Andrew Scheer has repeatedly said he won't re-open the Abortion Debate.
But he has avoided saying whether he'll allow members of his party to introduce Abortion Bills.
So let's presume he knows this is the NEW THIRD RAIL of Canadian politics and he goes near it at his peril.
Why then did his first full day of campaigning begin in York Center, supporting Conservative candidate and anti-abortion activist, Rachel Willson?
Rachel was involved with 4 My Canada, an radical anti-abortion group who ran a snitch line called "No Not This One".
This sounds a lot like Scheer WILL re-open the debate.
This sounds like Scheer actively wants to ban abortions in Canada.
This certainly isn't a good way to start off a campaign if you're trying to become Prime Minister of a country where more than 75% favour a woman's right to choose.
Because abortion is the new third rail in Canada - and you touch those at your own peril!
Click here to view the video of Andy and Scheerly Conflicted Messaging
*********************************************************************
Friday, September 13, 2019
Thursday, September 12, 2019
SCHEER RACISM
DAY TWO OF THE CAMPAIGN and already the Conservatives have had to kick someone out for "suddenly" discovering they've been posting racist, anti-islamic, anti-muslim stuff...
FOR YEARS.
https://pressprogress.ca/proud-to-be-white-conservative-candidate-resigns-after-secret-anti-immigrant-facebook-account-discovered/
I'll give them 10 out of 10 for actually doing that though - kicking Winnipeg Centre Candidate CAMERON OGLIVIE out that is.
But I'm taking off several million for the fact they didn't catch this during their so-called vetting process. I mean this dude wasn't exactly posting under a fake name:
In a statement provided to PressProgress, the Conservatives said “Mr. Ogilvie withheld these posts from the party during the candidate vetting process earlier this year by deactivating his social media accounts.” and “He was asked to immediately step down as soon as we became aware of the posts.”
What they mean is, he was asked to step down as soon as someone bothered to actually vet him and found these things. I mean, come on, he wasn't even posting under an alias!!
So you'd think they'd want to take some sort of classy, quiet way around this, right? Nope. Never ones to let a chance for a cheap shot go by unused they've put this 404 message on CAMERON OGILVIE's official Candidates page...
https://www.conservative.ca/team-member/cameron-ogilvie/
Thing is, I found this cheap hack job while trying to find proof the story was fake - in the hopes the Conservatives weren't lazy, clumsy, hacks.
Minus another million points for that too.
And while we're at it, racist Michael Cooper is still in their caucus. This is the douchebag MP who read into parliamentary record the banned NZ Shooter's Manifesto, after berating a Sikh with anti-Muslim statements.
Yeah, another thing you won't find on the Conservative website is class.
Oddly, I'm disappointed. They are, after all, her Majesty's Official Opposition.
FOR YEARS.
I'll give them 10 out of 10 for actually doing that though - kicking Winnipeg Centre Candidate CAMERON OGLIVIE out that is.
But I'm taking off several million for the fact they didn't catch this during their so-called vetting process. I mean this dude wasn't exactly posting under a fake name:
What they mean is, he was asked to step down as soon as someone bothered to actually vet him and found these things. I mean, come on, he wasn't even posting under an alias!!
So you'd think they'd want to take some sort of classy, quiet way around this, right? Nope. Never ones to let a chance for a cheap shot go by unused they've put this 404 message on CAMERON OGILVIE's official Candidates page...
Thing is, I found this cheap hack job while trying to find proof the story was fake - in the hopes the Conservatives weren't lazy, clumsy, hacks.
Minus another million points for that too.
And while we're at it, racist Michael Cooper is still in their caucus. This is the douchebag MP who read into parliamentary record the banned NZ Shooter's Manifesto, after berating a Sikh with anti-Muslim statements.
Yeah, another thing you won't find on the Conservative website is class.
Oddly, I'm disappointed. They are, after all, her Majesty's Official Opposition.
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
THE NEVER ENDING NON-STORY
Let me be clear - right up front. The so-called SNC Lavelin "Scandal" is a non-story. It's a big fat nothing burger. It is arguably the biggest piece of artificial indignation ever perpetrated on the Canadian public by our media. And yes, it's entirely a media creation.
