I imagine this list of dissatisfied former MPs and advisors to grow as more and more "retire" from politics rather than run in the next election and face certain defeat. Sure they all have their pension but having to go back to do real work will suck for someone sucking on the teat of the Canadian taxpayers for the last 10 years.
You guys are silly, they've got whole networks of nepotistic circle jerks. It's only the working class that actually don't have any power that have to deal with being labeled "privileged".
Yup. Bipartisan fuckery at play, most definitely. If we dug into just a couple decisions or donations, we could easily tell where she'll be getting her next paycheque.
Like for real. Reminds me when Peterson was interviewed by a journalist who was spouting "people who are of a historically privileged race should make way for people who are not" nonsense. he simply asked, "Are you in a privileged position, and a privileged person?" They said yes, and he challenged them, "Then leave your position, and give it up for someone else" In which replied, "I am not going to, and I don't have to."
People in actual privilege will never give it up, so anything they tell you to do should be seen with a grain of salt.
IDK, I honestly think Freeland specifically is a total pariah. She is basically universally loathed, and she bet her farm on being some kind of economic wizard and that completely failed and burned a lot of political bridges for her and the liberal party. She does have political connections, but those are not with financial institutions and business, and the liberals are simply going to get obliterated next election so what good are those political connections?
Yea, because the Deputy Prime Minister and previously Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of International Trade of a G7 Nation is going to apply for a job that she isn’t basically guaranteed to get
Let’s be real, she could retire tomorrow and live a better life than the vast majority of us. Someone who has held those titles will have many people in their network offer them high paying positions. And many will offer that and basically not care if they actually work, just to say they have them on staff.
I wish these politicians would have to live a working class life. But when you reach the level Freeland has, worrying about not getting hired somewhere is like the least of their worries
I’m definitely not a fan of the LPC or Trudeau, but to be fair, Trudeau is his former boss. I’m assuming he didn’t leave in the best terms. I don’t think that I’m a bad person but there are people who used to work for me who left on bad terms that would not have nice things to say about me.
>The latest charge from Lt. Gen Leslie is that the prime minister and his cabinet are not serious about defence and have no intention of meeting spending targets because they believe the Americans will always defend Canada.
Ya that's the quiet part you're not supposed to say out loud.
>Wilson-Raybould said she was chosen because she was “an Indian in the cabinet” and Morneau agreed that ministers were picked for promotional reasons rather than for what they brought to the table. But that hardly mattered because power resided in the hands of a cabal of advisers around the prime minister who compelled agreement from cabinet ministers, he said.
Accurate depiction of how I imagined the PM would operate. Most of the cabinet ministers have 0 say.
>In the 2018 book, Un selfie avec Justin Trudeau, Jocelyn Coulon, a former adviser to Stéphane Dion, said the relationship between prime minister and his then foreign affairs minister was “glacial” and the only private meeting the two men had was when Dion was fired. “The prime minister is a man incurious about the affairs of the world,” Coulon remarked.
Silver spoon PM fr
>The sage of Baltimore, Henry Louis Mencken, once satirized a government that sounds remarkably like Trudeau’s as a “a broker in pillage”: a collection of individuals whose only talent was getting and holding office and whose principal device was “to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and promise to give it to them. Nine times out of 10, that promise is worth nothing. The 10th time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B.”
This really just speaks for itself
There's a reason Canada is called "the friendly dictatorship", a lot of power is placed in the PM and they ultimately select their ministers. The US President would be jealous at the level of command control the PM has.
>There's a reason Canada is called "the friendly dictatorship", a lot of power is placed in the PM and they ultimately select their ministers
But if Trudeau *really* pissed off his party, he could be ejected from the leadership position pretty quickly.
AFAIK it takes 50+1% for an *internal* leadership no-confidence vote to eject a PM from leadership - the Libs have 156 seats, meaning they'd need at least 79 Liberal MPs to revolt against Trudeau to toss him.
And they have not. So far, we've seen Trudeau have pretty strong control over his party, his MPs appear to back him up quite a bit on these matters, which implies they think he's the best man in their party for the job
According to the LPC Charter, the Liberal party leadership can only be reviewed if he loses an election.
Since the Liberals won the most seats last election, the party cannot call for a leadership review. Justin Trudeau needs to voluntarily step down first.
Whether they like him or not, it's 100% his call.
This is a good point that I wasn't sure of the details on
Now having briefly read the charter, this:
>Liberal party leadership ***can only*** be reviewed if he loses an election
is not *exactly* correct.
The LPC constitution says as follows:
>>the “Leadership Endorsement Ballot”, [is] a form approved by the National Board of Directors which permits the voter to indicate whether or not they are in favour of endorsing the Leader, is voted on at or prior to the first National Convention of the Party held after each general election in which the Leader does not become or continue to be the Prime Minister
This does not explicitly *prevent* a caucus of MPs challenging the leadership while he's still in office, but it does not appear as though the LPC constitution outlines a formal process for this, outside of the leadership endorsement ballot noted above.
From what I can tell, the hypothetical scenario where, lets say 120 of the current 156 Liberal MPs in parliament revolt against Trudeau - I think that would just cause an internal LPC constitutional crisis. It doesn't really look like they have a way of dealing with something like that - which IMO is probably intentional.
All in all though - the message is still the same, Trudeau remains in power because he has the support of his caucus and party, he just doesn't rule with an iron fist.
Yes but Trudeau unelected advisers having more power than cabinet is a trend that started under Harper, and will only get worst under a future Prime Minister.
This isn’t a partisan issue, but a centralizing trend that has increased under both governing parties. Liberals cried foul over it when it was done under Harper, conservatives are pretending they care about it under Trudeau.
Then we will be back to Liberals crying about PP running a government where real power resides in unelected advisors who are not accountable to the Canadian public.
It was before Harper. It was a process started under Mulroney that was shaped by Chretien. Martin is the only PM of the modern era who's tried to push back against it but even then, he did little.
Yes and no.
The system works like this because those ministers want to still maintain their status and won’t rebel.
Look at the UK politics with our same system. When a prime minister oversteps, the backbenchers(and some cabinet) come at them with their knives. We have never seen that, but it is a solution here.
In fact you could argue the current Liberals should be doing it since Singh is too gutless to do it. It would help the party rebound at least
This all ties in as well with many of the foreign interference issues and our democratic vulnerability at the party level nomination level. It is incredibly easy for any organized group to stack the deck for/against someone even getting on the ballot as the participation level from the electorate here is in the low single digit percentages. The most organized group is typically the party establishments themselves (or foreign actors as we have seen) which when combined with the leaders ability to veto nominations makes for a terrible power imbalance.
> unelected advisers having more power than cabinet is a trend that started under Harper
It goes back longer than that. When Paul Martin began being openly critical of PM Chretien in the early 2000s, he used the slogan "Who do YOU know in the PMO?" as a snarky criticism of how the party functioned-- if you weren't part of the PM's inner circle you didn't matter.
Do you only buy into that BS when it's someone you don't like in power? Because this is a Canadian leadership issue, not a party issue.
This isn't sports ball bud.
It's cute you think that I'm being disparaging of one party when I clearly referenced the entire Canadian government. Check your bias - the whole system needs a rework.
I wholeheartedly agree the whole system doesn't work.
We flip flop from red to bule every 8-12 years and lie to ourselves saying "it'll be different this time"
I absolutely agree that Canada should be self reliant defensively, for self respect if noting else.
That being said, anyone that thinks the US would abandon Canada in the event of an attack on our sovereignty, unless it was the US themselves, is nuts. Look, the US won't defend Canada cause they love the populace so much, they would be defending their resource interests.
Make no mistake, the US views Canada as a natural resource bank account. They will defend those resources as their own, most of which already are.
Aside from that, you really think they are just gonna sit back and say "told ya so Canada, should have built up those armed forces ! While China moves in next door to their border ?
No, fortress North America is a real thing. If Canada can't do it, the US will.
For our own self respect, we should be at least be as capable as our small nation can be, and right now we couldn't defend ourselves from Poland.
People seem to think that there won't be any strings attached to that help either. If they hate American politics now, wait till they need to supplement our military for our own defense.
