EDITORIAL: A petty-minded response to a gracious adversary - "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau showed a child-like naïveté in responding to O’Toole’s testimony. Speaking to reporters this week, he shrugged off O’Toole’s comments as sour grapes from a loser. “I can understand why someone who lost an election is trying to look for reasons other than themselves why they might have lost an election,” he said. “The outcomes of those elections were decided by Canadians, not by anyone else.” He suggested the Conservatives were playing “partisan games” with the inquiry. For the record, O’Toole not only got more votes than Trudeau in that election, the Conservatives won more of the popular vote. It was hardly a resounding defeat. It also shows a shocking disregard for the inquiry. Trudeau is, in effect, pre-judging the outcome of whatever the commissioner, Madam Justice Marie-Josee Hogue, may conclude. Move on, nothing to see here. He should let the inquiry run its course and listen to the commissioner’s conclusions before spouting off about people playing games. O’Toole has been careful not to cast aspersions about the credibility of the election. He’s not a whiner. When he was ousted as leader by his caucus, he quit politics graciously and with dignity. He’s now cheerfully ensconced in the private sector. No finger-pointing. No playing political games. It’s Trudeau who’s sounding petty-minded and partisan, using an inquiry his government dragged its feet over to score political points about a former adversary. Too bad he can’t show the same class O’Toole did — recognize his time is up and move on."
Meme - Andrew Coyne @acoyne: "In all of Canada, the PM could not have found someone who was not a) a lifelong "close" family friend, b) a previous appointee of his, c) a member of the Trudeau Foundation, or d) the chair of a foundation that received millions from the Trudeau govt..."
Gerald Butts @gmbutts: "I used to think the Globe was above this sort of thing. Not under its current leadership it isn't."
Licia Corbella @LiciaCorbella: "That's because you don't understand how a newspaper works. You want the ownership or the editors of the Globe to kill @acoyne's column because you don't agree with it? There's tyranny in your Tweet. Thank heavens you don't run anything important anymore."
Criticising the media is only fascist if you threaten the left wing agenda
Michael Higgins: Does Trudeau realize he's been the prime minister for the last 8 years? - "The prime minister keeps promising to tackle the latest “crisis” as if it had only just arisen, rather than being a problem created by the Liberals. On Friday, Trudeau pledged to “solve the housing crisis” — that would be an issue that until a few months ago the prime minister said had nothing to do with the federal government. Now, it’s not only within the federal government’s remit, but it’s so urgent that the Liberals released what they called their most “comprehensive and ambitious housing plan ever seen in Canada.” “It used to be that the deal was if you worked hard at a good job, you could afford a home. That doesn’t seem the case anymore,” said the prime minister. “That’s not fair.” But, but, but … but the Liberals have been in power eight years. The cost of mortgages and rent have skyrocketed under their watch. People can’t afford a home because Liberals put it out of their reach. Two weeks ago, the prime minister seemed to have another lapse of memory when he appeared shocked that Canada had an immigration problem, a major driver of the housing crisis... the latest RBC Housing Affordability report shows the income needed to own a home in Canada now stands at a “staggering” 63.5 per cent. In Vancouver it’s 106 per cent. When Trudeau came to power in October 2015 that income figure stood at 39.3 per cent. “We made a promise to Canadians that we were going to solve the housing crisis, so we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work,” the prime minister said Friday. But that exact promise was made eight years ago. “Trudeau promises affordable housing for Canadians,” was the headline on a Liberal press release in September 2015 — even before he became prime minister. Now the prime minister is reduced to telling Canadians that this time he’s serious. “This isn’t simple slogans. It’s not some YouTube video filled with half-baked ideas and inaccuracies. This is a serious plan,” he said. Right, sure. Eight years of slogans and half-baked ideas, but this time it’s real... Freeland will present the Liberal budget — the eighth since Trudeau came to power. That’s seven previous budgets that were squandered opportunities, that’s seven times the Liberals could have put young people entering the workforce on the road to a middle-class life. “Too many younger Canadians feel that the dream of getting your first set of keys, of owning your own house is just that, a dream,” said Freeland. It’s almost as if she is admitting that eight years of a Trudeau government have been a nightmare. “We are using every single tool in our toolbox,” said Freeland. Hurrah, the Liberals have found the toolbox"