It's easy to sell papers (or click bait) if you can get people to focus on a narrative you control - just ask Trump. One way to do it is the let a bunch of opinion writers take something they barely understand and then, because you don't like "The System" behind it, let them make a big fuss about it. And this is what SNC is. A bunch of people who don't like the system.
Yes, SNC bribed foreign governments for foreign contracts. They were caught. There is no arguing that. Under Canadian law this sort of behaviour could result in them being banned from Canadian and Provincial Government tenders.
For a company like SNC that is likely something they could never recover from. Their shareholders would be hurt, their employees would be hurt, the areas they operated in would be hurt and in many instances a "Canadian made" solution to various engineering things wouldn't be available.
In short, SNC going under from this malfeasance - which cost the Canadian Taxpayer NOTHING - would result in more Canadian tax dollars going to non-Canadian companies - and sadly, many of those are major stakeholders in... you guessed it, Canadian Media.
So claims by Canadian Media that SNC was corrupt and any attempt to hit them with the maximum penalties is tainted by their own corporate conflict of interests.
Does this mean that SNC wasn't going to be punished? No. The Prime Minister was arguing the best course was a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. A DPA would've included an admission of guilt, fines, restrictions, additional hurdles and probation. It would hurt SNC in fighting charges of bribery in those foreign lands, but it would not eliminate SNC from competing against foreign corporations that hold partial or controlling stake in the very media groups trying to destroy them.
By not wanting the harshest of penalties the Government of Canada is being accused of trying to circumvent the law. This is ridiculous. No government would want a major employer, a Canadian engineer powerhouse and in many cases the ONLY CANADIAN OPTION for tendering of Government contracts paid for by Canadian taxpayers destroyed.
Stephen Harper's Government came to the rescue of mining and oil companies who ran afoul of environmental clean up requirements - Harper even wrote off $4.5 BILLION in World Trade Organization rulings in favour of Canada and the Lumber industry, not because he believed American claims were right, but because American stockholders were heavily donating to the Conservative party war chest through their Canadian subsidiaries.
Is that wrong? Yes.
Was Harper found in Contempt of Parliament for doing wrong? Yes.
Did he resign over it? No.
Was it a crime? Of course not.
Harper didn't even prorogue Parliament or call a snap election over these things and that was his favourite "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat instead" trick.
Whether you or the media groups like it, DPA's are a tool in the government's belt for dealing with companies who have done wrong. It's no different from probation. It saves jobs. It's legal.
And a Prime Minister telling another member of Cabinet that he'd rather this be done isn't doing anything illegal. Some people may see it as troubling, a few may erroneously consider it unethical (you won't find a former Minister of Justice or currently serving Lawyer in Canada who agrees with the the Ethics Commissioner's interpretation of the Act) but it isn't a crime.
Why did I bring this up now? Well, the latest Conservative claim is that the Prime Minister is blocking the RCMP from further investigating the SNC affair. He isn't. The Clerk of the Privy Council is and the Canada Evidence Acts says if: “the Clerk of the Privy Council objects to the disclosure of information...by certifying in writing that the info constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, disclosure of that info shall be refused."
So this is not the Prime Minister's call, any more than whether SNC got a DPA was his call - they didn't, by the way. Despite all the claims of interference, Jody's replacement as Attorney General also didn't give them a DPA - it's the call of the Clerk of the Privy Council. And it's not only legal to say "no" during an election, it's the correct call.
Because any investigation during an election, particularly on an issue that could not possibly be resolved before the election on October 21st, would interfere with the election, distract the electorate from the real issues and platforms and policy statements of the people who want to run this country for the next four years, and possibly delivery a result similar to what American ended up with in 2016 - namely a moron at the helm. All with the Canadian equivalent of "Hillary's emails". That must not be allowed.
Period.
It's easy to sell papers (or click bait) if you can get people to focus on a narrative you control - just ask Trump. One way to do it is the let a bunch of opinion writers take something they barely understand and then, because you don't like "The System" behind it, let them make a big fuss about it. And this is what SNC is. A bunch of people who don't like the system.
Yes, SNC bribed foreign governments for foreign contracts. They were caught. There is no arguing that. Under Canadian law this sort of behaviour could result in them being banned from Canadian and Provincial Government tenders.