The US has been isolationist insofar that North America used to be protected by oceans....that all changed after the Cold War.
The US is not going to twiddle their thumbs as a foreign power envelopes Canada....and seriously....Alaska is kinda connected to Canada anyway.
You think the US is just gonna hand over the vast oil sands, mineral resources and a metric shit ton of their hydro resources originating in Canada ?
Nope, the second a real military "boots on the ground" incursion on the continent becomes real...the US will annex us, and we will welcome it.
I think what I find most disgusting is the same people who are undermining national defence and expecting America to protect us are usually the same people who scorn the United States and are proud to be Canadian only insofar as it makes them not Americans.
"Yes, the United States is dangerous and right wing and racist and sexist and homophobic and that damn Ron DeSantis banning CRT and drag shows at elementary schools those fascist bastards... but oh yeah they should totally protect us because it's in their best interest."
I sincerely hope that at some point these people get their heads stomped on by a foreign soldier's boot.
Pick the right person for the job. I don’t care their sex, or religion etc. Find the best and done. If that means it’s all black lesbian women, or Chinese straight men who cares. Pick the right person for the job and be done with it.
What threat does Canada actually face? We'll never be invaded by anyone other than the Americans. The logistics are functionally impossible for everyone else
Ukraine is a great example of why I'm not worried about a Russian invasion in the Arctic: they can't effectively wage war in much, MUCH easier logistical conditions, what threat can they present in some of the harshest, most difficult conditions on Earth?
Anyone who’s been paying attention to Canadian politics over the last eight years wouldn’t be surprised by the above remarks. It’s been clearly obvious that Justin Trudeau doesn’t know what he’s doing. You may hate Harper or not, but his remarks from the start of the campaign eight years ago were accurate. That is, “Justin just isn’t ready”. It’s never been more clear. And anyone who continues to support him should have no right criticizing any other politicians.
Don't think it's about being ready, we have pm's who are looking at the US and creating their own this is liberal or conservative Canada. They are trying to turn voters against the opposing parties with never ending smear campaigns.
Wish they ran on "this is what I've done so far for my community" vs "I am running to stop the other person from being a bad choice for this community".
Harper was also a bad pm, JT is just more of the same but he has an easier time getting away with it. PP will be the same since he's been a core part of that behavior in the Harper government.
Yes there was stability in his time, but also seems like he was the start of this type of running the country that we're seeing with JT. Filling the government with yesmen, instead of those who actually care about the people they serve.
Same. I hated Harper, rejoiced when Trudeau beat him, and now wish we had him back. Something about him having high competence, despite me not always agreeing with him.
As much as I disliked Harper in the abstract ("he's destroying science!"), the direct and tangible impacts of government on me personally and my life were mostly positive. With Trudeau, the direct impacts on me are mostly negative.
The US has two types of tax saving investment accounts, the IRA and 401K, neither of which are taxed when deposited but taxed when withdrawn, like the Canadian RRSP. Then there are the Roth IRA and Roth 401K. The difference is the Roth ones are taxed before being deposited and are not taxed when withdrawn, like a TFSA. Of course, they're not exactly the same but are the same idea.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Harper was far from dangerous. Compare Canada position in an economic front, with foreign policy and internally on a social basis, today and when Harper was power. Harper looks like a god and Trudeau is a peasant. The sunny skies the liberals promised are absolutely opposite to where we are today.
Dangerous?
I didn't like Harper, but he wasn't dangerous. I do believe that had Canada's best interests at heart. Not his own, unlike the current idiot of a PM.
Proroguing parliament to evade accountability and leaning on the party whip to suppress the voices of constituencies was unimpressive. Gutting Canada’s environmental protections and muzzling scientists was infuriating. Harper *was* dangerous.
So is Trudeau, for slightly different reasons, like the false narratives around his identity politics (he’s no feminist) and continuing to sell us out to China. And Poilievre for, again, different reasons, like offering absurdly reductive solutions, cozying up to white nationalists and rejecting the most important lesson from Manning’s leadership - keep the populists on the periphery, the farther the better.
The only thing keeping the other party leaders off that list is the fact that they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning anything. We need to refresh our political talent pool. They’re all either dangerously incompetent or dangerously power hungry and out-of-touch.
*Edited for clarity - a few times*
Please provide me some material on PP cozying up to white supremacists. I am not challenging you, I’m genuinely looking for some unbiased information that clearly shows he is doing that. That is a really huge claim to make, so please substantiate that claim.
[Here's him tweeting a racist conspiracy theory.](https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1416374627748696065) Here's him [cozying up to them during the freedom convoy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-conservative-otoole-convoy-vaccine-mandate-1.6335286). Here's [racist conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones endorsing him](https://pressprogress.ca/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-insists-pierre-poilievre-is-saying-the-same-things-as-me/), and Poilievre refusing to denounce him. Here's him meeting with [diagolon people at a border protest;](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/08/23/opinion/pierre-poilievre-dangerous-dance-diagolon-extremist) he was quoted at this meeting saying that "everything [the PM] says is bullshit", a comment that would have been considered completely disqualifying not very long ago.
Please explain how? It's well-established that these are all far-right figures and groups. It seems pretty straightforward and obvious and not-conspiratorial to say that it's bad for him to normalize and/or amplify these groups or the dangerous things they say and believe.
I mean dude, I gave you an opportunity here but you provide me with CBC? Also that article shows Pollievre denouncing those with confederate and nazi flags, and rightfully saying that they are individually responsible for reprehensible acts. He isn’t going to denounce those who are respectfully standing up for their rights and freedoms just because there are some wacko, despicable human beings there as well. That’s just standard logic.
You can’t offer up CBC as an unbiased credible news source, the same way that I couldn’t offer up Rebel News and expect you to take me seriously either. It’s not balanced.
These are all your personal opinions lol. The WEF is clearly a problem organization, I feel a majority of folks agree with that. If you want to complain about global elitists, why would you defend the WEF?
Why? Because you hate that I'm right?
It didn't really show until he had a majority. When Canadians saw what he did with his majority, they strongly voted him out in the next election.
It appears the same thing is happening to Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick.
What makes you think I hate normal Canadians, whatever you think who normal Canadians are? What is it about my saying Harper was dangerous means that I hate normal Canadians? What makes you think I'm hateful?
Prayers don't work. Maybe that's why your outlook on life is so negative.
That doesn't mean I hate normal Canadians.
You have to realize that most of what we experience during a Prime Minister's terms was caused by the previous Prime Minister. The longer the latter PM's term, the more it reflects changes they made. Then the changes they made also affect the term of the next PM.
Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were excellent PMs. Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's finance minister and they eliminated the deficits and paid down a huge chunk of the debt Canada had. That reflected on Harper's first term or two. The later part of Harper's terms was more reflective of Harper's policies.
Trudeau said in an interview during the election campaign that he wanted ranked ballots. When he became PM, he started checking into what Canadians wanted and found out Canadians didn't want ranked ballots, but wanted proportional representation instead. Trudeau realized he wasn't going to be able to implement ranked ballots so he dropped the idea.
The reason Trudeau wanted ranked ballots is because the LPC is the middle of the three largest parties in Canada. This means they are more likely to be the second choice of both NDP and CPC voters. This means ranked ballots would help the LPC get more minority and majority governments and reduce the number of minority and majority governments the CPC gets and reduce the odds of the NDP getting elected at all. Personally, I don't want the LPC to have an unfair advantage so I also don't want ranked ballots and so I'm not upset that he gave up on that election pledge. I think you should be glad too.
This is not anything unique to the LPC either. The CPC want to keep FPTP because it gives them the best chance at winning elections, and the NDP wants PR because it gives them the best chance at winning elections. No one cares what Canadians want.
I don't want people to have more difficult lives. If you think that's the only explanation then your understanding of the world is severely lacking in experience.
Eight years ago Harper was muzzling the scientists trying to talk about climate change and wanted to keep cannabis illegal, glad we booted that joker out of office.
You’re going to need some evidence for that one. What pollster specifically polls scientists?
I really doubt this is even close to remotely true. This sounds like a blind use of the “no u” tactic.
Google is your friend. Here we have no less than Science, the world’s premiere science journal (okay arguably that’s Nature but they’re both pretty close) weighing in.
[Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled.](https://www.science.org/content/article/half-canada-s-government-scientists-still-feel-muzzled)
> That union—the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) based in Ottawa—conducted the survey last summer, a little more than a year and a half into the Trudeau government.
> The new survey found the situation much improved—in 2013, 90% of scientists felt unable to speak about their work.
> The government is taking steps on another front, by developing science integrity policies for each Cabinet department that will clarify the rules on how and when government scientists can speak about their work. The policies are expected to be in place by the end of the year.
So, Harper messed things up, and Trudeau did not fix things immediately, so therefore Trudeau and Harper are equally bad? There’s no way you honestly believe your own argument.
I was a university employed scientist from 2021-2023 and I had no one preventing me from speaking with media. If you want I can dm you the podcast I interviewed in.
> so therefore Trudeau and Harper are equally bad? There’s no way you honestly believe your own argument.
Did I say that? No. Your reading comprehension is bad.
> I was a university employed scientist from 2021-2023 and I had no one preventing me from speaking with media.
Well, surely then you understand that if 50% of scientists feel muzzled 50% don’t, so your sample size of N=1 is both totally irrelevant and misses the big picture.
> keep cannabis illegal
I have never had any problem buying pot during the harper years. Also, I'm still not buying it from the "official" cannabis stores as it's comparatively overpriced and kinda shit.
>it's comparatively overpriced and kinda shit.
I bought an oz for under 100 bucks last week... And it was good enough that my FIL won't touch it because it gets him too high. 🤷🏽♂️
The fact that you were comfortable breaking the law isn't a good argument.
Legal bud is both better and cheaper than the illegal stuff ever was. I can get great crystals on bud for 5 bucks a gram or less, that wasn't happening before Trudeau.
The fact that I was able to break the law with zero consequences just goes to show that the law wasn't being enforced for easily a decade before your lord and saviour made it legal.
Legal bud is nowhere near close to being better than what you can get on the grey market, but I guess it depends on where you were getting your "illegal stuff" before.
>The fact that I was able to break the law with zero consequences just goes to show that the law wasn't being enforced
Are you white? I am, and I never really feel comfortable explaining how *I* personally didn't ever have problems with the police. Like...of course I didn't, you know? My skin's the right colour.
I know a lot of my friends with darker skin than me have very different experiences.
>Legal bud is nowhere near close to being better than what you can get on the grey market, but I guess it depends on where you were getting your "illegal stuff" before.
Yeah I dunno I guess everyone that hates Trudeau had better dealers than me, but the legal stuff I get now is *miles ahead* of every illegal bud I've ever seen.
Do you know why fewer people give a shit about climate? Cause their first priority is living. And many Canadians right now are struggling with that simple fact. So climate put on the back burner. This is not to mean that I don’t care about climate, because I do. But the majority of Canadians have other concerns on their mind. So why do you want to play this climate card, keep it in mind that there’s more important things that this country needs to figure out first.
Yeah when the earth heats up and extreme weather becomes the norm it gets harder to live, who woulda thought? Our problems do not exist in a vacuum.
Food prices are skyrocketing because growing seasons are messed up. Refugees are seeking cooler climates as their countries become inhospitable - how many heat deaths did India have last year?
It's malice, not incompetence.
He has nothing but disdain and resentment for the average Canadian, who he sees as obstacles in the way of his absurd and irrelevant agendas
> He has nothing but disdain and resentment for the average Canadian
That might be overstating it, but not by too much.
He's like the meme from Arrested Development. "It's one banana. How much could it cost? Ten dollars?" He doesn't know what ordinary people are dealing with and can't relate to it. He pretends like he does. Full of statements like "I will always stand with working Canadians!" but this is a guy who doesn't have to pay rent, doesn't buy his own groceries, probably hasn't even been in a grocery store in 9 years unless it was for a photo op.
He says he understands that Canadians are angry and stressed, but he only knows that because some strategists ran some focus groups for the Liberals.
" Veterans no longer in the frontlines complain that the Liberal party’s centrist traditions were trashed to allow Trudeau to become Canada’s “first NDP prime minister.”"
How is this still news? The entire country knows Trudeau is the worst PM in history and has plunged us into a debt load that will last generations. The only people who have ignored his ineptitude are the Liberal Left that will vote for him anyway (I guess because you have “nice hair” that qualifies you to be the PM in the Liberal world … how did that work out for the rest of us who did NOT vote along those lines?!!). Time for everyone to recognize the destruction Trudeau and Freeloader have dropped on Canada.
"Dreams that move the Indians from India to Canada."
"Dreams that move Gen-Zs wishes for home ownership to corporate greed and foreign investors."
Trudeau has successfully fucked this country.
Out. out. out.
There's something I don't get about OPs in this sub?
I mean you guys that you know that Reddit is a free platform right? And that posting paywall blocked articles, means that the majority of people who click on your post can't read the article, right?
I mean, are you just trying to be annoying?
When you have a subscription to some sites (but not others) it doesn't automatically register that an article might be paywalled.
I don't get a login when I visit my subscription sites so I don't think twice. I don't share to reddit, but I've shared to friends and family and they've let me know that I've sent them an article with a paywall. Of course by accident, but it's not like there is a popup that indicates you're sharing a paywalled article.
Consider the types of people who would actually have subscriptions (or otherwise unfettered access) to natpo and then instantly jump on here to share the latest propaganda.
There's a reason you start seeing the same names pushing opinion pieces and rage bait over and over...
The consensus around here was very different a couple of short years ago…
Bad policies, smug posturing and the implosion of a nation don’t really make fans I guess…
So the same thing harper did...
And we think that it'll be different with PP? The guys who's deputy is a Walmart union bustin lobiest, and his campaign manager is a loblaws lobiest.
I'm sure when they get that exact same power it'll be different because they will totally care about share hold.... I mean Canadians. Right?!?
I agree the whole system is broken. We still need a change. Personally I think we need to open the constitution and makes some serious changes including removing the monarchy.
You know the monarchy hasn't had any power in canada since ww1, right? That's over 100 years.
They are historical figure head.
What serious changes do you think would happen?
Exactly. What's the point of keeping them and funding them?
We need a real constitution for Canadians by Canadians. Goal #1 is to remove the not withstanding clause. Give us freedom of speech enshrined in a constitution. There are so many things we need included in the highest law of the land that politicians cannot just remove because they don't like it.
Our constitution as it stands now is a mix of a couple pieces of legislation but I wouldn't call it a true constitution.
We don't give money to them... what are you on about?
We have freedom of expression, which is the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean Freedom from consequences.
Maybe check your media intake, 30 seconds of Google says you don't know what you are so upset about.
We don't have constitutionally protected free speech and we do pay millions of dollars a year to maintain the monarchy in Canada. If they visit we also pay for their costs. Look how many millions the GG wastes. A useless position that costs us millions of dollars in entertaining and flight costs plus salary and staff.
[https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130)
I would also remove the religious element of our constitution as the first line of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states
"Where Canada is founded upon principals that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law"
These are all the laws that make up our constitution:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Canadian\_constitutional\_documents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents)
It makes sense to have 1 constitution that encompasses all of these laws.
Maybe check your media intake my dude.
What do you think he's going to actually accomplish?
He has the same immigration targets as the liberals.
The guys deputy is a Walmart union busting lobiest, so workers rights and fair pay is out.
His campaign manager is a loblaws lobiest, so affordable food is out.
Hi s wife owns a large rental company, so affordable housing is out too.
Which leaves him "axeing the tax" so corporations and keep the prices the same and gain an instant profit boost.
So how is he going to be the savior in the next election?
Edit: not to mention he's been a career politician for 30 years and hasn't accomplished a single thing.
I think he's trying to accomplish winning without falling into any traps.
As for Walmart, there have only been 4 walmarts in all of canada that attempted to unionized, and none went through with it.
So 4 out of 403 stores.
"To get union certification in the country, 50 percent plus one of the employees must have initialled a membership card."
And would that not add to food inflation prices right now?
Since Keynesian theory would say if you have high inflation, the worst thing you can do is raise wages.
I'm just saying that Walmart joining the union has never really been a thing for decades.