Justin Trudeau's well-rehearsed testimony reassures no one - "I sat in the beautiful Bambrick Room of the Library and Archives Canada building and witnessed the Prime Minister of Canada along with his key ministers give sworn evidence to the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions (PIFI)... For more than a year, Trudeau and his government have been unwilling to provide any real insight into what information CSIS or our other intelligence services had shared with them about allegations of hostile ideological opponent states’ secretly meddling in our politics. While the public had been alarmed and outraged by extraordinary media reports of leaks by ex-CSIS operatives claiming the People’s Republic of China had lent support—in the form of delivering nominations voters and untraceable funds via proxies—to candidates it considered strategically better suited to its cause, Trudeau was essentially mum on what, if anything, his government had been told about it or had done about it. Other than “no comment” on questions of what he had been told and when, all Trudeau would really say up until his testimony was that there was not a shred of evidence that the overall electoral outcome had been impacted, or the democratic will of the people had been consequentially undermined. It is important to stress that, thankfully, he is right about this–though that comes as cold comfort to the handful of candidates whose ridings were potentially affected by the interference. But then, on the stand and under oath, Trudeau appeared to open up. The prime minister was clear that he, his advisory team, and his ministers had indeed received many briefings from CSIS and other bodies about foreign interference—in particular, focusing upon the efforts of the People’s Republic of China to skew nomination contests where election candidates are chosen by local members. Strangely and surprisingly, the prime minister explained that he in fact does not tend to read said intelligence briefings, but instead relies on advisors to brief him orally... It is technically legally correct to say that, very often, mere intelligence cannot be the basis for criminal investigation or professional discipline. However, that should not distract from the fact that good intelligence should and must serve as the basis for real political and policy action. Why Trudeau and company subsequently took none remains inexcusably unanswered. If you accept Trudeau and the company’s testimony that CSIS had repeatedly provided them with warnings that nominations and the donations system were prone to foreign capture since just before the 2019 election, why were no steps taken to plug those holes for 2021—or for 2025 and beyond?... Seeking my own nomination for the Liberals in Scarborough in 2015—and working on the ground at many others on the east of Toronto around that time—I have seen many busloads of confused-looking, homogenous groups being herded by “community leaders” with clear instructions on who to vote for (and occasionally, names written on their forearms in Sharpie). And I have seen friends have piles of supporters’ memberships expire with the turning of the calendar to a new year just as high-profile candidates have entered the contests late. However, levers go both ways, and foreign governments appear to have jumped on the Liberal Party of Canada’s unique allowance of foreign nationals with student visas to have a say in who will ultimately stand for election in a given riding. Surprisingly, the party does not require aspiring members to be citizens or even permanent residents. They must simply “ordinarily live in Canada.” Facing mild questioning at the inquiry on why such a practice would be permitted, now-Independent MP Dong offered the argument that inclusion provides foreign nationals with a first taste of the experience of the democratic process. While this argument may hold more sway for permanent residents who are rooted in Canadian society and further removed from the reach of the often hostile governments of their countries of origin, it is more difficult to swallow for mere students, who potentially remain under their nefarious thumbs."