For a company like SNC that is likely something they could never recover from. Their shareholders would be hurt, their employees would be hurt, the areas they operated in would be hurt and in many instances a "Canadian made" solution to various engineering things wouldn't be available.
In short, SNC going under from this malfeasance - which cost the Canadian Taxpayer NOTHING - would result in more Canadian tax dollars going to non-Canadian companies - and sadly, many of those are major stakeholders in... you guessed it, Canadian Media.
So claims by Canadian Media that SNC was corrupt and any attempt to hit them with the maximum penalties is tainted by their own corporate conflict of interests.
Does this mean that SNC wasn't going to be punished? No. The Prime Minister was arguing the best course was a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. A DPA would've included an admission of guilt, fines, restrictions, additional hurdles and probation. It would hurt SNC in fighting charges of bribery in those foreign lands, but it would not eliminate SNC from competing against foreign corporations that hold partial or controlling stake in the very media groups trying to destroy them.
By not wanting the harshest of penalties the Government of Canada is being accused of trying to circumvent the law. This is ridiculous. No government would want a major employer, a Canadian engineer powerhouse and in many cases the ONLY CANADIAN OPTION for tendering of Government contracts paid for by Canadian taxpayers destroyed.
Stephen Harper's Government came to the rescue of mining and oil companies who ran afoul of environmental clean up requirements - Harper even wrote off $4.5 BILLION in World Trade Organization rulings in favour of Canada and the Lumber industry, not because he believed American claims were right, but because American stockholders were heavily donating to the Conservative party war chest through their Canadian subsidiaries.
Is that wrong? Yes.
Was Harper found in Contempt of Parliament for doing wrong? Yes.
Did he resign over it? No.
Was it a crime? Of course not.
Harper didn't even prorogue Parliament or call a snap election over these things and that was his favourite "watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat instead" trick.
Whether you or the media groups like it, DPA's are a tool in the government's belt for dealing with companies who have done wrong. It's no different from probation. It saves jobs. It's legal.
And a Prime Minister telling another member of Cabinet that he'd rather this be done isn't doing anything illegal. Some people may see it as troubling, a few may erroneously consider it unethical (you won't find a former Minister of Justice or currently serving Lawyer in Canada who agrees with the the Ethics Commissioner's interpretation of the Act) but it isn't a crime.
Why did I bring this up now? Well, the latest Conservative claim is that the Prime Minister is blocking the RCMP from further investigating the SNC affair. He isn't. The Clerk of the Privy Council is and the Canada Evidence Acts says if: “the Clerk of the Privy Council objects to the disclosure of information...by certifying in writing that the info constitutes a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, disclosure of that info shall be refused."
So this is not the Prime Minister's call, any more than whether SNC got a DPA was his call - they didn't, by the way. Despite all the claims of interference, Jody's replacement as Attorney General also didn't give them a DPA - it's the call of the Clerk of the Privy Council. And it's not only legal to say "no" during an election, it's the correct call.
Because any investigation during an election, particularly on an issue that could not possibly be resolved before the election on October 21st, would interfere with the election, distract the electorate from the real issues and platforms and policy statements of the people who want to run this country for the next four years, and possibly delivery a result similar to what American ended up with in 2016 - namely a moron at the helm. All with the Canadian equivalent of "Hillary's emails". That must not be allowed.
Period.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Proportional Representation - but for whom?
I'm against Proportional Representation for many reasons, most best illustrated in John Pepall's excellent book AGAINST REFORM.
He provides many well researched arguments but the two most compelling ones he gives are:
1. Canada is more than 150 years old and is among the most stable and corruption free democracies in the world. In fact, we've had so few actual (as in real, not media created) controversies that any suggestion to change anything should be met with very serious skepticism
2. The skepticism comes out how reforms have occurred in other countries - not one example is available where a reform to the election system didn't benefit the party putting in the reform at the expense of the opposition. It makes sense - what sort of idiot is going to reform something to hurt them?
But there's a third reason I'm against it, and that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The best example I can give of this is the 2014 redrawing of Electoral Districts in Canada.
