Mark Carney hired to tell Liberals they’ve been doing it wrong: Ivison - "When Freeland’s predecessor, Bill Morneau, was dumped as finance minister, Carney was offered his job by Trudeau. It was a very embittered Bill who delivered a speech in Toronto in 2022 in which he said too much time and energy was spent by Trudeau’s government finding ways to redistribute Canada’s wealth, rather than trying to increase the collective prosperity. Lack of competitiveness is “our fundamental problem,” Morneau said. Carney has been hammering on the same themes in his public musings. In his own speech in Toronto last April, Carney talked about this being a “hinge moment” in history that could provoke three possible responses: one, “spend, support, subsidies” (a thinly veiled critique of the Trudeau government’s economic policies); two, “demolish, destroy, deny” (an open attack on Pierre Poilievre’s perceived plan); or, three, “it’s time to build” (his preferred option, using public money to catalyze private investment in the energy transition)... During an appearance at the Senate banking committee earlier this year, Carney all but disavowed the consumer carbon tax, saying “it has served a purpose until now.” In a press conference in Nanaimo on Tuesday, he all but disowned the generous subsidies being handed out to global car companies, saying “we can’t win an industrial policy arms race.” That’s what makes Carney’s appointment so curious. We are not party to what he told the Liberal caucus in Nanaimo, but his public advice to this point has been a repudiation of the fiscal indiscipline and reflex spending that has been their leitmotif... In his Senate appearance, he said that countries that don’t take measures to reduce embedded carbon will see trade access denied to them. In his press conference Tuesday, he said becoming low carbon is a key driver to competitiveness."
Environmental protectionism only works if you get enough suckers on board
LILLEY: Trudeau's really bad week is only getting worse - "If the House of Commons does return on Sept. 16, we could end up with an election before the Americans choose their next president on Nov. 5. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has promised to move a motion of non-confidence as soon as possible, if that were to pass – which is unlikely – then we’d vote before the Yanks. It might be something Trudeau would enjoy actually, an entire election where he could campaign against Donald Trump at a time when the circus of the American vote is high on everyone’s minds. The Liberals have been trying to tie Poilievre to Trump for more than a year. It hasn’t worked because it is an unfair comparison and also because Trump has been a distant thought for most. Campaigning at the same time as the Americans might be Trudeau’s only hope to try and squeak out a win by playing the fear card – vote Liberal or get a Canadian Donald Trump."
Trudeau should step down to prevent Poilievre from winning election: LGBTQ+ activists - "Sarah Worthman, executive director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Queer Research Initiative, says she’s seriously concerned about the potential harm of a Conservative government for LGBTQ+ Canadians. She points to Poilievre's comments saying minors should not have access to puberty blockers and transgender athletes should be barred from women’s sports and changing rooms."
Weird how nowadays, LGBTQ+ interests are all about the trans agenda, and nothing that could conceivably "harm" non-trans queer people
Embattled Trudeau dodges suggestion he follow Biden's example and bow out - "“You say you plan to stay on, despite persistently bad polling, despite the byelection loss in Toronto that your party lost for the first time in three decades because you want to ‘continue to deliver,'” asked Globe and Mail reporter Marieke Walsh. “Isn’t that what Joe Biden insisted on?”... “But you just made the Joe Biden argument, that his record justifies him staying,” Walsh said in her follow-up question to Trudeau, who appeared visibly annoyed by the comparison. “The electorate is saying they don’t want you, they want change. Your polling is worse than your party’s.” Trudeau ducked the question again, again extolling the virtues of his government’s policy and programs, telling reporters he spent the summer “talking to Canadians” about the future of the country... Angus Reid’s Trudeau Tracker suggests voters’ appeal for the PM are at record low levels, while his disapproval ratings steadily increased after the 2021 federal election to levels rarely seen in Canada."