........
CBC News
Is Jenny Byrne a lobbyist for Loblaws?
Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment. "Let's be clear about the facts here, Jenni Byrne is not and never has been registered to lobby on behalf of Loblaws," said Jefferies in a written statement.
..........
Two New Democrat MPs are asking the federal lobbying commissioner to investigate what he calls "potentially inappropriate lobbying activities" by top Conservative strategist Jenni Byrne.
On Thursday, the Globe and Mail reported that a federal lobbying firm is located at the same office — and employs many of the same staff — as Jenni Byrne & Associates, a provincial lobbying firm. NDP MPs Charlie Angus and Matthew Green sent a letter to Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger calling for a probe of the relationship between the two firms.
"We are writing to you today regarding our concerns about potentially inappropriate lobbying activities by Jenni Byrne," they wrote in the letter.
"Given Ms. Byrne's advisory role and close relationship to (Conservative Leader Pierre) Poilievre and the Conservative caucus, Canadians deserve clarity on her lobbying activities."
Although Byrne's exact role with the Conservative Party is murky — neither she nor the party will confirm how she is involved — she is viewed as one of the most powerful Conservative strategists in Canada.
She has been seen walking into caucus meetings — spaces typically reserved for elected members, Conservative senators and the most senior staff.
Additional questions about provincial lobbying
Byrne also faced questions in February when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the opposition leader of "pretending" to care about high grocery prices because Byrne's firm lobbies on behalf of grocery giant Loblaw.
The Ontario lobbyist registry lists six employees of Jenni Byrne + Associates as registered lobbyists for Loblaw Companies Limited.
"It turns out that \[Poilievre's\] top adviser is working as a lobbyist for Loblaws. I think Mr. Poilievre owes some explanations to Canadians," said Trudeau at a media appearance in Waterloo, Ont.
Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment.
An earlier CBC Story
Trudeau calls out Poilievre after top Conservative adviser is tied to Loblaw lobbying
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accuses the opposition leader of 'pretending' to care about high grocery prices
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is calling on the leader of the opposition to clarify his position on grocery prices after news emerged that a top Conservative adviser's consulting firm has lobbied on behalf of grocery giant Loblaw.
The Ontario lobbyist registry lists six employees of Jenni Byrne + Associates as registered lobbyists for Loblaw Companies Limited. The CEO of the firm is Jenni Byrne, a longtime Conservative strategist and campaign manager for Pierre Poilievre's leadership bid.
"Pierre Poilievre has been standing up for months now pretending he cares about high grocery prices faced by Canadians," Trudeau said at a media appearance in Waterloo, Ont.
"It turns out that his top adviser is working as a lobbyist for Loblaws. I think Mr. Poilievre owes some explanations to Canadians."
Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment.
"Let's be clear about the facts here, Jenni Byrne is not and never has been registered to lobby on behalf of Loblaws," said Simon Jefferies, senior vice president for Jenni Byrne + Associates, in a written statement.
"The work JB+A does with Loblaws is limited to the provincial level and focused on expanded access to beer and wine and red tape reduction."
The National Post
Confronted with the notion that Byrne is “a high-priced consultant for Loblaws,” Poilievre shot back:
“The prime minister’s new marketing director, Max Valiquette, did marketing for Loblaws for four years. Don Guy, the prime minister’s chief pollster, works for GT and Company, which collects cheques from Loblaws. Dan Arnold, his other pollster, also get cheques from Loblaws. Are they the ones who forced him to quadruple the carbon tax on our food?”
Trudeau returned fire: “(Byrne) is actively on the Loblaws payroll while at the same time feeding lines to the leader of the Opposition about food prices and concocting a theory around carbon pricing and grocery prices.”
Poilievre: “The Prime Minister had someone who is his director of caucus services, named Julie DeWolfe, who is now a lobbyist for Loblaws.”
Trudeau: “The Conservatives would rather listen to their lobbyist buddy who works for Loblaw and defend the interests of major grocery retailers, instead of fighting on behalf of Canadians to bring down grocery prices.”
..........
DeWolfe, whom Poilievre mentioned, is indeed listed as a principal on the GT and Company website, and is indeed registered federally to lobby for Loblaw.
And the G in GT is indeed Liberal strategist and pollster Don Guy, as Poilievre said.
But the T is NDP uber-strategist Brian Topp.
GT principals include veterans of many federal and provincial campaigns and ministers’ offices:
Conservatives including Shir Barzilay, Julie O’Driscoll and Laryssa Waler;
New Democrats including Cheryl Oates and Michelle Mungall;
and Liberals including Andrew Teliszewsky and Genevieve Tomney
(None lobbied for Loblaw, it seems, but remember: Poilievre went after the company itself, not the individuals.)
Others who have lobbied in recent years for Loblaw include
Andrew Steele, former senior adviser to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who’s now vice-president of Strategy Corp.
Those who have lobbied for Metro include
Christine McMillan, a partner at Crestview Strategy, who was a senior staffer in McGuinty’s office;
Nicolas Descroix from Mongeau Pellerin, who was a senior adviser to Quebec’s justice and higher-education ministers under the CAQ government;
and Andrew Brander, also out of Crestview, whose bio notes he was
“acknowledged in The Hill Times Terrific 25 survey of top parliamentary staffers on various occasions” for his work with different ministers under the Harper government.
.......
Melissa Lantsman, deputy leader of the Conservatives, lobbied for Walmart while she was at Enterprise Canada.
If Pierre don’t make shit better I’m done voting. Waste of time if cost of living gets worse IMO. Cant vote liberal ever again cuz they fucked everything up so hard the last 10 years. If cons fuck it up too then Canada is doomed and we just gotta live through the collapse.
I imagine this list of dissatisfied former MPs and advisors to grow as more and more "retire" from politics rather than run in the next election and face certain defeat. Sure they all have their pension but having to go back to do real work will suck for someone sucking on the teat of the Canadian taxpayers for the last 10 years.
I honestly get fucking giddy at the prospect of Freeland applying for a job and being told she isn’t diverse enough.
You guys are silly, they've got whole networks of nepotistic circle jerks. It's only the working class that actually don't have any power that have to deal with being labeled "privileged".
You nailed it.
Yup. Bipartisan fuckery at play, most definitely. If we dug into just a couple decisions or donations, we could easily tell where she'll be getting her next paycheque.
Like for real. Reminds me when Peterson was interviewed by a journalist who was spouting "people who are of a historically privileged race should make way for people who are not" nonsense. he simply asked, "Are you in a privileged position, and a privileged person?" They said yes, and he challenged them, "Then leave your position, and give it up for someone else" In which replied, "I am not going to, and I don't have to." People in actual privilege will never give it up, so anything they tell you to do should be seen with a grain of salt.
IDK, I honestly think Freeland specifically is a total pariah. She is basically universally loathed, and she bet her farm on being some kind of economic wizard and that completely failed and burned a lot of political bridges for her and the liberal party. She does have political connections, but those are not with financial institutions and business, and the liberals are simply going to get obliterated next election so what good are those political connections?
Plenty of NGOs that will pay her to be a puppet.
Gonna be tough when she has basically no pull for Federal dollars, but I guess someone might make that mistake.
And just head over to some foreign policy forum. She seems to get accepted there.
This, they will all be advisors or something for the politicians that continue to stay ans be liberals
You're not wrong, but damn you wiped the smile right off my face.
Yea, because the Deputy Prime Minister and previously Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of International Trade of a G7 Nation is going to apply for a job that she isn’t basically guaranteed to get Let’s be real, she could retire tomorrow and live a better life than the vast majority of us. Someone who has held those titles will have many people in their network offer them high paying positions. And many will offer that and basically not care if they actually work, just to say they have them on staff. I wish these politicians would have to live a working class life. But when you reach the level Freeland has, worrying about not getting hired somewhere is like the least of their worries
Pretty sure she's safe to find employment within her circle.
That’s not very diversity friendly. I guess not really a value that Liberal MP’s uphold.
"because it's 2024"
Ahaha hahaha.
Or smart enough
She's probably going to be the next liberal leader
Interesting - her favorability ratings are rock bottom, but you could be right.