The Harper Government and their Conservative Controlled Parliamentary Committee proceeded to argue for and then add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons. Now most Canadians would argue that the last thing Canada needed was more paid politicians running up expenses with their travelling around and constituency offices and what have you, and despite the fact Conservatives say Canada is spending too much, they never to seem to have an issue with increasing expenses when its to their benefit.
Wait, what, you say? How was this to their benefit? Well, half of those 30 new seats were put in Western Canada, where Conservatives traditionally have more strength. The rest were added to areas of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but not where populations have increased the most - as would be logical, but to break up Liberal strongholds.
For example, the 2 seats added to Mississauga required the Electoral Districts there to be redrawn.
Throughout history the lines of Districts have been very simple, following major roads and natural barriers; but the Conservatives have been gathering hard demographic data across Canada. They know how much support each street gives each party, and even which side of the street favours them.
Following the lead of their Republican brethren in America they began to re-district those areas where Liberals were strong, cutting Liberal leaning neighbourhoods in half, splitting the vote through a method known as GERRYMANDERING.
He provides many well researched arguments but the two most compelling ones he gives are:
1. Canada is more than 150 years old and is among the most stable and corruption free democracies in the world. In fact, we've had so few actual (as in real, not media created) controversies that any suggestion to change anything should be met with very serious skepticism
2. The skepticism comes out how reforms have occurred in other countries - not one example is available where a reform to the election system didn't benefit the party putting in the reform at the expense of the opposition. It makes sense - what sort of idiot is going to reform something to hurt them?
But there's a third reason I'm against it, and that's the Law of Unintended Consequences. The best example I can give of this is the 2014 redrawing of Electoral Districts in Canada.
The Harper Government and their Conservative Controlled Parliamentary Committee proceeded to argue for and then add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons. Now most Canadians would argue that the last thing Canada needed was more paid politicians running up expenses with their travelling around and constituency offices and what have you, and despite the fact Conservatives say Canada is spending too much, they never to seem to have an issue with increasing expenses when its to their benefit.
Wait, what, you say? How was this to their benefit? Well, half of those 30 new seats were put in Western Canada, where Conservatives traditionally have more strength. The rest were added to areas of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada, but not where populations have increased the most - as would be logical, but to break up Liberal strongholds.
For example, the 2 seats added to Mississauga required the Electoral Districts there to be redrawn.
Throughout history the lines of Districts have been very simple, following major roads and natural barriers; but the Conservatives have been gathering hard demographic data across Canada. They know how much support each street gives each party, and even which side of the street favours them.
Following the lead of their Republican brethren in America they began to re-district those areas where Liberals were strong, cutting Liberal leaning neighbourhoods in half, splitting the vote through a method known as GERRYMANDERING.
It resulted in Mississauga Centre going from a near rectangle...
...to something even the residents of Mississauga can't describe.
Now, typically Canadian voters tire of a Prime Minister after 9 years so the 2015 loss to the Liberals wasn't unexpected, but it wasn't about 2015, it was about 2019 and beyond. It's going to be easier for the Conservatives to approach the numbers needed to beat the Liberals this election. It's going to be easier for Conservatives to get a majority and it's going to be harder for the Liberals to get a majority.
And since the party in power is the one that will get to redraw the districts again after the 2021 Census, it doesn't matter whose in charge until then, that period is the critical one.
And that's why I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a reform.
And since the party in power is the one that will get to redraw the districts again after the 2021 Census, it doesn't matter whose in charge until then, that period is the critical one.
And that's why I'm always suspicious of anyone suggesting a reform.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
SCHMALL WONDER
The Federal Conservatives hold a narrowing lead in the popular vote (34% to the Liberal's 32%) but as 50% of that is concentrated in Alberta, Saskatchewan and rural BC they have an even more rapidly fading chance of forming the next government.
So you'd think now would the time they wouldn't want to make any mis-steps. Now would be the time to shift from appealing to their narrow base and go big with a push to draw the average Canadian. Now would be the time to show they appeal to the SUV/Starbucks crowd of the 905.
I guess that's what they thought they were doing with this latest ad campaign. I suppose they thought they were making Andy look relate-able.
But in what is just another of the many, many misteps taken by this completely out of touch crew they blew it. Big time.
