The plot to keep Justin Trudeau in power—even if he loses
Question: How can you tell when a Liberal government’s in trouble?
Answer: When Liberal partisans suddenly start flooding social media with “reminders” that actually election results don’t matter and actually a prime minister gets to stay in office regardless of what happens on voting day.
Over the last couple of days various Liberal hacks and left-leaning media personalities, including Bob Rae, Rosemary Barton (perceptions of being non-partisan be damned now apparently) and Aaron Wherry have been repeatedly retweeting pundits claiming that it would be totally normal and not weird at all if Justin Trudeau stayed on as prime minister after losing the October 21 election to Andrew Scheer. “It’s literally how the parliamentary system works,” Barton incorrectly asserted on Twitter.
The argument is that even if Scheer wins more seats, Trudeau, as incumbent prime minister has the absolute right to stay in office until the next time parliament reconvenes. Which, in theory, could be months after the election, since—conveniently!—the prime minister decides when parliament sits. All the constitution says is that it can’t be delayed more than a year.
During those months, Trudeau could be free to use the powers of his office any way he feels like. He could make any unilateral decision he wanted to relating to foreign policy, immigration, pipelines, etc. He could also spend months promising the farm to Jagmeet Singh in the hopes the NDP will agree to approve his usurpation-like power-grab.
No prime minister has attempted to cling to power in this way in over 94 years. The last time was in 1925, when Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King lost the 1925 election to the Conservatives, and continued to rule for seven months until he tried to call another election and the governor-general fired him, causing the King-Byng crisis.
Every other time, however, the transfer of power from one prime minister to another has been quick and easy, even in minority government situations.
Liberal prime minister Louis St. Laurent surrendered power to John Diefenbaker when the Conservatives won a minority government in 1957. Pierre Trudeau handed power to Joe Clark when the Conservatives won a minority in 1979. Paul Martin conceded defeat when Stephen Harper won a minority government in 2006.
So what makes Justin Trudeau so special? Why are his supporters and so-called journalists acting like he has a right to break 94 years of tradition and exploit constitutional loopholes too cling to power even after losing?
It’s obvious that there are a lot of powerful interests in this country who can’t handle the idea that their Liberal gravy train might be coming to a screeching halt. That’s why Trudeau’s fanboys and girls in politics and the media are all of a sudden trying to normalize crazy schemes in an effort to get the public to accept that a Conservative minority government has no right to take power, and Trudeau should be able to do what no Liberal prime minister before him ever dared to do—violate the will of the people.
The Trudeau government has been forced to apologize after attempting to to hide nearly $200,000 that they gave to an environmental group, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
The Liberal’s Natural Resource Minister Seamus O’Regan had to tell the public that he was “deeply sorry” after a Conservative MP discovered the supposed cover-up.
The Trudeau government paid the Pembina Institute $182,958 in contracts and $1.7 million in grants between 2017-19.
O’Regan now has some egg on his shirt after previously saying that they paid the Pembina Institute nothing, suggesting that the government did “not [grant] any contracts to the Pembina Institute.”
Before all this was revealed, Liberal MPs called the accusation baseless. Soon after this, however, O’Regan had to admit that the government had made an error in not publishing this money.
In a statement, Minister O’Regan said that he was “discussing the matter with my department officials to ensure this does not happen again … I know now that a mistake was made and this information was false. I am very sorry for that. I am deeply sorry.”
CBC Kids News has published an article in favour of Canadian teens embarking on a hunger strike. The hunger strike was scheduled to start on Sunday; its purpose is to protest the now-cancelled Teck mine project in Alberta. The article details famous, historical hunger strikers, their achievements, and what happens to the body when it is denied food.
The fact that CBC decided to cover a hunger strike involving the participation of children is irresponsible to say the least. That this was promoted on their children’s news platform makes it even worse. Teens are already at higher risk than adults for eating disorders, which are typically about a person wanting to take control over their bodies when they feel they have no control over anything else. This hunger strike is in service to something teens absolutely have no control over, energy policy.
It’s absolutely unconscionable to advocate for children to starve themselves to get the government to change its energy policy. And it is absurd to expect the government to change its energy agenda based on this kind of advocacy. The teens are basically taking themselves hostage, holding their breath until they get their way.
Twitter users were quick to point out how irresponsible and dangerous this article is.
It’s been a few years now that people are so freaked out by climate change that they’re willing to sacrifice their children. But while pundits and armchair climate activists may advocate for the Greta Thunbergs of the world to give up their futures in service to environmental activism, parents are not so sure.