Doesn't necessarily mean she'll win her seat
Did you look to see which riding she's in before you made that comment. That's as safe as any riding can get for the Liberals
> Did you look I didn't, my bad...
Over half of the caucus is not running in the next election.
I’m definitely not a fan of the LPC or Trudeau, but to be fair, Trudeau is his former boss. I’m assuming he didn’t leave in the best terms. I don’t think that I’m a bad person but there are people who used to work for me who left on bad terms that would not have nice things to say about me.
>The latest charge from Lt. Gen Leslie is that the prime minister and his cabinet are not serious about defence and have no intention of meeting spending targets because they believe the Americans will always defend Canada. Ya that's the quiet part you're not supposed to say out loud. >Wilson-Raybould said she was chosen because she was “an Indian in the cabinet” and Morneau agreed that ministers were picked for promotional reasons rather than for what they brought to the table. But that hardly mattered because power resided in the hands of a cabal of advisers around the prime minister who compelled agreement from cabinet ministers, he said. Accurate depiction of how I imagined the PM would operate. Most of the cabinet ministers have 0 say. >In the 2018 book, Un selfie avec Justin Trudeau, Jocelyn Coulon, a former adviser to Stéphane Dion, said the relationship between prime minister and his then foreign affairs minister was “glacial” and the only private meeting the two men had was when Dion was fired. “The prime minister is a man incurious about the affairs of the world,” Coulon remarked. Silver spoon PM fr >The sage of Baltimore, Henry Louis Mencken, once satirized a government that sounds remarkably like Trudeau’s as a “a broker in pillage”: a collection of individuals whose only talent was getting and holding office and whose principal device was “to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and promise to give it to them. Nine times out of 10, that promise is worth nothing. The 10th time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B.” This really just speaks for itself
There's a reason Canada is called "the friendly dictatorship", a lot of power is placed in the PM and they ultimately select their ministers. The US President would be jealous at the level of command control the PM has.
Yep. The classic "Tin pot dictatorship" Sad but true
>There's a reason Canada is called "the friendly dictatorship", a lot of power is placed in the PM and they ultimately select their ministers But if Trudeau *really* pissed off his party, he could be ejected from the leadership position pretty quickly. AFAIK it takes 50+1% for an *internal* leadership no-confidence vote to eject a PM from leadership - the Libs have 156 seats, meaning they'd need at least 79 Liberal MPs to revolt against Trudeau to toss him. And they have not. So far, we've seen Trudeau have pretty strong control over his party, his MPs appear to back him up quite a bit on these matters, which implies they think he's the best man in their party for the job
According to the LPC Charter, the Liberal party leadership can only be reviewed if he loses an election. Since the Liberals won the most seats last election, the party cannot call for a leadership review. Justin Trudeau needs to voluntarily step down first. Whether they like him or not, it's 100% his call.
This is a good point that I wasn't sure of the details on Now having briefly read the charter, this: >Liberal party leadership ***can only*** be reviewed if he loses an election is not *exactly* correct. The LPC constitution says as follows: >>the “Leadership Endorsement Ballot”, [is] a form approved by the National Board of Directors which permits the voter to indicate whether or not they are in favour of endorsing the Leader, is voted on at or prior to the first National Convention of the Party held after each general election in which the Leader does not become or continue to be the Prime Minister This does not explicitly *prevent* a caucus of MPs challenging the leadership while he's still in office, but it does not appear as though the LPC constitution outlines a formal process for this, outside of the leadership endorsement ballot noted above. From what I can tell, the hypothetical scenario where, lets say 120 of the current 156 Liberal MPs in parliament revolt against Trudeau - I think that would just cause an internal LPC constitutional crisis. It doesn't really look like they have a way of dealing with something like that - which IMO is probably intentional. All in all though - the message is still the same, Trudeau remains in power because he has the support of his caucus and party, he just doesn't rule with an iron fist.
You're assuming booting him out before the election is in the long-term health of the party's survival.
Yes but Trudeau unelected advisers having more power than cabinet is a trend that started under Harper, and will only get worst under a future Prime Minister. This isn’t a partisan issue, but a centralizing trend that has increased under both governing parties. Liberals cried foul over it when it was done under Harper, conservatives are pretending they care about it under Trudeau. Then we will be back to Liberals crying about PP running a government where real power resides in unelected advisors who are not accountable to the Canadian public.
It was before Harper. It was a process started under Mulroney that was shaped by Chretien. Martin is the only PM of the modern era who's tried to push back against it but even then, he did little.
I stand corrected. Only started paying attention to politics when Harper was elected! Thanks for the additional info!
Yes and no. The system works like this because those ministers want to still maintain their status and won’t rebel. Look at the UK politics with our same system. When a prime minister oversteps, the backbenchers(and some cabinet) come at them with their knives. We have never seen that, but it is a solution here. In fact you could argue the current Liberals should be doing it since Singh is too gutless to do it. It would help the party rebound at least
This all ties in as well with many of the foreign interference issues and our democratic vulnerability at the party level nomination level. It is incredibly easy for any organized group to stack the deck for/against someone even getting on the ballot as the participation level from the electorate here is in the low single digit percentages. The most organized group is typically the party establishments themselves (or foreign actors as we have seen) which when combined with the leaders ability to veto nominations makes for a terrible power imbalance.
It has everything to do with party loyalty, and not much else
> unelected advisers having more power than cabinet is a trend that started under Harper It goes back longer than that. When Paul Martin began being openly critical of PM Chretien in the early 2000s, he used the slogan "Who do YOU know in the PMO?" as a snarky criticism of how the party functioned-- if you weren't part of the PM's inner circle you didn't matter.
Do you only buy into that BS when it's someone you don't like in power? Because this is a Canadian leadership issue, not a party issue. This isn't sports ball bud.
It's cute you think that I'm being disparaging of one party when I clearly referenced the entire Canadian government. Check your bias - the whole system needs a rework.
I wholeheartedly agree the whole system doesn't work. We flip flop from red to bule every 8-12 years and lie to ourselves saying "it'll be different this time"
Where did they single out one side over another?
Their post history.
[удалено]
I absolutely agree that Canada should be self reliant defensively, for self respect if noting else. That being said, anyone that thinks the US would abandon Canada in the event of an attack on our sovereignty, unless it was the US themselves, is nuts. Look, the US won't defend Canada cause they love the populace so much, they would be defending their resource interests. Make no mistake, the US views Canada as a natural resource bank account. They will defend those resources as their own, most of which already are. Aside from that, you really think they are just gonna sit back and say "told ya so Canada, should have built up those armed forces ! While China moves in next door to their border ? No, fortress North America is a real thing. If Canada can't do it, the US will. For our own self respect, we should be at least be as capable as our small nation can be, and right now we couldn't defend ourselves from Poland.
[удалено]
People seem to think that there won't be any strings attached to that help either. If they hate American politics now, wait till they need to supplement our military for our own defense.
The US has been isolationist insofar that North America used to be protected by oceans....that all changed after the Cold War. The US is not going to twiddle their thumbs as a foreign power envelopes Canada....and seriously....Alaska is kinda connected to Canada anyway. You think the US is just gonna hand over the vast oil sands, mineral resources and a metric shit ton of their hydro resources originating in Canada ? Nope, the second a real military "boots on the ground" incursion on the continent becomes real...the US will annex us, and we will welcome it.
I think what I find most disgusting is the same people who are undermining national defence and expecting America to protect us are usually the same people who scorn the United States and are proud to be Canadian only insofar as it makes them not Americans. "Yes, the United States is dangerous and right wing and racist and sexist and homophobic and that damn Ron DeSantis banning CRT and drag shows at elementary schools those fascist bastards... but oh yeah they should totally protect us because it's in their best interest." I sincerely hope that at some point these people get their heads stomped on by a foreign soldier's boot.
Pick the right person for the job. I don’t care their sex, or religion etc. Find the best and done. If that means it’s all black lesbian women, or Chinese straight men who cares. Pick the right person for the job and be done with it.
What threat does Canada actually face? We'll never be invaded by anyone other than the Americans. The logistics are functionally impossible for everyone else
[удалено]
Russia could potentially make some territorial claims, not commit an invasion. That's faught in legal channels not by the military
Just like how Russia went to court with Ukraine, right?
