Christie Blatchford from the National Post recently published a very interesting article titled, “After the way Trudeau treated them, why do they even still want to be Liberals?”
In her article Blatchford details how the Liberal party may have broken the “Reform Act —brought forward by Conservative MP Michael Chong two years before—on how to deal with expulsions.”
Towards the end of her article, she highlights the awkward scenario which would exist as a result of two whistleblowers remaining in the government that they publicly spoke out against.
“What then—they’d be back in the Liberal caucus, in the warm Liberal embrace? How would that in any way (aside from the principle) be a victory, I wonder, to get back to work for a prime minister whose idea of the rule of law is setting the rules and laying down the law?”
Her conclusion is what piqued my interest most. Why do Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott want to remain in the Liberal caucus so badly especially after calling out the Watergate-like actions taken?
Most likely because they are both, at the end of the day, Liberals who would hate to see a Conservative Prime Minister.
According to comments made to the Province newspaper, the Greens and the NDP have already made friendly inquiries towards Jody Wilson-Raybould, obviously without result, while she has also stated that she would not join the Conservatives, noting “I don’t identify with the Conservatives’ ideology.”
With an anti-Conservative stance, and so far a seeming lack of interest in joining the NDP or Greens, it leaves the two with limited options.
They could run as independent “Liberals” and hope to win their seats, or face a decisive battle waged from within the movement to push Justin Trudeau out of the Liberal Party before the election, and I suppose the last choice would be to give up and go home to take on other positions.
I highly doubt that either of these individuals would simply pack up and leave.
Instead, with the CBC poll tracker now projecting a 66% likelihood the Conservatives win the most seats, it may actually be better for Liberals and progressives for someone else to lead the party, especially given the relative weakness of the NDP in terms of popular support and finances. Heck, Jagmeet Singh is now an MP and I still can’t think of one memorable action taken during the SNC-Lavalin affair.
With some polls noting that a majority of Canadians are paying attention to the SNC-Lavalin affair, and of that majority, 67% believe Jody Wilson-Raybould over the Prime Minister, the die-hard Liberal whistleblowers could be a part of that replacement team.
Now I get it, the Liberal party today without Trudeau sounds like milk without cereal. The Prime Minister revived the shell of a party in 2015, and today represents his party much the same as Trump, synonymously. The PM’s brand, though, is what has taken a direct hit as a result of this campaign. According to a Global News article citing an Ipsos poll, “six months ahead of an October election, polls suggest the 47-year-old politician with the broad smile and a penchant for colourful socks could become the first prime minister to lose power after a single majority mandate since the 1930s.”
His image as a feminist, a progressive, and an authentic liberal has been damaged.
Those are the exact factors the Liberal coalition could salvage with Jody Wilson-Raybould.
Still, that run wouldn’t guarantee victory. Neither Jody Wilson-Raybould nor Jane Philipot are Quebecers.
A leader from outside Quebec is serious to any Liberal coalition, and that problem may be even more serious in this situation. For the most part, the Liberal party under Trudeau seem to have put themselves in a direct corner where any potential leadership change would involve someone who stood by Trudeau, Jane Philpott, or Jody Wilson-Raybould. That is a tough spot to be in.
Nonetheless, the principled stance taken by the whistleblowers combined with some parts of the Liberal party could re-energize the progressive-Liberal coalition enough to see them hit the finish line by eating a significant portion of the NDP support in places like Ontario, B.C., and even Quebec.
With so much to lose if Trudeau is allowed to lead the party into an election, perhaps it is time the party and the prime minister part ways.
What do you think? Should the Liberals and Trudeau part ways? Join the conversation by commenting below!
Malaysia is intending to ship 150 containers of illegal waste back to the countries of origin. These countries include Australia, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada.
Malaysia’s Environment Minister Yeo Be Yin, told reporters that “it is not about money, it’s about dignity. When people dump garbage into your country, you are not supposed to pay them to send it back, you expect them to send it back by themselves.”
Yin further added that Malaysia will “stick to this line, we are going to send it back, and we are going to make people who export here and the shipping liners pay for it.”
Yin ended her speech by saying that this new policy “was unprecedented … we will hold the people to be responsible for their actions. They should be paying for the logistics.”
Yin’s comments may be seen as a provocation in what has been described as a “garbage war” by those in the media. Previously, tension rose as Canada sent non-recyclable trash to the Philippines that had been labelled as recyclable. Now, Malaysia is upset for similar reasons.
The garbage dispute between Canada and the Philippines got so bad that the leader of the country threatened to declare war if Canada did not allow the return of the garbage.
For several years now, The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been struggling to designate the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist entity. This is not only a troubling matter for the majority of Canadians, but is also a matter that places question marks on Trudeau’s administration and perhaps even the Prime Minister’s personal agenda.
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity has been the priority of several governments, just not Trudeau’s. The United States of America was the latest to designate the IRGC as a terrorist entity, joining Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The European Union and United Nations have crippled the IRGC with tough financial sanctions and designated its top members as terrorists as well.
For years now, a number of Canadian politicians have pushed for the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity, but it appears that the man blocking an “entire designation” is Trudeau himself.
These calls were renewed once again after the U.S airstrike which killed IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani on the 3rd of January 2020.
“The Liberals voted for the measure, yet have done nothing to recognize the destructive and destabilizing influence of the IRGC. The Conservative Opposition once again calls upon the Trudeau government to finally list the IRGC as a terrorist entity after 18 months of foot-dragging,” says a joint statement by Conservative MPs Erin O’Toole and James Bezan.