In fact, the article on CBC Kids News had to be amended to account for a parent’s concern. One of the students who intends to participate in the hunger strike was noted to have the support of his mom. However, after the article was published, his mother wrote to say that “she is extremely worried about her son going on a hunger strike and, ‘even more disappointed that young adults feel they need to engage in self harm to be heard by the media and government on this issue.’”
She’s right to be concerned. As a matter of fact, all Canadian parents should be concerned. CBC has crossed a line by promoting unhealthy behaviour directly to young people. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Liberal Department of the Environment is saying that they are expecting the price of gasoline to rise as a result of new red-tape, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
Some estimates are suggesting that these new regulations will raise the price of gasoline four times as much as the Liberal carbon tax did. These price rises are expected for this year.
These new regulations have been named the “Clean Fuel Standard” by Trudeau’s government. This legislation will create sweeping new changes to how gasoline is dealt within Canada.
The Clean Fuel Standard will, for example, mandate a doubling of renewable energy in fuels and heating. This, combined with the carbon tax, will cost about $200 to $230 per tonne.
Speaking about the new regulations, the Liberal MP Sean Fraser said “believe me, affordability, in particular, is front of mind for our government … This is the way the world is going. This is not some left-wing, radical policy.”
When Bill C16 passed in 2017, many women rang the alarm against legislation that would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code to include protection against hate speech with regard to gender identity or expression. Concerns about the Bill were that gender identity protections would supercede protections for women. While there was a promise that a gender-based analysis (GBA) report would be forthcoming, it has not been released. That’s not good enough for Jennifer Joseph, who has launched a petition for the release of this information.
“We, the undersigned, Citizens of Canada,” resolves the petition, “call upon Candice Bergen to ask for the Gender-Based Analysis report be made public, and for Statistics Canada to explain their analysis or publish the results.”
Women who voiced concerns back in 2017 were not listened to and were accused of transphobic hate speech for broaching concerns about Bill C16. Yet much of what they predicted has come to pass. Women who speak out against having male-bodied persons in women’s spaces are called names, ostracized, and shut out of those places themselves.
In 2018, Kristi Hanna left a Toronto shelter for abused women rather than share a room with a male-bodied trans person. Her complaints were unheeded by staff. Vancouver Rape Relief, Canada’s oldest rape crisis centre, was denied funding by the City for not being inclusive enough to male-bodied trans persons. A human rights complaint was filed by Kimberly Nixon in 1995 against the center for the refusal to train Nixon, born male, to become a peer counsellor. Vancouver Rape Relief did not believe that Nixon could be a peer counsellor to other women, because Nixon was not born female. A rape relief center did not want women who had been raped to have to be counselled by a male person, so they lost their funding entirely.
The case of Jessica Yaniv, who has brought multiple complaints before the Human Rights Tribunal, accusing women of being hateful for not wanting to wax her male genitalia, shows how absurd this entire thing has become. Women’s rights to determine the work they would do in their private homes were questioned under Bill C16.
The petition states that police departments across Canada are no longer recording the sex of alleged offenders, “but instead the gender by which they identify.” The reasoning is that a person’s sex is too personal, and irrelevant to the charge of a crime committed. It is reasonable to consider that this change is to avoid running afoul of Human Rights legislation. Problems with this new practice include the confusion of crime stats, which then record crimes committed by male-bodied female-identifying persons as women’s crimes.
The Bill also interferes with parental rights, forcing parents to go along with their minor children’s ideas about medical alterations to their healthy bodies.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Bill C16 is the one that is most readily dismissed by trans activists. Bill C16 seeks to rewrite protections for women by removing the definition of the word. This denial of a biological definition of the word woman is what has allowed women to be brought up on charges of human rights abuses when they define the word to exclude persons who are born male.
Bill C16 offers protected classes for “gender identity” and “gender expression,” which terms are not legally defined. This defacto changes the meaning of the word woman to “whatever if feels like” to any given individual. In essence, this has meant that a person who dresses up as stereotypically feminine can say they are a woman, and gain access to those protections, such as abused women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, women’s prisons, and women’s hospital wards, that have previously been designated for the care of women.
This is done out of compassion for the individual who identifies more with those stereotypes that are associated with the opposite sex than with their own, but in doing so, it offers no consideration for women who need spaces and protections that male-bodied persons, no matter their fashion choices, do not. This petition seeks redress of these grievances by obtaining information on the effects of the law and is open for signatures until April.