. Two investigators in the homicide unit with the Ottawa Police Service, travelled to Alberta to execute the warrant once it had been endorsed for execution in Alberta” and they returned Tamara to Ontario.

In his ruling, Superior Court Justice Andrew Goodman found the Justice of the Peace who had previously denied Tamara bail had “overstated” the impact of the contact made between Tamara and Marazzo at the gala.  Justice Goodman rejected the Justices of the Peace’s conclusion that “vulnerable victims of the February freedom trucker convoy protest” would continue to live in fear of a “re-occurrence of the protests…”.

Justice Goodman took issue with the Justice of the Peace’s reliance upon an irrational fear. He stated:

“It is not reasonable to draw the inference that an interaction of less than three seconds  in public at an awards ceremony as well as a group photograph and related, albeit brief  contact giving rise to the potential for a breach of terms would reasonably cause such  fear.”

Justice Goodman emphasized the presumption of innocence that is entrenched in our Charter and noted that it is important not confuse bail with being on trial: “…whether or not the applicant participated in any criminal conduct will ultimately fall to be decided by a trial court.”

Justice Goodman scolded the Justice of the Peace, he state that:

“I find that the Justice of the Peace’s reasons suffer from erroneous conclusions of the  relevant legal issues and he misapprehended the evidence when addressing the  secondary and tertiary ground concerns. As the Justice of the Peace’s decision is  clearly inappropriate, the detention order must be set aside.”

He also dismissed the concern that Tamara was a danger to the public – and noted that she abided by strict bail terms for 4 months, and she sought permission before attending the gala.

Justice Goodman echoed a previous bail decision by Justice Phillips stating:

The bail process is not the forum to address the myriad of opinion or issues arising  from Ms. Lich’s or the Freedom Convoy’s disruption of the public peace or behaviour or  to advance a political or social position one way or the other. I also agree with Phillips J.  that no court would ever seek to control the possession or manifestation of political  views.” (emphasis added)

The issue of public fear was raised in every bail hearing and also by the Justice of the Peace that oversaw the warrant. Justice Goodman reminds us of the importance of balancing fears with the presumption of innocence and upholding the Charter:

“In my opinion, a reasonable member of the community, informed of the principles of  fundamental justice and Charter values and who appreciates the presumption of  innocence and the constitutional right to reasonable bail would not view Ms. Lich’s  release with great shock and indignation.”

The Verdict

So, the answer is yes. Tamara does meet the definition of a political prisoner – she was imprisoned for her political beliefs and actions. In fact, two agents of the court had Liberal ties and did not recuse themselves from Tamara’s case. In addition, she was arrested in Alberta before a valid warrant in Alberta was issued. And, the grounds cited by the Justice of the Peace in denying her bail were clearly flawed.

Finally, two judges – Justice Phillips and Justice Goodman – made reference to the fact that people cannot be jailed because of their political beliefs. This was a clear sign that the Liberal political vendetta had infested our legal system, and it took two judges to call it out and bring balance back to the justice system and remind us all that “no court would ever seek to control the possession or manifestation of political views“. 

Sadly, over the past two years under COVID-19, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have created an environment that has undermined our institutions for political gains. Under the guise of protecting people’s health and safety, we have seen the erosion of our constitutional rights, and seen our justice system, law enforcement, health system and media weaponized to silence political opponents.

This environment normalized charging and disciplining doctors with dissenting opinions, charging pastors who held outdoor drive-in services for their church members, freezing bank accounts and confiscating property of protesters, publicly shaming and disclosing the addresses of people who donated to a democratic movement, and numerous other public character assassinations. This Liberal government even barred duly elected Members of Parliament from taking their seat in the House of Commons in the name of public health even though they knew that the vaccine did not prevent transmission of covid.

These dictatorial acts have dangerously eroded the foundations of our democracy and the rule of law. The Liberals penchant for weaponizing institutions to silence their political opponents is undermining the very pillars that should be holding society together.

Tamara Lich is just one example of what happens when government uses its power to control Canadians, to inflame hate and division and to infest independent institutions with political operatives.

The only solution to cure the fragility of our democracy is to have citizens of all political stripes acknowledge the dangerous course that we are on, and to have courageous leaders involve checks and balances that will compel institutional actors to publicly declare conflicts as well as amend the Emergencies Act to require a minimum of 2/3 of parliament to invoke it.


  • Thanks 3
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...