Polls show youth now hate Trudeau more than ever - "Canadians under the age of 24 were asked if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was “working in the best interests of their generation.” Seventy-one per cent responded “no.” To be fair to Trudeau, huge majorities of every generation didn’t see him as working in their best interest — but the dissatisfaction was heaviest among voters who came of age after the Liberals’ 2015 election win. Seniors, by contrast, remained the most supportive of Trudeau. Among respondents aged 65 and older, a massive 69 per cent disagreed with Trudeau government policy, but 28 per cent still saw the Liberals representing their “best interests.”... The survey was conducted after the Liberals tabled a federal budget under the title “Fairness for Every Generation.” The word “fairness” was mentioned 50 times in official budget document, and all of its main provisions — from affordable-housing pledges to an increase in the capital gains tax — were pitched as totems of “generational fairness.”... The only other voter cohort that was more anti-Trudeau than young voters was respondents who listed their address as Edmonton, Alta.; a mere nine per cent of Edmontonians intended to vote Liberal... projections are now starting to show the possibility that the Liberals may not just lose the next election, but that their defeat could be so ruinous they won’t even form the Official Opposition."
Liberals always claim they are for change and Conservatives are for things staying the same. Why do young people fear and hate "change" so much?
Trudeau's response to Ottawa hate rally too little, too late - "Since Oct. 7, there have been widespread and overt acts of hatred and violence against Jewish people in Canada. Civil disobedience and clear criminal acts of incitement to hatred have been allowed to continue unchecked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has consistently downplayed the protests. “People are forgetting a little bit that we’re a country that protects the freedom of expression,” Trudeau said back in November. “And we have to remember that just waving a Palestinian flag is not automatically antisemitism.” Yet these are not peaceful protests. The protesters are masked in public. They’re chanting for the destruction of the State of Israel and the killing of Jews. They’ve vandalized Jewish-owned businesses, threatened Jewish institutions and blockaded roads leading to neighbourhoods with sizable Jewish populations. They’re doing a lot more than “just waving a Palestinian flag.” We’ve witnessed the bullying of students at all levels in the public school system and universities, the repeated shooting of a Jewish school in Montreal, the firebombing of a synagogue and multiple bomb threats made against all sorts of Jewish institutions, including schools. Vandalism of Jewish-owned businesses and intimidation of patrons. Blockading of neighbourhoods with large Jewish populations. Harassment of people attending synagogue. And the never ending hate rallies. As with most matters of substance, the prime minister is clueless. He is also wrong — legally and ethically. And in promoting his rather vapid perspective — which is untethered from reality — he has emboldened the alarmingly large and aggressive Islamist constituency in Canada. He has lost the plot, the narrative and control of the nation. Yet on Sunday, the prime minister seemed to have had an epiphany, which he shared in a rather significant statement on Twitter: “There is a difference between peaceful protest and hateful intimidation. It is unconscionable to glorify the antisemitic violence and murder perpetrated by Hamas on October 7th. This rhetoric has no place in Canada. None.” What appeared to provoke this reaction was another post showing the protesters doing their thing in Ottawa. Smoke bombs. Hateful rhetoric. Blocking roadways. Masking their faces with keffiyehs — a traditional headdress worn by some in the Middle East that has become a symbol of the Palestinian “resistance” movement. The usual. What drew considerable attention were the many demonstrators cheering on as a man chanted, “Long live Oct. 7.” But this, too, is nothing new. “There is only one solution, intefadeh, revolution.” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” All of these slogans — and other chants — are constantly repeated and have been for more than six months... I’m not sure what the prime minister’s aides include in the briefing notes that he apparently doesn’t read, but one would have thought that at some point, someone might have mentioned that this type of conduct has been taking place throughout the country for months. There was nothing special about the Ottawa demonstration last Saturday. Nothing. So why did he change course? Likely because of a statement issued by U.S. President Joe Biden... This very clear condemnation of the antisemitic violence that continues to rage made it difficult for Trudeau to indulge his avoidance tendency. President Biden shone the light. And the Canadian public is no longer accepting the destructive nonsense that tends to flow from the prime minister’s mouth and office. This is reflected in his plummeting poll numbers, as well as the way in which he is received, online and in public. The man who was everywhere, popping