And the proof is right here in this undoctored single frame screen capture of their latest video touting the Conservative leader (and the self-proclaimed Next Prime Minister of Canada) Andrew "Dad Bod" Scheer as being "Here for you"
Seriously, this looks like a hostage video shot for an episode of Homeland.
This isn't someone you'd vote for, this is a guy having a crisis who can't figure out how he ended up in this mess.
If this is their "pulling out the stops" push then the entire Conservative Communication team needs to be fired.
Andy's own children could do a better job of making their Dad look Prime Ministerial.
It's Scheer incompetence, Scheer Amateur Hour, Scheer Embarrassment.
It's not Prime Ministerial.
One can hope the Scheer family are looking for a home to move into come October because if this is the best they can do he'll be asked to resign as Leader immediately following the election and then his decade of subsidized taxpayer accommodations and government supplied staff and driver will be a faint memory - and if that happens this shot will look precognitive.
And small wonder based on what they're presenting - this dude simply isn't ready for the job.
So you'd think now would the time they wouldn't want to make any mis-steps. Now would be the time to shift from appealing to their narrow base and go big with a push to draw the average Canadian. Now would be the time to show they appeal to the SUV/Starbucks crowd of the 905.
I guess that's what they thought they were doing with this latest ad campaign. I suppose they thought they were making Andy look relate-able.
But in what is just another of the many, many misteps taken by this completely out of touch crew they blew it. Big time.
And the proof is right here in this undoctored single frame screen capture of their latest video touting the Conservative leader (and the self-proclaimed Next Prime Minister of Canada) Andrew "Dad Bod" Scheer as being "Here for you"
This isn't someone you'd vote for, this is a guy having a crisis who can't figure out how he ended up in this mess.
If this is their "pulling out the stops" push then the entire Conservative Communication team needs to be fired.
Andy's own children could do a better job of making their Dad look Prime Ministerial.
It's Scheer incompetence, Scheer Amateur Hour, Scheer Embarrassment.
It's not Prime Ministerial.
One can hope the Scheer family are looking for a home to move into come October because if this is the best they can do he'll be asked to resign as Leader immediately following the election and then his decade of subsidized taxpayer accommodations and government supplied staff and driver will be a faint memory - and if that happens this shot will look precognitive.
And small wonder based on what they're presenting - this dude simply isn't ready for the job.
Sunday, September 1, 2019
LISA RAITT - Neanderthal or just plain obtuse?
Today's Conservative spin attack is against a comment Bill Morneau made in response to Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt for accusing the Liberals of promoting women within government only to curry women's votes.
My wife's response to hearing this was that Morneau should've said, "you're just jealous you didn't think of it first", which while probably true would probably be played on an endless loop by Conservatives as steam poured out their frothing heads.
After saying they knew they'd get push back from people "such as yourself" [referring to human troll bot, Lisa Raitt] who don't see this as positive, what Morneau actually said, “my view is that we will be more successful collectively if we're actually able to successfully promote women into leadership roles. We will drag along the neanderthals who do not agree with that, and that will be our continuing approach."
So did he call her a Neanderthal or just compare her opinion to ones shared by neanderthals?
Your reaction will tell me who you're probably voting for in October.
My question is why was Raitt being such a neanderthal? Did she say it for cheap political points or was she just being obtuse? And yes, for absolute clarity, I'm calling any woman who supports this version of the Conservative party obtuse, the same I would a chicken running for the What Wolves Eat For Dinner Party.
"STAR" POWER - Central Nova style
Canadian Country Music "star" (I've never heard of him) George Canyon is running for the Conservatives in Nova Scotia's Central Nova district this fall. He says he won't be giving up his music career but should be able to fill in as a MP often enough, I guess.
So there's your choice people of Central Nova - a full-time MP from the area, or a part-time MP who's been living in Calgary for most of the last 20 years.
By the way, Central Nova - in Parliament those who show up only part-time get the full salary anyway, so he'll be making more than the average wage of your riding for doing practically nothing. Sweet, huh? #CentralNova
So there's your choice people of Central Nova - a full-time MP from the area, or a part-time MP who's been living in Calgary for most of the last 20 years.
By the way, Central Nova - in Parliament those who show up only part-time get the full salary anyway, so he'll be making more than the average wage of your riding for doing practically nothing. Sweet, huh? #CentralNova
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
