11.17.2015 01:02 AM

In this week’s Hill Times: I wrote this before Paris. Only the last line anticipated it.

Two years, six months and 25 days.

That, according to the U.K. polling firm One Poll, is how long the average honeymoon lasts. They contacted 5,000 British couples a few years back, and determined that is when the proverbial bloom goes off the metaphorical rose. After 937 days, both sides “start to take each other for granted,” One Poll decreed. When you start to take each other for granted, apparently, the honeymoon is over.

In the Canadian political context, it’s hard to say when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s honeymoon will end. No one knows for sure, but it certainly seems durable, doesn’t it? Based upon a highly-scientific analysis of the political environment, however, we think the Trudeau Honeymoon™ is going to outlast Keith Richards, who has been beating the odds since Jesus was a little feller. As in, it will last forever.

That, at least, is what despairing Conservatives and New Democrats seem to think. Instead of raising questions about actual issues — you know, stuff like whether the City of Montreal should be permitted to DUMP EIGHT BILLION LITRES OF RAW SEWAGE INTO THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER — the opposition has given up. So sayeth B.C. NDP Kennedy Stewart: “There’s going to be quite a long honeymoon for Mr. Trudeau, and I think the public does not expect us to go out and…being intensely adversarial for the next little while.” Nothing to see here, show’s over, everyone move along, etc.

Instead of being the opposition, then, Conservatives and New Democrats have devoted themselves to being sucky, whiny babies. In opinion columns, in social media, and on call-in shows, Tories and Dippers have taken to whinging and mewling about how nice the media are being to the newly-minted Trudeau government, and how unfair it all is.

Perhaps forgetting that every major newspaper in Canada (save one) endorsed them in 2011 — and that every Postmedia newspaper did likewise in 2015 — Conservative partisans have determined that Trudeau is being treated with kid-gloves by the news media. Left-lib bias, Media Party, and blah, blah, blah. “If I see one more breathless media report about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau going trick-or-treating with his kids, or being greeted like a rock star by giddy civil servants, I’m going to be sick,” sniffed conservative columnist Luisa D’Amato. (Stock up on Tums, Luisa.)

Likewise Sun Media funny man Mike Strobel: “[Trudeau’s popularity] could plummet, of course, as soon as he royally screws up the country and Canadians snap out of their Trudeaumania II trance!” (When you awake from your trance, Mike, you will love your new Socialist Overlords.)

The party of previously-Angry Tom Mulcair, who — while declining to attack Trudeau themselves—are equally upset that nobody else will attack Trudeau. They’re a bit more discreet about it, though. Why? Well, after Toronto-Danforth NDP incumbent Craig Scott bleated on Facebook about the injustice of Trudeau’s win — and how Liberal MPs were “fundamentally lazy,” “passive,” arrogant,” and how the electoral system that previously worked quite well for him was “broken” — Scott was excoriated, coast to coast, for being the biggest sore loser of all time. Dippers took note, and resolved to suck on their sour grapes in private. But like the Tories, they’re similarly convinced that an unholy Liberal-Media alliance is at work, controlling events like the Bilderbergs and the Wizard of Oz, all rolled into one.

Sorry to disappoint, Reformatories and Dippers: there’s no conspiracy. It’s just a garden-variety political honeymoon. And everyone gets one, as you well know.

Take Stephen Harper, for example. His honeymoon was arguably the longest-lasting of any recent Canadian Prime Minister: he started off with a minority in 2006 — and got one again in 2008 — and then became sufficiently popular to win a whopping Parliamentary majority in 2011. His honeymoon, you can fairly say, lasted about half a decade.

So too various New Democrat luminaries. Alberta Premier Rachel Notley — who grieving New Democrats now regularly point to, as if she were a sort of latter-day Saint Elizabeth, sent to pacify their wounded souls — has had a honeymoon that is still going strong. Even after unveiling the most reviled Alberta budget in eons, Notley’s NDP remain ahead of all of their political opponents. And a September Angus Reid Group poll decreed that Notley was the second-most-popular Premier in the country (after Brad Wall, natch), with a 50 per cent approval rating — meaning her honeymoon has lasted at least a year.

Brokenhearted Conservatives and New Democrats should console themselves with this fact: everyone gets a honeymoon, pretty much. It matters not how disputatious and divisive things are at the end of the relationship — at the start, for most political leaders, it’s usually all sunshine and daisies. (And, apparently, sunny ways.)

So, this, too, is a fact about honeymoons: everyone deserves at least one in their lifetime.

And everyone eventually sees their honeymoon come to an ignominious end.


  1. Matt says:

    680 News in Toronto is playing clips of an interview with retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie this morning.

    He said Trudeau is making a huge mistake in pulling the jets from the bombing mission and it is not sitting well with our allies. He said the bombing is beginnig to have a major impact, specifically in Northern Iraq as the co-ordination between the kurdish and Iraqi ground forces and coalition forces continues to improve.

    He also said increasing our training contingent, even doubling it to 140 from the current 70 will have little to no impact.

    You know, Trudeau made it very clear during the election he would set policy based on evidence and advice from experts instead od ideology as he claimed Harper did.

    Well, here we have military people saying don’t pull the jets.

    We have officials from Citizenship and Immigration, along with several refugee resettlement groups saying 25,000 by December 31st can’t be done properly.

    Yet, Trudeau is ignoring the experts and forging ahead with both.

    • Matt says:

      Will he only accept the advice of the experts who agree with him?

    • Al in Cranbrook says:

      Recalling your posts regarding emotions and politics, Warren…

      Just heard that over 59,000 in Quebec have so far signed a petition calling for Trudeau to back off on this refugee promise.