up shirtless while jogging and ambushing wedding photo shoots, is making himself scarce these days, slipping out of back doors and buried in monstrously long gas guzzling convoys of black SUVs. All a little too “Handmaid’s Tale” for me. It took the prime minister a full day to find the words to express his outrage with the glorification of terrorism in Ottawa on Saturday. His aides must have been panicked. They would likely have advised him to ignore it all, as they seem to have done for the last six months or so. But Biden’s statement, combined with a surge in grassroots fury, forced them to do something. But it was all way too little and far too late. The prime minister’s latest and long overdue comment has ignited an unrestrained fury in the land. Debates raged online following his comment. If I were to pick one response that captures the national mood, it would be that of Concordia University professor Gad Saad, who asked, “Do you think that Canada’s immigration policies have anything to do with the exponential growth of Jew-hatred in Canada?” Prof. Saad is saying out loud what so many think. But they stay quiet and keep their heads down. Why? Because they fear the manner in which this federal government acts when displeased. We have seen an increasingly venal and controlling government prevail in Ottawa; one that punishes those who express dissent by prosecuting, seizing assets and openly controlling the content that Canadians can read and watch, online and elsewhere. It is Orwellian in scope and degree and very much upon us. If we dare to disagree with this government’s disastrous immigration and refugee policy, we are tarred and feathered and a sign is hung from our necks: “Racist.” “Islamophobic.” “Extremist.” And my personal favourite: “Un-Canadian.” (That last smear was made by the-immigration minister Ahmed Hussen in 2018, regarding concern over the flood of undocumented “asylum seekers” entering Canada.) If we take issue with the government’s undisciplined and corrosive economic policies, we are “greedy.” And if we suggest alternate approaches, we are labelled as racist, oppressive colonialist settlers benefiting from our white privilege, which is baked into our souls even if we are unaware. Jews, of course, are all “white” (factually incorrect) in this worldview, which dominates Trudeau’s brain and has been declared inviolable in official Ottawa. It is known as critical race theory and every policy and statement is viewed by Trudeau and his team through this very flawed prism. What Prof. Saad does so powerfully is distill all of the verbal and policy garbage being thrown at Canadians by our prime minister into one searing indictment. And the tragedy of it all is that it was easily avoidable. We put a silly, dangerous man in power. And he really has done grievous, irreparable harm to this once great country."
Freedom of expression means that those pushing the left wing agenda can incite violence, but those who oppose it have their bank accounts frozen
Trudeau's failure of moral leadership on violence against Jews - "We have not seen any protests taking place outside of mosques or Palestinian-owned shawarma restaurants. That would be unthinkable to most Canadian Jews... Trudeau has seemed unable to discuss the Oct. 7 attack without suggesting that Israel’s campaign in Gaza is somehow equivalent... For a leader who has spent much of his tenure denouncing racism and obsessed with identity politics, it may seem somewhat paradoxical that Trudeau is unable to take a clear stand now. Until you realize that Israel’s enemies hold much more sway at the ballot box."
Meme - "Most prolific Canadian actor ever. ULTIMATE EDITION
Islamicist. Native American. Cowboy/Westerner. Sikh. Scottish. Pirate. Equestrian. Kabuki. Scientist. Hindu. Chinese. Jewish. Arab. French Musketeer. Soldier. Blue Collar Worker. Firefighter. Kayaker. Feminist. Zoologist. Paraplegic. Ukrainian. Sherlock Holmes. Cricket Player. Celebrity. Boxer. Academic. Star Wars Rebel. Heterosexual. Politician"
Cost and Effect: Heightened economic anxiety pushes many 2021 Liberal voters to look elsewhere for relief - - "New data from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute finds three-in-five Canadians saying they can’t keep up with the cost of living (61%). This represents the third straight year where at least half have voiced this angst... Currently, just 57 per cent of 2021 Liberals say they would vote for the party again. Among the 43 per cent who now prefer another party, there are consistent, elevated signs of economic stress that has sent them searching for answers elsewhere. Those who say they would now vote for another party are almost twice as likely to say that they worry that they won’t be able to meet their monthly housing costs in the next six months compared to those who are still Liberal (37% to 22%) and to say that this a “very bad” time to make a major purchase (37% to 22%). Departing Liberals are also more likely to say they can’t keep up with the cost of living and that they’re generally stressed about money. This stress among shifting voters is notable, but by no means isolated to that group. More than two-in-five Canadians (43%) now say that they are always or often stressed about money. This is a 12-point increase compared to 2018."
