“One of the best parts of my job”: Trudeau replies to questions about the cost of his flying around Canada ahead of the campaign period
While on another trip to Vancouver, Trudeau avoided answering repeated questions from reporter Bob Mackin about the cost of his travels ahead of the official campaign period.
“You’ve been flying out at great frequency, I know there’s an election approaching, but by calculations of experts its more than 10,000 litres of jet fuel to go back and forth betweem Vancouver and Ottawa, and about 20 tonnes of CO2, and you’re also spending hundreds of thousands of dollars,” said Mackin.
“Why isn’t the Liberal Party of Canada paying the entire bill of the trips to British Columbia at this time?”
In response, Trudeau avoided answering the question by talking about his party’s
“First of all, we were pleased to transform our electoral fundraising system at the federal level to demonstrate a greater degree of transparency and openness than ever in the past and we’ve continued to encourage the Conservative Party and the NDP to follow the new rules put down,” said Trudeau before laying blame on Stephen Harper.
Yesterday, @JustinTrudeau skirted questions from @bobmackin about the costs of his constant flights around Canada ahead of the campaign period, said “it’s one of the best parts of my job.” pic.twitter.com/I1xDaeAJ3D— Cosmin Dzsurdzsa (@cosminDZS) July 30, 2019
At the tail end of 2018, the Liberals passed Bill C-76 in December which revamped federal campaign financing laws by putting a cap on spending limits for the three months before the election is called, among other regulations.
“Prime minister, Stephen Harper is not the prime minister right now,” said Mackin.
“Can you please say how much the cost is to taxpayers for this current trip, which includes tax, which includes a fundraiser, which also included your time off in Tofino. How much are taxpayers paying for these?”
“The prime minister has the responsibility to be prime minister for all Canadians, that is part of why I spend an awful lot of time getting out there and meeting with Canadians,” replied Trudeau.
Trudeau was at the Kitsilano Coast Guard on Monday to announce renovations to the guard’s base.
A former government employee told HuffPost Canada she was punished for giving comment to the news outlet on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s use of blackface when it became an international story during the 2019 federal election.
39-year-old Manjot Bains told HuffPo she was reprimanded and commanded to not speak about racism publicly after she spoke to a HuffPo reporter in a September story where she wasn’t identified as a federal employee. Bains faced a lot of backlash at work where she was a senior program adviser, which led to her quitting her job at the Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism Initiatives program that’s part of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
“The prime minister is the one who performed blackface, not me. But somehow I faced repercussions for his actions,” Bains said to HuffPost.
Bains was hired last May and was cleared by her new employer to still continue contributing to her media website, Jugni Style, that covers South Asian culture, so she thought it wouldn’t be a problem to comment on Trudeau’s history of blackface.
Bains told HuffPo she passed along the story to her manager when it was published and was swiftly told she shouldn’t have spoken to the media and had lost her manager’s trust.
Bains then had a meeting with her superiors and was told that public servants aren’t allowed to speak critically of Trudeau publicly, and would have to do “loyalty training” and redo ethics training.
Bains cited her union actually promotes political activity and her contract stated, “the right to engage in political activities while maintaining the principles of political impartiality in the public service.”
Public servants are expected to show a “duty of loyalty” to the Canadian government.
In a much more clear cut case of political activism, a federal public servant was put on leave from his job after releasing an anti-Harper folk song during the 2015 election.
Bains also wrote her own personal account of the ordeal she faced after speaking about her thoughts on Trudeau’s blackface incidents publicly, published by HuffPo as well on Thursday.
The leader of the Conservative party of Canada has resigned after a disappointing election loss where he took the popular vote but lost the path to victory, allowing another Trudeau government.
Andrew Scheer will be resigning from the Conservative leadership role after intense internal party division largely made his position impossible, according to sources that have spoken to the Globe and Mail.
According to Global News, the resignation also came after it was revealed that party funds were used to send Andrew Scheer’s children to private school.
Mr. Scheer announced the decision at a special caucus meeting on Thursday morning.
The decision comes after former Conservative cabinet minister John Baird published his autopsy of the election which was highly critical.
According to Sun Journalist Brian Lilley, the decision will become public once a new leader is selected by the party.
With Scheer out, many have begun to wonder who will be the interim leader and who will run in the following leadership race.