John Ivison: Trudeau sounds like someone with something to hide - "did the prime minister put partisan interest ahead of the national interest by turning a blind eye — or worse, encouraging — China’s meddling in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections to benefit the Liberal party’s electoral fortunes. There are people within the security services who believe he did. One senior source told me last year he considers the Liberal party to be “a co-conspirator” with Beijing because it failed to act on information provided by the security agencies... Beijing’s support for the Liberal party — and possible Liberal party complicity — does not have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to make voters queasy. The allegation in a recent Globe and Mail article that Dong was warned by someone in the Liberal party that he was being watched by CSIS will hardly reassure the public. As Johnston noted, democracy is built on trust and that priceless commodity is in short supply when it comes to the electoral system. A Leger poll last spring said one in five Canadians does not trust the reliability of elections and nearly one in three does not believe they are open and fair. Trudeau was persuaded to do the right thing, in the form of a public inquiry — only after all his other options had been exhausted. He has tried to resist all external scrutiny of the issue. He maintained on Wednesday that this was because of a reluctance to discuss security tradecraft in a public forum. Yet that is only the latest pretext. When the allegations of foreign interference were first raised, he said the media reporting was false and that even discussing the issue was damaging to democracy. When the specifics of Dong’s nomination were leaked last year, Trudeau all but played the race card and said it was not up to unelected security officials to dictate to political parties who could or could not run. But a more plausible explanation is that the prime minister does not want a light shone on an association with China that has proven to be mutually beneficial... China has for at least a quarter of a century tried to engineer the nomination of people sympathetic to Beijing by stacking meetings with paid-for supporters. CSIS even has footage of one candidate receiving cash from a Chinese official. The difference in more recent years is the scale of the efforts and the apparent willingness of the government to look the other way — a tendency that has become a habit when it comes to this country’s diaspora politics... The Chinese must be delighted with the way things have gone: a minority Liberal government in Ottawa and a slump in confidence in Canadian democracy. David Mulroney, a former Canadian ambassador in Beijing, put it well on the X social media platform when he said China’s preference for the Liberal party is “rock-solid and unchanging.” “The CCP (Chinese Communist Party’s) assessment is that the Liberal Party leadership is astoundingly naive, remarkably uninformed and reliably unprincipled,” he said."
John Ivison: The new Liberal defence policy's in no hurry to face dangerous global realities - "For many years, there was no political payback for increasing defence expenditure, so governments in Ottawa didn’t bother. But recent polls suggest voters are sufficiently spooked by events in Ukraine and the Middle East, not to mention by the prospect of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, to urge Ottawa to start taking defence seriously again... Even Defence Department officials could not answer how much of the new money will be clawed back under the government’s spending cuts (we know that $2.5 billion on a cash basis will be cut over the next three years)... Despite the recognition of the increased threats, this is a business-as-usual document, with most of the spending planned over a 20-year time horizon — a phrase used 16 times. There is no particular hurry to right the ship, despite Trudeau noting the years of underfunding. Canada buys military equipment at the pace of coastal erosion, a problem which Our North acknowledges and promises to fix. “We will make procurement more transparent and reliable,” the prime minister said. Easy to say but hard to do: the Liberals promised in their 2015 election platform that equipment would be acquired faster."
John Ivison: The decline and fall of Canada - "An Environics poll last year said 58 per cent of Canadians are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, with discontent across all regions and all age groups. An Angus Reid Institute survey on life satisfaction in 2023 said 51 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with life in general... Pride in being Canadian is falling in some regions and age-groups, compared to five years ago — particularly in Western Canada and among millennials. When the majority of citizens don’t believe the status quo is working for them, it produces demands for alternative arrangements. Alberta’s government seems intent on de facto separation, pushing back on federal legislation and regulations through its Sovereignty Act; musing about creating a provincial police force and tax collection agency; and proposing to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan. Saskatchewan is already refusing to collect the carbon tax, as a challenge to federal authority. In Quebec, Parti Québécois leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon would likely head up a majority separatist government if an election were held tomorrow. He has pledged that the province will hold a third independence referendum, should his party take power. He calls Ottawa “an existential threat” and said Canada is no longer a federation “but an increasingly unitary state, where (Quebec’s) political weight will be less than one-fifth.” As prime minister for the past eight-and-a-half years, much of the blame for this diminishment of national pride rests with Justin Trudeau. His activist agenda aims to impose more egalitarian outcomes by government fiat — and to condemn those who don’t buy into the vision as being uninformed, irresponsible or motivated by ulterior purpose. Arguably, it is the reason why his Liberal party is trailing by 20 points in most polls. Albertans and Quebecers share a common resentment about federal intrusion into areas that are clearly provincial jurisdiction. As André Pratte pointed out , the new renters’ bill of rights interferes with the Civil Code of Quebec, which has been recognized as the province’s civil law since 1774. Such “arrogance” provides fuel for the province’s resurging separatist movement, Pratte argued. Trudeau promised to be the great unifier after the Harper years but it has not worked out like that. The increase in the capital gains inclusion rate in this month’s budget was the latest example of the baked-in hostility toward anyone deemed “wealthy” or “privileged.” Trudeau has repeatedly engaged in wedge politics for partisan advantage, rather than trying to bridge the divides."