Meme - Mike Diplockre @MikeDiplockre: "- cuts crime to record low
- cuts taxes, balances budget, lowers debt
- cuts illegal immigration
- enacts world's most selective legal immigration
- quells Quebec separatism
- makes Canada admired abroad
- loses in landslide to far-left theatre kid
What was Canada's problem? 🤔
*Stephen Harper*
I still think about this election from time to time. Harper literally aced everything. Canada was the only G7 country to avoid financial crisis in 2008 and avoid any taxpayer money being spent on bank bailouts. But voters were like "nah fuck him, we want the Disney prince guy"."
Daniel F. Hardy on X - "When you solve people's problems you create space and leisure for them to engage in aggressive moralfagging."
Kevin MacLean (Fortress of Lugh) on X - "-Brought us into a war nobody wanted
-Almost doubled immigration levels, which now Trudeau has quadruple (or more).
Having said that, I voted for him in that final election, after having opposed him for years. Compared to what we have now it was paradise. The reason he lost is because conservatives did not and still do not know how to fight and to win cultural battles. They do nothing to really challenge the cultural and moral narrative and establish one of their own because they are fundamentally liberals also. So as the Canadian culture became more and more infected with poisonous ideology that is literally killing us, they did nothing on that front at all, and still don't. In fact, they have mostly embraced it."
Dirk Jones on X - "Literally, people were "tired and wanted a change". Retards."
Canada’s economic stagnation—a big problem for Canadians - "Justin Trudeau once understood that Canada’s long-term growth challenges were an important problem for Canada. In fact, slow growth under Stephen Harper was one of Trudeau’s most effective critiques during the 2015 federal election campaign. Trudeau blasted Harper as having “the worst record of any prime minister on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the great recession.” And economic growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government suffered through the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario with its hobbled manufacturing industry. Per-person annual economic growth when Harper was prime minister was much lower than his predecessors—just 0.5 per cent annually (adjusted for inflation) under Harper compared to, for example, 0.8 per cent under Mulroney and 2.4 per cent under Chretien. So Trudeau was right in arguing that slow per-person economic growth was one of Canada’s most pressing economic challenges during the Harper era. However, he misdiagnosed its causes, and since his government took power things have gone from bad to worse. On his way into power, Trudeau argued that the slow growth of the Harper era was largely the result of insufficient government spending, and that looser fiscal policy with more spending and larger deficits could help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world). This approach didn’t move the needle on growth. In fact, under Prime Minister Trudeau, annual per-person economic growth has averaged just 0.3 per cent compared to 0.5 per cent under Harper."