The IRGC has been funding, managing, supervising and conducting terrorist operations for four long decades in Afghanistan, Europe, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, South America, Syria and Yemen; so, what’s stopping Trudeau from designating the group, in its entirety, as a terrorist entity?
Justin is struggling to make sense
The Government of Canada has already designated the Quds Force as a terrorist organization. Iran’s Qods Force is merely a unit within the IRGC, specializing in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations around the world. The IRGC regularly threatens the American continent as well as Canada’s closest allies, either directly or through its proxies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, Yemeni Houthis and Iraq’s Hashd al-Shaabi.
Justin Trudeau’s administration has also renewed the terrorist designation of organizations that are either units or establishments of the IRGC, such as Hezbollah, while totally ignoring the fact that Hezbollah would cease to operate without the backing of the IRGC.
Furthermore, the Trudeau administration considers all of the IRGC’s affiliates such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorists, except the IRGC itself. From a national security perspective, this makes no sense whatsoever.
If the majority of the IRGC’s affiliates, small units, establishments and key figures have been designated as sources of terrorism by ally governments and previous Canadian government administrations, why then is Justin Trudeau delaying the terrorist designation of the IRGC, an organization actively sponsoring current designated terrorist organizations while also harbouring in Iran the terrorist leaders of Al-Qaeda?
It’s a ‘yes or no question’
Justin Trudeau, was Qassem Soleimani a terrorist?
If the answer is no, then you simply shouldn’t be Prime Minister.
If the answer is yes, then you are yet to fulfill your duty as Prime Minister towards the national security of Canada, and by not designating the IRGC as a terrorist entity, in its entirety, you are siding with government administrations that allow terrorists to operate with minimal criticism and opposition.
Conservative MP Jeremy Patzer is the representative for Cypress Hills—Grasslands (Saskatchewan).
We are now entering the second year of living under Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax regime in Canada. The beginning of a new year is a good time for us to step back and reflect on how federal policies are affecting the lives of everyday Canadians. At the same time, we are only a few months away from an annual carbon tax hike coming in April.
While firmly believing that this tax is generally harmful and ineffective, I want to focus on a telling feature of the Liberals’ so-called plan for reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. When the Liberal government first introduced their carbon tax in the last parliament, they reassured Canadians that it would be revenue neutral. Related to this claim, they announced that Canadians would receive a rebate in proportion to the amount collected from each province. According to them, it should acknowledge and adequately offset the costs of the tax on consumers.
Right before the end of 2019, we learned that the government is walking back their previous projections for the rebate a family of four could receive. Coincidentally (or not), the rebate happens to be going down for all the provinces that have not gone along with putting their own carbon tax into place. My home province of Saskatchewan is getting the biggest decrease in rebate money.
While the cost-increasing effects of the carbon tax can hurt many vulnerable members of our society, it is particularly making life harder for families and seniors. I have seen and heard about the damage it is causing my constituents and others living in rural Canada. I come from a riding and a region of the country where, along with making everything more expensive, the carbon tax is delaying economic recovery and draining away our agricultural and resource-based economy.
Of course, this is just another insult added to injury. The Liberals have also said that most households would receive more money back than they are paying under the tax, despite some indications to the contrary. After regularly spending extra for home heating or driving long distances in a part of the country where both are necessary, the full compensation through a rebate is questionable at best. On top of that, there have also been farmers calling attention to paying hundreds of dollars in additional tax for drying their grain after a difficult harvest year, which must be done if they want to make a living. Is there real compensation for them?
Considering all this, it gives us a perfect picture of how Canadians can expect the carbon tax to work in actual practice. As the tax rate and costs are on the rise, there is less support for taxpayers and struggling families. So far, the carbon tax rebate is turning out to be another letdown.
As tax season approaches after the first year of living under this policy, we are left to wonder if this discouraging trend will continue.
The RCMP intercepted 16,503 people illegally crossing into Canada from the U.S.-Canada border in 2019, according to new federal government data.
The number of people entering Canada via the border at unofficial ports of entry declined in 2019, but the total number of people making asylum claims jumped from 55,040 in 2018 to 63,830 according to Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada.
The increase is due to more and more people flying to Canada and then making asylum claims upon arrival at airports across the country.
The Safe Third Country Agreement between America and Canada means asylum seekers are supposed to make refugee claims in the first safe country they enter, but when individuals cross illegally into Canada they are able to bypass the agreement.
The Trudeau government dragged its feet on doing anything significant to address the spike in illegal border crossings, first changing the wording to “irregular border crossings” and accusing critics of stoking xenophobia.
But in the lead-up to the 2019 election, after government internal polling showed the vast majority of Canadians polled didn’t approve of people crossing into Canada illegally, the Liberals promised to change legislation to curb the influx.
The spike in illegal border crossings began around the time Prime Minister Justin Trudeau tweeted that Canada welcomes those looking to find a new home and when U.S. President Donald Trump was cracking down on illegal immigration in America.
The National Post via an access to information request found that their was a deluge of inquiries across the world to Canadian embassies of people inquiring how to immigrate to Canada after Trudeau’s tweet in early 2017.
According to reports, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen’s briefing notes in December stated their are no formal plans setup with the U.S. to address the loophole to the Safe Third Party Agreement.