LEDREW: Trudeau's not leaving and he's rigged it so no one can force him out - "As the chatter about the need for Justin Trudeau to retire (for the sake of the country) rises to heights heretofore unknown in any political debate in history, many Canadians question why either the Liberal MPs, or the Liberal Party itself, cannot do something. Primarily, it must be acknowledged that it is far better to be in power, with all its perks, than in opposition, so why call an election before you absolutely have to? Keep the jets and staff and multitudinous other perks until the very last moment. Wring it dry. And, even though by every indicator of prosperity and freedom, Canada is performing about as successfully as an aged weightlifter running in the Boston Marathon, it is still a member of the G7, which is meeting in Canada next year. You know that our picture-loving PM would not give up the opportunity for international press for anything, even self-respect. So he will not leave on his own accord. And no one would believe for a second that even a handful of MPs would dare demand that the PM resign — they have their pensions to protect — and for most it’s the best job they will ever have... The Liberal Party was a body that supported the leader, but tempered any excess. Leaders came and went, but the Party was the constant, and provided the creative tension when all else (like the caucus) failed. But that is no longer. It was gelded first by successors to Chretien, who changed the Constitution of the Party to remove the need for a vote on leadership within a year of an election — a little-understood clause that kept Leaders from assuming unbridled power. Then Justin Trudeau kicked all the sage Liberal Senators out of caucus, and then ignored every wise and seasoned Liberal Party member – “I’ve got this now, and don’t need your advice,” was the mantra emanating time and time again from the PMO. Even at the height of his power, as he was leading his country to victory, Winston Churchill deferred on occasion to his cabinet when it took a hard stand against his wishes — that is called Parliamentary Democracy. Justin Trudeau is no Winston Churchill, and we are learning daily that his cabinet ministers are not of the stature of Churchill’s Wartime Cabinet. How about our economic mess? Our immigration mess? Our failed climate policies? The list of failures is long. No Cabinet of any stature would tolerate such idiotic decisions. So Justin Trudeau is in charge, and has fixed things so no one dare, or can, challenge him. At least Canadians have something left — God Save The King."
Clearly Stephen LeDrew, former president of the Liberal Party of Canada, is a far right extremist spreading disinformation
LEDREW: Trudeau wants us to allow him to radically change Canada - "aside from wanting Canadians to continue to provide him with a lifestyle that even the most extravagant undemocratic potentates must envy — jets, and limousine entourages, and operatives to carry out his every wish — he wants us to allow him to radically change Canada. Not liking our free-enterprise, modern capitalist nation with a social conscience, with a proud national spirit and character, Trudeau is working to create a “post national society,” as he once put it, extracting unbelievable taxes from good working people, killing the energy and natural resources industries that fuelled our wealth, and watering down our very national character with his soul-wrenching version of “diversity.” Trudeau’s policies, rooted in increasingly discredited and dated dogma, would turn Canadians into a flock of sheep, with his government caring for them, feeding them, and putting a roof over their heads... Of course, many life-long Liberals will hold their noses and vote for Trudeau, but even they should not, because Justin is not a Liberal. He is an authoritarian socialist progressive, making even old-time NDPers vomit. The current Liberal Party under Trudeau is not the Liberal Party that fostered the successes of the past century, which freed Canadians to be educated in the ways of the real world (not the woke stupidity of the ruling present educators), and which encouraged enterprise and individual responsibility, tempered with a social conscience. The current Liberal Party is Justin’s Party — it is a mirror of his shallow and debilitating concepts, allowing him to hurtle Canada down a long and deep tunnel into an economically weak nation."
Conservatives call on Commons Speaker to resign, say he let Trudeau cross the line - "Poilievre was kicked out of the chamber after he called Trudeau a "wacko prime minister" and refused Fergus's request to withdraw the remark. His entire caucus eventually left as well in protest... Trudeau instead shot back that Poilievre did not deserve elected office, accusing him of courting far-right extremists... Conservative MP John Brassard said Wednesday that Trudeau used "undignified" language Tuesday by inferring that Tories are connected to white nationalists."