Opinion: Harjit Sajjan will remain in cabinet, and shame on you for asking about it - The Globe and Mail - "One thing that Canadians have learned over the course of the past nine years is that, in this government, there is no such thing as a lethal scandal. Ministers don’t resign in disgrace. Public displays of contrition are verboten. No accusation is ever so egregious as to demand an actual response; no charge so serious as to merit sombre reflection. Ministers will deflect, reject, maybe explain a little bit. But they never, ever concede. So it should have taken no one by surprise that Harjit Sajjan responded to a well-sourced report that he betrayed our country, our countrymen and women, and the allies who risked their lives to support us by turning it into an accusation... Mr. Sajjan, who is now Canada’s Minister of Emergency Preparedness, said he received information about the Afghan Sikhs from a Canadian Sikh group (the directors of which, according to reporting by The Globe this week, donated to his riding association around the same time) and relayed that information to Canadian special forces, but he said that he “did not direct the Canadian Armed Forces to prioritize Sikhs above others.” When he was asked during a news conference last week to explain the difference between “directing” and “ordering” the military, he responded by calling The Globe’s report “utter b.s.” and suggested that racism motivated the reporting. “I didn’t think I’d be getting those questions if I wasn’t wearing a turban,” he said. “It needs to be called out.” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used nearly the exact same mode of defence in early 2023 when he was asked about leaked reports on China’s attempted interference in Canadian elections. At first, he claimed the reporting was inaccurate (though he more politely used the phrase “many inaccuracies,” instead of “utter b.s.”). He then suggested that some of the reporting – specifically, about irregularities in the nomination race that elected Don Valley North MP Han Dong – was motivated by “anti-Asian racism.” It has since been publicly disclosed that Canada’s intelligence agency had credible information that Beijing was involved in transporting a bus of international students to vote for Mr. Dong. Mr. Sajjan didn’t actually answer the question about how he draws a distinction between a direction and an order during that news conference, though Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre later answered it for him: a direction essentially is an order. “We follow legal direction and the groups that were listed were part of … approved groups, so we got on with it,” he told The Canadian Press. He said his role is not to decide “whether the government priority was right or wrong.” Having been defence minister for about six years by that point, Mr. Sajjan surely understood that there is no such thing as a “suggestion” from the Minister of National Defence to the military. Yet this attempt to split hairs over definitions was the same explanation that Mr. Trudeau leaned on to defend his actions during the SNC-Lavalin affair. At the time, he said he merely suggested then-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould consider a deferred prosecution agreement for the beleaguered company; he didn’t instruct her to seek one. For Mr. Sajjan, this report comes at the tail end of a ministerial tenure imbued with scandal: he exaggerated his role in a key battle during his tour in Afghanistan; his office hired a reserve officer from his old unit (who had been suspended for having a relationship with a subordinate) to work as an aide; he failed to act on recommendations to root out sexism in the military in a 2015 report by a former Supreme Court justice, and instead the government commissioned a new report by another former Supreme Court justice; he said he chose not to look at an allegation of sexual misconduct against then-chief of the defence staff Jonathan Vance when it was brought to his attention; he said he wasn’t reading e-mails during the Kabul evacuation. But this accusation eclipses all the others, for how deeply Mr. Sajjan appears to have both perverted his power and betrayed his oath."
Opinion: With industrial policy, Ottawa intervenes in the economy to Canada’s detriment - The Globe and Mail - "Canada needs to harness competition and open markets to drive productivity and prosperity. Sadly, the country has gone in the other direction in recent years. Government intervention has grown dramatically through industrial policy, which is government efforts to shape economic outcomes by targeting specific industries, firms or activities. It involves the application of subsidies, tax incentives and regulations. The argument for such policies is the belief that free markets will not generate desired economic, social or national-security outcomes. However, the expansion of industrial policy over the last decade has been both dramatic and excessive. To illustrate, economist John Lester published a report in March showing that Canadian federal business subsidies rose 140 per cent over the past nine years, compared with just 17 per cent over the preceding nine years. This reflects the Trudeau government’s belief in the power of government to drive outcomes. In some cases, the expansion of industrial policy has been warranted to address market failures, such as measures aimed at reducing inequality and addressing climate change. However, virtually every problem has been tackled with additional business subsidies, tax incentives and regulations that have deeply distorted price signals throughout the economy... Bank of Canada senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers delivered a speech that called