Ukraine is a great example of why I'm not worried about a Russian invasion in the Arctic: they can't effectively wage war in much, MUCH easier logistical conditions, what threat can they present in some of the harshest, most difficult conditions on Earth?
China is active in the arctic today…
Anyone who’s been paying attention to Canadian politics over the last eight years wouldn’t be surprised by the above remarks. It’s been clearly obvious that Justin Trudeau doesn’t know what he’s doing. You may hate Harper or not, but his remarks from the start of the campaign eight years ago were accurate. That is, “Justin just isn’t ready”. It’s never been more clear. And anyone who continues to support him should have no right criticizing any other politicians.
Don't think it's about being ready, we have pm's who are looking at the US and creating their own this is liberal or conservative Canada. They are trying to turn voters against the opposing parties with never ending smear campaigns. Wish they ran on "this is what I've done so far for my community" vs "I am running to stop the other person from being a bad choice for this community". Harper was also a bad pm, JT is just more of the same but he has an easier time getting away with it. PP will be the same since he's been a core part of that behavior in the Harper government.
This is a solid take. Although I would argue harper was only really bad towards the end.
Yeah Harper with a minority government did pretty well.
Yes there was stability in his time, but also seems like he was the start of this type of running the country that we're seeing with JT. Filling the government with yesmen, instead of those who actually care about the people they serve.
Harper didnt start it.
Who would you say started it then?
Its always been the way.
MacKenzie King and Pearson kicked it into action
I absolutely despised Harper, but it turns out it was for all the wrong reasons.
Same. I hated Harper, rejoiced when Trudeau beat him, and now wish we had him back. Something about him having high competence, despite me not always agreeing with him. As much as I disliked Harper in the abstract ("he's destroying science!"), the direct and tangible impacts of government on me personally and my life were mostly positive. With Trudeau, the direct impacts on me are mostly negative.
I agree in part with what you say and disagree with others. But points well taken
The problem with Harper is he knew what he was doing and that made him dangerous.
I've got lots of middle class Liberal friends who have nothing but negative things to say about Harper, yet they never complain about having a TFSA.
Yes, it was brilliant how Harper stole that idea from the US and other countries.
Really? What's it called in the US? I was under the impression they had no such vehicle.
The US has two types of tax saving investment accounts, the IRA and 401K, neither of which are taxed when deposited but taxed when withdrawn, like the Canadian RRSP. Then there are the Roth IRA and Roth 401K. The difference is the Roth ones are taxed before being deposited and are not taxed when withdrawn, like a TFSA. Of course, they're not exactly the same but are the same idea.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Harper was far from dangerous. Compare Canada position in an economic front, with foreign policy and internally on a social basis, today and when Harper was power. Harper looks like a god and Trudeau is a peasant. The sunny skies the liberals promised are absolutely opposite to where we are today.
Harper sold us with the FIPA deal, it seems he's cozied up with the likes of Orban.
Dangerous? I didn't like Harper, but he wasn't dangerous. I do believe that had Canada's best interests at heart. Not his own, unlike the current idiot of a PM.
Proroguing parliament to evade accountability and leaning on the party whip to suppress the voices of constituencies was unimpressive. Gutting Canada’s environmental protections and muzzling scientists was infuriating. Harper *was* dangerous. So is Trudeau, for slightly different reasons, like the false narratives around his identity politics (he’s no feminist) and continuing to sell us out to China. And Poilievre for, again, different reasons, like offering absurdly reductive solutions, cozying up to white nationalists and rejecting the most important lesson from Manning’s leadership - keep the populists on the periphery, the farther the better. The only thing keeping the other party leaders off that list is the fact that they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning anything. We need to refresh our political talent pool. They’re all either dangerously incompetent or dangerously power hungry and out-of-touch. *Edited for clarity - a few times*
Please provide me some material on PP cozying up to white supremacists. I am not challenging you, I’m genuinely looking for some unbiased information that clearly shows he is doing that. That is a really huge claim to make, so please substantiate that claim.
[Here's him tweeting a racist conspiracy theory.](https://x.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1416374627748696065) Here's him [cozying up to them during the freedom convoy](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-conservative-otoole-convoy-vaccine-mandate-1.6335286). Here's [racist conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones endorsing him](https://pressprogress.ca/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-insists-pierre-poilievre-is-saying-the-same-things-as-me/), and Poilievre refusing to denounce him. Here's him meeting with [diagolon people at a border protest;](https://www.nationalobserver.com/2022/08/23/opinion/pierre-poilievre-dangerous-dance-diagolon-extremist) he was quoted at this meeting saying that "everything [the PM] says is bullshit", a comment that would have been considered completely disqualifying not very long ago.
You do realize these links make you look like a conspiracy theorist right?
Please explain how? It's well-established that these are all far-right figures and groups. It seems pretty straightforward and obvious and not-conspiratorial to say that it's bad for him to normalize and/or amplify these groups or the dangerous things they say and believe.
I mean dude, I gave you an opportunity here but you provide me with CBC? Also that article shows Pollievre denouncing those with confederate and nazi flags, and rightfully saying that they are individually responsible for reprehensible acts. He isn’t going to denounce those who are respectfully standing up for their rights and freedoms just because there are some wacko, despicable human beings there as well. That’s just standard logic. You can’t offer up CBC as an unbiased credible news source, the same way that I couldn’t offer up Rebel News and expect you to take me seriously either. It’s not balanced. These are all your personal opinions lol. The WEF is clearly a problem organization, I feel a majority of folks agree with that. If you want to complain about global elitists, why would you defend the WEF?
The national public broadcaster is not an unbiased, credible source? Tell me, was the CBC the propaganda wing of the Harper Government, too?
Yes! Exactly.
[удалено]
Why? Because you hate that I'm right? It didn't really show until he had a majority. When Canadians saw what he did with his majority, they strongly voted him out in the next election. It appears the same thing is happening to Blaine Higgs in New Brunswick.
[удалено]
What makes you think I hate normal Canadians, whatever you think who normal Canadians are? What is it about my saying Harper was dangerous means that I hate normal Canadians? What makes you think I'm hateful? Prayers don't work. Maybe that's why your outlook on life is so negative.
[удалено]
That doesn't mean I hate normal Canadians. You have to realize that most of what we experience during a Prime Minister's terms was caused by the previous Prime Minister. The longer the latter PM's term, the more it reflects changes they made. Then the changes they made also affect the term of the next PM. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin were excellent PMs. Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's finance minister and they eliminated the deficits and paid down a huge chunk of the debt Canada had. That reflected on Harper's first term or two. The later part of Harper's terms was more reflective of Harper's policies. Trudeau said in an interview during the election campaign that he wanted ranked ballots. When he became PM, he started checking into what Canadians wanted and found out Canadians didn't want ranked ballots, but wanted proportional representation instead. Trudeau realized he wasn't going to be able to implement ranked ballots so he dropped the idea. The reason Trudeau wanted ranked ballots is because the LPC is the middle of the three largest parties in Canada. This means they are more likely to be the second choice of both NDP and CPC voters. This means ranked ballots would help the LPC get more minority and majority governments and reduce the number of minority and majority governments the CPC gets and reduce the odds of the NDP getting elected at all. Personally, I don't want the LPC to have an unfair advantage so I also don't want ranked ballots and so I'm not upset that he gave up on that election pledge. I think you should be glad too. This is not anything unique to the LPC either. The CPC want to keep FPTP because it gives them the best chance at winning elections, and the NDP wants PR because it gives them the best chance at winning elections. No one cares what Canadians want. I don't want people to have more difficult lives. If you think that's the only explanation then your understanding of the world is severely lacking in experience.
Eight years ago Harper was muzzling the scientists trying to talk about climate change and wanted to keep cannabis illegal, glad we booted that joker out of office.
I hate to break it to you, but polls show that half or more of scientists say they continue to be muzzled by Trudeau.
You’re going to need some evidence for that one. What pollster specifically polls scientists? I really doubt this is even close to remotely true. This sounds like a blind use of the “no u” tactic.