Michael Higgins: Speaker Greg Fergus is a failure - "There are people in this country — lets call them citizens — who believe an informed discussion on drug policy, decriminalization, and the use of hard drugs in public spaces, is much needed. For some people — too many, in fact — this is literally a matter of life and death. Why the prime minister should choose to promote conspiracy theories instead of articulating a thoughtful response on drug policy is a mystery and a sad reflection on the state of debate in Parliament. But that’s where we are... Amid much squawking, Trudeau accused Poilievre of “shameful, spineless leadership” — which Fergus asked the prime minister to reframe but didn’t call him out for unparliamentary language. Conservative MP Rachael Thomas accused Fergus of being a disgrace and was quickly ejected from the House. By the time Poilievre condemned Trudeau for his “wacko policies, by this wacko prime minister,” Fergus probably felt backed into a corner. A better Speaker might have reverted to the tact and diplomacy of old. Fergus, however, decided to turn it a petty power play. Withdraw the remark, Fergus told Poilievre. Poilievre offered to replace it with “extremist.” Not good enough, said Fergus. How about “radical,” said Poilievre. A complete withdrawal of the remark, or else, said Fergus... Effective Speakers derive their power from commanding the respect of the House. When you’ve lost the confidence of about half the House, it is going to make the Speaker’s job even tougher. And without an effective referee, what hope is there for substantive parliamentary debate? Fergus must have hoped to come off as a martinet, but has only succeeded in appearing more like a Liberal marionette."
Rahim Mohamed: Justin Trudeau goes full tinfoil hat over 'Diagolon' - "Any way you slice it, Trudeau hasn’t exactly been the picture of clear thinking these days. Take, for instance, the prime minister’s off-topic and bizarre allusions to white supremacism during a Tuesday exchange in the House over British Columbia’s planned recriminalization of hard drugs. When asked directly by the opposition leader whether he’ll accept the request of B.C.’s NDP government to recriminalize the public use of substances like crack, heroin and meth, Trudeau abruptly switched topics, taking a sharp U-turn into tinfoil hat territory: “Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question. What hasn’t been answered by the leader of the opposition is why he continues to court extreme right nationalist groups like Diagolon.”... To be clear, Poilievre’s advance team should probably have done a cursory sweep of the site for offensive symbols before clearing the prime minister-in-waiting to glad-hand with the tax protesters. Nevertheless, a small, hand-drawn flag at the bottom of a trailer door is thin gruel even by the standards of a conspiracy-obsessed Liberal war room. Yet the prime minister, never one to let a dearth of evidence get in the way of his favoured narrative, doubled down; accusing his counterpart in the House of “actively court(ing)” the support of Diagolon’s adherents. As opposed to, you know, spreading his “axe the tax” gospel to a receptive audience of roadside carbon-tax protesters. Nah, must be the white nationalist thing. If Poilievre is serious about nabbing the white nationalist vote, he should probably cut the applause line “it doesn’t matter if your name is Poilievre or Patel… Martin or Mohamed” from his stump speech. He may also want to ditch his Venezuelan-born wife and racially mixed children. Who needs a big tent when there are perhaps dozens of diagonal line folks to win over? And it should go without saying, by now, that the man launching these accusations of racism at the opposition leader has, by his own admission, donned blackface more times than he can remember... Trudeau’s unhinged, race-baiting performance in the House comes on the heels of a bizarre press blitz targeting U.S.-based podcasts, ostensibly in support of the federal budget (tabled in mid-April, in Canada). Appearing on Vox Media’s “Today, Explained” podcast last week, Trudeau presented himself as Canada’s last line of defence against being swallowed by a global populist wave... “Canadians are going to have to chose, over the next year-and-a-half, what kind of country we are.” Trudeau continued; asking ominously, “Are we a country that looks out for each other… or do you go down a path of amplifying anger, division and fear?” So, I guess we can add “delusions of grandeur” to the prime minister’s growing list of neuroses. “This wacko prime minister” may not be the most respectful (or “parliamentary”) way to refer to Justin Trudeau, but one thing that’s for certain is that spouting conspiracist rhetoric on the floor of the House isn’t the best look for the prime minister. He would be well advised to swap out the Diagolon talk for something (anything, really) of substance. The only (downward-sloping) diagonal line Justin Trudeau should be concerned with right now is his approval rating."