for increased market competition to encourage businesses to scale up and to incent investment to address Canada’s productivity crisis. Last month, Matthew Boswell, Commissioner at the Competition Bureau, reinforced this message in these pages and highlighted that his group’s research showed that the competitive intensity in the Canadian economy fell between 2000 and 2020. He wrote: “Too often in Canada, laws, policies and regulations create barriers – which are outdated and no longer serve the public interest – to competition.” Past analysis by Deloitte and the Business Council of Canada has found that excessive government regulation is the single greatest obstacle to Canada’s international competitiveness. The key message is that Canada needs the right balance between industrial policy that checks market failures or suboptimal social outcomes while still allowing market forces and prices to fuel efficiency and innovation. Currently, policy is skewed toward too much intervention. Professor Lester’s research shows that more than one-third of federal business subsidies are not addressing a market failure and many federal subsidies do not generate benefits that exceed their costs. He found that 80 per cent of subsidies are currently having a negative economic impact. Getting rid of those ineffective business subsidies would save the federal government $32-billion. And removing the market distortions created by these subsidies could boost competitive outcomes and productivity. The preference for greater industrial policy in recent years also overlooks its inherent limitations. Governments do not have the information or the ability to predict which industry or firm will be the next global leader or will generate the greatest prosperity for its citizens. The myriad of price distortions created by the vastly increased number of industrial policy measures makes it hard to assess whether individual incentives, subsidies and regulation are having the desired effect. The conduct of policy can also be inconsistent. For example, the federal government recently increased subsidies for artificial intelligence research and development while simultaneously imposing higher capital-gains taxes on the tech sector. Politics can undermine industrial policy and its effectiveness. For example, when Canada launched its Innovation Superclusters Initiative, every region of Canada just happened to have an associated supercluster. Was this really identifying Canada’s comparative advantages or was it an exercise in government-directed regional development? Politics can also be seen in the excessive focus on small business, which is popular with voters. Two-thirds of federal business subsidies go to small and medium-sized businesses. While start-ups warrant additional support, some small business subsidies are counterproductive because they incent firms to stay small."
Canada Revenue Agency order to seize Saskatchewan money unusual, say experts - "“It suggests a certain level dysfunction between the two levels of government."... Saskatchewan stopped paying carbon levy money to Ottawa, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau exempted home-heating oil users from paying. Trudeau's move was largely seen as helping those in Atlantic Canada, where home-heating oil is commonly used and where polls suggest the federal Liberals need to prop up popular support. Saskatchewan is breaking federal emissions law by not remitting the levy. The province could face fines and the minister responsible for natural gas distribution could get jail time for not abiding by the rule... Saskatchewan disputes it owes anything. It says that because home heating oil no longer comes under the levy, it's unfair to charge it to Saskatchewan consumers, who use natural gas. It also argues the Constitution prevents the federal government from garnisheeing a provincial bank account. Further, Saskatchewan says Trudeau’s exemption was politically motivated, citing a quote from federal cabinet minister Gudie Hutchings, who said the Prairie provinces should elect more Liberals if they want carveouts."
Justice Minister defends house arrest power for people feared to commit a hate crime in future - The Globe and Mail - "Justice Minister Arif Virani has defended a new power in the online harms bill to impose house arrest on someone who is feared to commit a hate crime in the future – even if they have not yet done so already. The person could be made to wear an electronic tag, if the attorney-general requests it, or ordered by a judge to remain at home, the bill says... It could also lead to restrictions on internet usage and behaviour. “That would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently – sometimes fatally.”... Mr. Virani said the current bill followed studies of the experiences of other countries, including Britain, France and Germany, which have produced similar legislation. Some have had to reverse course after challenges and criticism. Since it was published on Monday, some lawyers and constitutional experts have raised fears that Bill C-63 could chill free speech. The bill would allow people to file complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission over what they perceive as hate speech online – including, for example, off-colour jokes by comedians. People found guilty of posting hate speech could have to pay victims up to $20,000 in compensation. But experts including internet law professor Michael Geist have said even a threat of a civil complaint – with a lower burden of proof than a court of law – and a fine could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression. Mr. Virani said as Justice Minister he has sworn to uphold the Constitution, which includes freedom of expression."