With interim leaders normally staying out of leadership races, multiple high ranking officials will have to weigh their options and decide if they would rather keep the party united, or choose to run as Andrew’s potential replacement. Some pundits believe Conservative insiders such as Erin O’Toole or Peter Mackay could be gunning for that position, due to their brand power and instances which have occurred since the election of Trudeau.
For example, Peter Mackay has harshly criticized the party’s campaign, comparing it to missing on an open net, while O’Toole has voiced his disappointment with results in Ontario, especially with the loss of key figures such as Lisa Raitt.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
My conscience was tweaked last year when a Huffington Post blogger exposed the cruel behaviour exhibited in the animated Christmas film Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Because of Rudolph’s shiny, red nose, he was continuously mocked by his peers and exploited for Santa’s gain. This begs the question: Do the themes inherent in most Christmas classics constitute forms of indoctrination?
Take, for instance, Home Alone, a movie that encourages anti-social behaviour. Stripped down to its core, it is essentially about two adult men stalking a young boy. Even the main character, eight-year-old Kevin McCallister, is a sociopathic, spoiled-rotten brat. He constantly disrespects his parents, binges on junk food, and takes pleasure in torturing hapless criminals. The laughter generated by “take that, ya filthy animal” does not excuse the fact that it comes at the expense of a mob-style execution. What’s next, Christmas with The Sopranos?
It’s a Wonderful Life spreads socialist propaganda. George Bailey is an ambitious young man with global aspirations, but first, he must escape the dead-end future awaiting him in the crumby little town of Bedford Falls. Working like a slave in his family’s home-loan business, George barely scrapes by. Unhappy with his lot in life, he receives some angelic advice: “No man is a failure who has friends.” George succumbs to anti-capitalist hogwash, stays poor, and pities the uber-wealthy. Every Christmas, my family bought into this film’s illusory happiness. Now we see it for what it is: opium for the masses.
A Charlie Brown Christmas epitomizes conformity. As the director of the school play, Charlie Brown is assigned a simple task—pick out an appropriate-sized Christmas tree—but according to his narcissistic peers, he fails miserably. A barrage of insults soon follows—”STUPID,” “HOPELESS,” “BLOCKHEAD.” Even his dog Snoopy laughs at him (so much for man’s best friend). The crass commercialization that now defines Christmas makes the Charlie Browns of this world easy targets for schoolyard bullies. Small wonder he is in constant need of Lucy’s psychiatric help.
The Grinch Who Stole Christmas promises a false utopia. Fueled by rage and jealousy, the Grinch guts Whoville of every ting-tingler, blue-tooper, and slew-slumper. Residents are left with nothing—not even a crumb too small for a mouse. After going on a crime spree, which includes animal cruelty, break and enter, and grand theft, the Grinch is held unaccountable. Instead, the citizens of Whoville forgive the Grinch, hold hands, and gleefully sing “fah-who foris, dah-who doris, welcome Christmas, bring your light.” The message is clear: crime pays. The Grinch is welcomed back with open arms; he’s even allowed to carve the roast beast.
Frosty the Snowman personifies white male privilege. While mansplaining to Karen about weight loss, Frosty turns into a puddle of water after being trapped in a greenhouse by Professor Hinkle. Typical of the old boys’ club, Santa saves a fellow dude. He opens the door, lets a good jolly December wind blow in, and voila: Frosty turns into Christmas snow all over again. Meanwhile, poor Karen, who nearly froze to death in a refrigerated boxcar, is dropped off on the icy, snow-covered roof of her house while Santa, Frosty, and Hocus Pocus fly away merrily into the night sky. This is a prime example of how popular culture props up the patriarchy.
The underlying themes embedded in traditional Christmas movies and animated films do not reflect reality. Their only purpose is to perpetuate discredited value systems. This holiday season, I will be boycotting these shows. Why? Because it’s 2019!
An Octopus decided to start a fight with a bald eagle off the coast of British Columbia. This is their story.
The eagle was saved when a group of fish farmers stepped in and used a pike pole to slowly peel the Octopus off the bald eagle.
“That gave the eagle just enough time to break free and swim to shore,” Aquaculturalist John Ilett told the CBC. “At the end of the day, both animals are alive and went their separate way.