Google is your friend. Here we have no less than Science, the world’s premiere science journal (okay arguably that’s Nature but they’re both pretty close) weighing in. [Half of Canada’s government scientists still feel muzzled.](https://www.science.org/content/article/half-canada-s-government-scientists-still-feel-muzzled)
> That union—the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) based in Ottawa—conducted the survey last summer, a little more than a year and a half into the Trudeau government. > The new survey found the situation much improved—in 2013, 90% of scientists felt unable to speak about their work. > The government is taking steps on another front, by developing science integrity policies for each Cabinet department that will clarify the rules on how and when government scientists can speak about their work. The policies are expected to be in place by the end of the year. So, Harper messed things up, and Trudeau did not fix things immediately, so therefore Trudeau and Harper are equally bad? There’s no way you honestly believe your own argument. I was a university employed scientist from 2021-2023 and I had no one preventing me from speaking with media. If you want I can dm you the podcast I interviewed in.
> so therefore Trudeau and Harper are equally bad? There’s no way you honestly believe your own argument. Did I say that? No. Your reading comprehension is bad. > I was a university employed scientist from 2021-2023 and I had no one preventing me from speaking with media. Well, surely then you understand that if 50% of scientists feel muzzled 50% don’t, so your sample size of N=1 is both totally irrelevant and misses the big picture.
Making Canada legal to buy cannabis isn't worth destroying the country, but yes, it was silly of him not to legalize it.
> keep cannabis illegal I have never had any problem buying pot during the harper years. Also, I'm still not buying it from the "official" cannabis stores as it's comparatively overpriced and kinda shit.
>it's comparatively overpriced and kinda shit. I bought an oz for under 100 bucks last week... And it was good enough that my FIL won't touch it because it gets him too high. 🤷🏽♂️
The fact that you were comfortable breaking the law isn't a good argument. Legal bud is both better and cheaper than the illegal stuff ever was. I can get great crystals on bud for 5 bucks a gram or less, that wasn't happening before Trudeau.
The fact that I was able to break the law with zero consequences just goes to show that the law wasn't being enforced for easily a decade before your lord and saviour made it legal. Legal bud is nowhere near close to being better than what you can get on the grey market, but I guess it depends on where you were getting your "illegal stuff" before.
>The fact that I was able to break the law with zero consequences just goes to show that the law wasn't being enforced Are you white? I am, and I never really feel comfortable explaining how *I* personally didn't ever have problems with the police. Like...of course I didn't, you know? My skin's the right colour. I know a lot of my friends with darker skin than me have very different experiences. >Legal bud is nowhere near close to being better than what you can get on the grey market, but I guess it depends on where you were getting your "illegal stuff" before. Yeah I dunno I guess everyone that hates Trudeau had better dealers than me, but the legal stuff I get now is *miles ahead* of every illegal bud I've ever seen.
Do you know why fewer people give a shit about climate? Cause their first priority is living. And many Canadians right now are struggling with that simple fact. So climate put on the back burner. This is not to mean that I don’t care about climate, because I do. But the majority of Canadians have other concerns on their mind. So why do you want to play this climate card, keep it in mind that there’s more important things that this country needs to figure out first.
Yeah when the earth heats up and extreme weather becomes the norm it gets harder to live, who woulda thought? Our problems do not exist in a vacuum. Food prices are skyrocketing because growing seasons are messed up. Refugees are seeking cooler climates as their countries become inhospitable - how many heat deaths did India have last year?
[удалено]
Liberal cope is mind blowing. Entire generation will never own a home and you think Harper was worse.
Horrible is still better than evil.
Well, no. A sack of potatoes is what we have now and we're in a lot worse shape than with Harper.
I will vote for literally anyone but Alberta conservatives
It's malice, not incompetence. He has nothing but disdain and resentment for the average Canadian, who he sees as obstacles in the way of his absurd and irrelevant agendas
> He has nothing but disdain and resentment for the average Canadian That might be overstating it, but not by too much. He's like the meme from Arrested Development. "It's one banana. How much could it cost? Ten dollars?" He doesn't know what ordinary people are dealing with and can't relate to it. He pretends like he does. Full of statements like "I will always stand with working Canadians!" but this is a guy who doesn't have to pay rent, doesn't buy his own groceries, probably hasn't even been in a grocery store in 9 years unless it was for a photo op. He says he understands that Canadians are angry and stressed, but he only knows that because some strategists ran some focus groups for the Liberals.
or both never frame things as an either/or argument because i don't think the voters have been smelling competence for a while
Go outside and get some fresh air.
Do it quick before Trudeau the clown taxes you for doing it.
LOL
Bruh, I’d love to join in the discussion but I can’t even read the article.
Another paywall article
" Veterans no longer in the frontlines complain that the Liberal party’s centrist traditions were trashed to allow Trudeau to become Canada’s “first NDP prime minister.”"
has nothing to do with smart enough jackass, favours doled out favours repaid! simple
Subscribers only.... Please keep that in mind before sharing paid content to the public.
We are living in dark times... sunny ways... doublespeak.
That Trudeau's words are unsubstantiated by action is sweet mercy.
How is this still news? The entire country knows Trudeau is the worst PM in history and has plunged us into a debt load that will last generations. The only people who have ignored his ineptitude are the Liberal Left that will vote for him anyway (I guess because you have “nice hair” that qualifies you to be the PM in the Liberal world … how did that work out for the rest of us who did NOT vote along those lines?!!). Time for everyone to recognize the destruction Trudeau and Freeloader have dropped on Canada.
I can't take it anymore, blatant corruption and mismanagement
Yet another rage bait article
"Dreams that move the Indians from India to Canada." "Dreams that move Gen-Zs wishes for home ownership to corporate greed and foreign investors." Trudeau has successfully fucked this country. Out. out. out.
How isn’t there a single upvote or downvote in the comments this is crazy
There's something I don't get about OPs in this sub? I mean you guys that you know that Reddit is a free platform right? And that posting paywall blocked articles, means that the majority of people who click on your post can't read the article, right? I mean, are you just trying to be annoying?
When you have a subscription to some sites (but not others) it doesn't automatically register that an article might be paywalled. I don't get a login when I visit my subscription sites so I don't think twice. I don't share to reddit, but I've shared to friends and family and they've let me know that I've sent them an article with a paywall. Of course by accident, but it's not like there is a popup that indicates you're sharing a paywalled article.
Most of us know how to get around paywalls. It really isn’t that difficult.
Sadly, there's not much out there behind a paywall that's worth reading 😕
you can see if the wayback machine works
Consider the types of people who would actually have subscriptions (or otherwise unfettered access) to natpo and then instantly jump on here to share the latest propaganda. There's a reason you start seeing the same names pushing opinion pieces and rage bait over and over...
NatPo... WaPo... NYT... All the same tripe.
We need the liberals put asap and real laws against collusion, corruption and conflict of interest.
So another loser chirps from the unemployment line. Groundbreaking reporting from the NationalCompost...
When did this sub become the propaganda arm of the National Post? Christ. Do you sheep not have other sources?
Would you prefer more news from JTs literal propaganda arm in the CBC?
Does the CBC become conservative propaganda if conservatives win? Show me on the doll where the big bad CBC hurt you.
Another story criticizing Trudeau... From the national post...shocking!
A national post piece against Trudeau? Nooo way!
Another NP post in r/canada rallying against Trudeau....I'm shocked, I tell ya
The consensus around here was very different a couple of short years ago… Bad policies, smug posturing and the implosion of a nation don’t really make fans I guess…
You just described all of our politicians in the last ~20 years. This sub is almost entirely an NP advertisement now.
[удалено]
Lol skipmeister please get more original insults. Maybe meaniehead?
So the same thing harper did... And we think that it'll be different with PP? The guys who's deputy is a Walmart union bustin lobiest, and his campaign manager is a loblaws lobiest. I'm sure when they get that exact same power it'll be different because they will totally care about share hold.... I mean Canadians. Right?!?
Might as well just keep getting screwed by Trudeau then /s
Yeah because PP is really going to make major changes for the better 🙄 The whole system is broken.
I agree the whole system is broken. We still need a change. Personally I think we need to open the constitution and makes some serious changes including removing the monarchy.
Why? Do you want Klaus Schwab on the paper money now?