FIRST READING: Justin Trudeau's imaginary hate militia - "Multiple police and security service investigations into Diagolon have found it is little more than a loose coalition of dyspeptic right-wingers on the internet. What’s more, Diagolon’s ties to the Conservative party seem to consist almost exclusively of a time in 2022 when a Diagoloner waited in line to shake Poilievre’s hand at a fundraiser. The word Diagolon first showed up during the Freedom Convoy protests in 2022, when the Canadian Anti-Hate Network repeatedly cited it as evidence that extremist anti-government elements had infiltrated the protest. These accusations were soon being repeated in the House of Commons. Liberal MP Arif Virani, who is now the federal justice minister, twice cited the presence of Diagolon members at the Freedom Convoy protests in order justify the invocation of the Emergencies Act. In her own speech endorsing the Emergencies Act, NDP MP Heather McPherson called Diagolon “a group that seeks to overthrow our government through violence.”... The CSIS report added “leaders of Diagolon did not call for violent participation in the Freedom Convoy 2022 and specifically asked that members attend to peacefully support the convoy.”... It was a 2023 report co-written by lawyer Caryma Sa’d that alleged that Diagolon’s status as a violent extremist group had been wildly overblown by the Canadian Anti-Hate Network... the report cites internal police correspondence — obtained through access-to-information requests — showing that police investigators found very little evidence Diagolon was a national security threat, or even “a group.”... As to Diagolon’s links with the Conservative Party of Canada, MacKenzie himself is a self-described supporter of the People’s Party of Canada and his most well-known mention of Poilievre was a drunken 2022 podcast threat to rape the Conservative leader’s wife Anaida. In that particular instance, Poilievre called MacKenzie and his podcast co-hosts “losers” and reported the comments to police."
Jonathan Kay on X - "Meanwhile, on planet earth, @PierrePoilievre has described Diagolon as odious “dirtbags.” But keep trying."
Liberals love their conspiracy theories and misinformation/disinformation
Jonathan Kay on X - "For years, we’ve been wondering what propaganda line would replace “canada’s Conservative party leader has a secret plan to take away all your abortions.” I never would have guessed it would be this idiotic."
LILLEY: Trudeau's ongoing abortion rhetoric a sign of true desperation - "“We will keep fighting for women’s rights,” Trudeau said. He said that as if our Supreme Court had ruled abortion a right, as it once had in the United States. That never happened in Canada, we simply have an absence of a law. But Trudeau loves to import American political issue into Canada while decrying American-style politics. But I digress, what really has Trudeau riled up about abortion in New Brunswick is that they stopped funding abortion at a private clinic... Does anyone else find it odd that Liberals are against private health care delivery if it’s for knee replacement surgery or cataracts but are all in favour of private abortion clinics? Once again, if the Trudeau Liberals didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any at all... Here’s the thing about this annual fight over abortion that happens around Mother’s Day, it doesn’t matter, nothing is going to change. Over the years there have been countless polls on the issue of abortion and what it shows, if you read these polls honestly, is that the Canadian public has a complex relationship with this issue. Most don’t want abortion banned, but many are open to restrictions being place on abortion at some point in the pregnancy. In Canada, there is no limit on when an abortion can take place. If you can get a doctor to provide an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy it is perfectly legal and paid for – we have zero restrictions on abortion. In Germany there are some limits placed on abortion after 12 weeks, in Italy after 13 weeks and in France after 16 weeks. The United Kingdom imposes some restrictions at 24 weeks and countries like Ireland, Portugal, Japan, Sweden and Spain all have varying levels of restrictions based on weeks of gestation... Here’s a dirty little secret of Canadian politics on this issue, a free vote on banning abortion that only took the votes of Conservative Party MPs would not succeed. Even in the Conservative Party there is no appetite to ban abortion, not among the majority. A free vote held in the Commons on a bill to restrict abortion after the sixth month mark wouldn’t even pass. All of the posturing, the lecturing, and the social media posts on this issue from the Trudeau Liberals and their allies in the media is simply a sign of their desperation as Liberal poll numbers fall further."
I still see gullible left wingers who fall for the scaremongering and misinformation and claim voting Conservative means abortion will be banned