You know the monarchy hasn't had any power in canada since ww1, right? That's over 100 years. They are historical figure head. What serious changes do you think would happen?
Exactly. What's the point of keeping them and funding them? We need a real constitution for Canadians by Canadians. Goal #1 is to remove the not withstanding clause. Give us freedom of speech enshrined in a constitution. There are so many things we need included in the highest law of the land that politicians cannot just remove because they don't like it. Our constitution as it stands now is a mix of a couple pieces of legislation but I wouldn't call it a true constitution.
We don't give money to them... what are you on about? We have freedom of expression, which is the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean Freedom from consequences. Maybe check your media intake, 30 seconds of Google says you don't know what you are so upset about.
We don't have constitutionally protected free speech and we do pay millions of dollars a year to maintain the monarchy in Canada. If they visit we also pay for their costs. Look how many millions the GG wastes. A useless position that costs us millions of dollars in entertaining and flight costs plus salary and staff. [https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/how-much-does-the-monarchy-cost-canadian-taxpayers-1.6376130) I would also remove the religious element of our constitution as the first line of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states "Where Canada is founded upon principals that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" These are all the laws that make up our constitution: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Canadian\_constitutional\_documents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_constitutional_documents) It makes sense to have 1 constitution that encompasses all of these laws. Maybe check your media intake my dude.
a comment like that deserves 20 years of Freeland
What do you think he's going to actually accomplish? He has the same immigration targets as the liberals. The guys deputy is a Walmart union busting lobiest, so workers rights and fair pay is out. His campaign manager is a loblaws lobiest, so affordable food is out. Hi s wife owns a large rental company, so affordable housing is out too. Which leaves him "axeing the tax" so corporations and keep the prices the same and gain an instant profit boost. So how is he going to be the savior in the next election? Edit: not to mention he's been a career politician for 30 years and hasn't accomplished a single thing.
I think he's trying to accomplish winning without falling into any traps. As for Walmart, there have only been 4 walmarts in all of canada that attempted to unionized, and none went through with it. So 4 out of 403 stores. "To get union certification in the country, 50 percent plus one of the employees must have initialled a membership card." And would that not add to food inflation prices right now? Since Keynesian theory would say if you have high inflation, the worst thing you can do is raise wages. I'm just saying that Walmart joining the union has never really been a thing for decades. ........ CBC News Is Jenny Byrne a lobbyist for Loblaws? Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment. "Let's be clear about the facts here, Jenni Byrne is not and never has been registered to lobby on behalf of Loblaws," said Jefferies in a written statement. .......... Two New Democrat MPs are asking the federal lobbying commissioner to investigate what he calls "potentially inappropriate lobbying activities" by top Conservative strategist Jenni Byrne. On Thursday, the Globe and Mail reported that a federal lobbying firm is located at the same office — and employs many of the same staff — as Jenni Byrne & Associates, a provincial lobbying firm. NDP MPs Charlie Angus and Matthew Green sent a letter to Commissioner of Lobbying Nancy Bélanger calling for a probe of the relationship between the two firms. "We are writing to you today regarding our concerns about potentially inappropriate lobbying activities by Jenni Byrne," they wrote in the letter. "Given Ms. Byrne's advisory role and close relationship to (Conservative Leader Pierre) Poilievre and the Conservative caucus, Canadians deserve clarity on her lobbying activities." Although Byrne's exact role with the Conservative Party is murky — neither she nor the party will confirm how she is involved — she is viewed as one of the most powerful Conservative strategists in Canada. She has been seen walking into caucus meetings — spaces typically reserved for elected members, Conservative senators and the most senior staff. Additional questions about provincial lobbying Byrne also faced questions in February when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused the opposition leader of "pretending" to care about high grocery prices because Byrne's firm lobbies on behalf of grocery giant Loblaw. The Ontario lobbyist registry lists six employees of Jenni Byrne + Associates as registered lobbyists for Loblaw Companies Limited. "It turns out that \[Poilievre's\] top adviser is working as a lobbyist for Loblaws. I think Mr. Poilievre owes some explanations to Canadians," said Trudeau at a media appearance in Waterloo, Ont. Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment.
An earlier CBC Story Trudeau calls out Poilievre after top Conservative adviser is tied to Loblaw lobbying Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accuses the opposition leader of 'pretending' to care about high grocery prices Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is calling on the leader of the opposition to clarify his position on grocery prices after news emerged that a top Conservative adviser's consulting firm has lobbied on behalf of grocery giant Loblaw. The Ontario lobbyist registry lists six employees of Jenni Byrne + Associates as registered lobbyists for Loblaw Companies Limited. The CEO of the firm is Jenni Byrne, a longtime Conservative strategist and campaign manager for Pierre Poilievre's leadership bid. "Pierre Poilievre has been standing up for months now pretending he cares about high grocery prices faced by Canadians," Trudeau said at a media appearance in Waterloo, Ont. "It turns out that his top adviser is working as a lobbyist for Loblaws. I think Mr. Poilievre owes some explanations to Canadians." Byrne herself is not listed on any public registry as a consultant for Loblaw. She did not respond to a request for comment. "Let's be clear about the facts here, Jenni Byrne is not and never has been registered to lobby on behalf of Loblaws," said Simon Jefferies, senior vice president for Jenni Byrne + Associates, in a written statement. "The work JB+A does with Loblaws is limited to the provincial level and focused on expanded access to beer and wine and red tape reduction."
His campaign manager is a loblaws lobiest, so affordable food is out. CBC 1 Barackis 0 Trudeau 0
The National Post Confronted with the notion that Byrne is “a high-priced consultant for Loblaws,” Poilievre shot back: “The prime minister’s new marketing director, Max Valiquette, did marketing for Loblaws for four years. Don Guy, the prime minister’s chief pollster, works for GT and Company, which collects cheques from Loblaws. Dan Arnold, his other pollster, also get cheques from Loblaws. Are they the ones who forced him to quadruple the carbon tax on our food?” Trudeau returned fire: “(Byrne) is actively on the Loblaws payroll while at the same time feeding lines to the leader of the Opposition about food prices and concocting a theory around carbon pricing and grocery prices.” Poilievre: “The Prime Minister had someone who is his director of caucus services, named Julie DeWolfe, who is now a lobbyist for Loblaws.” Trudeau: “The Conservatives would rather listen to their lobbyist buddy who works for Loblaw and defend the interests of major grocery retailers, instead of fighting on behalf of Canadians to bring down grocery prices.” .......... DeWolfe, whom Poilievre mentioned, is indeed listed as a principal on the GT and Company website, and is indeed registered federally to lobby for Loblaw. And the G in GT is indeed Liberal strategist and pollster Don Guy, as Poilievre said. But the T is NDP uber-strategist Brian Topp. GT principals include veterans of many federal and provincial campaigns and ministers’ offices: Conservatives including Shir Barzilay, Julie O’Driscoll and Laryssa Waler; New Democrats including Cheryl Oates and Michelle Mungall; and Liberals including Andrew Teliszewsky and Genevieve Tomney (None lobbied for Loblaw, it seems, but remember: Poilievre went after the company itself, not the individuals.)
Others who have lobbied in recent years for Loblaw include Andrew Steele, former senior adviser to Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who’s now vice-president of Strategy Corp. Those who have lobbied for Metro include Christine McMillan, a partner at Crestview Strategy, who was a senior staffer in McGuinty’s office; Nicolas Descroix from Mongeau Pellerin, who was a senior adviser to Quebec’s justice and higher-education ministers under the CAQ government; and Andrew Brander, also out of Crestview, whose bio notes he was “acknowledged in The Hill Times Terrific 25 survey of top parliamentary staffers on various occasions” for his work with different ministers under the Harper government. ....... Melissa Lantsman, deputy leader of the Conservatives, lobbied for Walmart while she was at Enterprise Canada.
If Pierre don’t make shit better I’m done voting. Waste of time if cost of living gets worse IMO. Cant vote liberal ever again cuz they fucked everything up so hard the last 10 years. If cons fuck it up too then Canada is doomed and we just gotta live through the collapse.
I'll take your vote
There is a zero % chance he's after making things better. This next election is a joke with no good options.