      I’d offer an observation that emotions are running a tad high right now on this matter, and perhaps to a lesser degree pulling the RCAF out of Iraq, given what has occurred in Paris.

      IMHO, he would be well advised to engage in some sober second thought, for if something should happen to go sideways down the road as a result, Trudeau will wear it…all of it.

      • Matt says:

        And with news a mosque in Peterborough Ontario was intentionally set on fire Sunday, a muslim woman in Toronto was beaten up and robbed yesterday in what police are calling a hate crime and an apartment building in the same neighborhood had “muslims not welcome” spray painted on it, the high emotions and Trudeau’s rush to keep a political promise might be putting a target on the refugees backs.

      • JH says:

        Quebec’s top political commentator Jean LaPierre said on Montreal’s leading English radio station yestrday, that he’s just amazed at what’s going on in the province.
        More than 70% polled are very nervous about the refugee situation and want it reviewed etc. More surprising, in a province that usuallyl leans towards peaceful ways, more than 65% want the air war to continue and an enhanced Canadian presence in the fight against ISIL. No doubt the politicians are also hearing this, despite all their public remarks. There’s definitely something in the air, at least in Quebec. One thing is now certain, this is no longer Harper’s issue. It’s all Trudeau now, no matter what the end result.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          Absolutely correct. This is historic. Never has the test of a government’s future political viability come so soon out of left field. This government will be judged right now — not in year four or five of this mandate.

          If Trudeau is right, he will be seen as a visionary. But if he is dead wrong on halting the bombing, it will nearly be impossible for them to recover politically IF we are suddenly in an environment of a post terrorist attack of mega proportions.

          I urge all Canadians to have their say. The PM needs to hear those voices.

          • Larry Rhodes says:

            PMJT hears nothing. He awaits the guidance of his Ministers and his PMO operatives…. as usual. That’s how Canada is governed.

    • Scotian says:

      Of course the good general’s history of being a former PCPC candidate in 1997 and his slobbering defence of the Harper government during the Afghan detainee documents scandal shows that he is being a purely professional non-partisan expert here I’m sure. Also, how does one general morph into military people ?

      I respect the service he offered in uniform to this nation, but that does not give him unquestionable authority, especially given that post military service he became a clearly political actor and supporter for a party that is opposed to the current government, indeed was just defeated by it. There are other military and security experts that profoundly disagree with MacKenzie on this point in the public sphere, so it is more than reasonable to assume there are similar within the current military establishment whom we are not hearing from, nor should we be, that Trudeau is getting advice from.

      So your conclusions are clearly motivated by partisanship and not substantive critical analysis on that front.

      I will grant you may, not do, but may have a better case on the refugee front, but even there you have a long ways to go before you can back up your claim of Trudeau ignoring the experts.

      As for accusing Trudeau of only accepting the experts who agree with him, given what you just did in this thread the expression about cookware being formally introduced to each other comes rather forcefully to mind.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie should put his views on the record, place them before the electorate and run for office.

      And by “military people”, do you mean those has-beens Gen (ret) Andrew Leslie and the Minister of Defence, Lt. Col. (ret) Harjit Singh Sajjan?

      And to clarify, by evidence-based, do you mean Paris being bombed notwithstanding Canadian involvement at present? Is there any evidence that bombing Syria and Iraq is making anyone safe?

      Look forward to the citations of the evidence, Matt.

  2. Lance McLean says:

    Well I have been thinking about this for a while and do not understand the pulling of the jets either.

    If the argument is that our jets are not that effective and others could take up this role easily then that same argument can be made about our boots on the ground. Listen I was in the military, many moons ago, and have the utmost respect for our military people. I do believe that we are one of the best trained fighting forces in the world, but what we are doing on the ground could easily be done as well or better by others. So the argument that Trudeau uses for pulling the jets just doesn’t fly as it can be used for anything we do military wise.

    So that leaves two other reasons to pull the jets and both are cynical.

    He is pulling the jets because he said he would and that decision was based on doing the opposite of what the conservatives did, which was putting them there.

    Or he wants to save money by pulling the jets as they are extremely expensive to operate and very pricey to replace, god forbid one does crash or gets shot down.

    If it is the latter then he is willing to put far more Canadians in harm’s way to save money and face. Removing 6 or so pilots and associated support personnel, who have little chance of being injured or killed in their current role and replace that contingent with dozens of people on the ground who will have a very good chance of being injured or killed, does not make sense as far as keeping Canadians out of harm’s way.

    If it is the former then it is a purely political decision and to save face he must add more military people to the ground war thus again not worrying about Canadians safety.

    So what is it, saving cash and not worrying about Canadians safety, or saving face and not worrying about Canadians safety.

    Oh and on another note, please all you Liberal Party members please out there, please pay for Toastmasters or some kind of public speaking coaching for your dear leader, if, uh, he could explain, uh, a single, uh thought process, uh, without saying uh five, uh times. I am sure he would be taken even more seriously by those on the world stage.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      You don’t understand it? It was an election promise.

      • lance mclean says:

        No I understand perfectly thats why I said, ” So that leaves two other reasons to pull the jets and both are cynical. He is pulling the jets because he said he would and that decision was based on doing the opposite of what the conservatives did, which was putting them there.” therefore an election promise. I also said in doing so he now needs to save face and by saving face he is willing to risk the lives of far more Canadians, I don’t quite think thats what people who voted for him thought they were getting when he said they would pull the jets.

    • nobonus4nonis says:

      he uh doesn’t have to uh… you see there were 12 count em 12 countries bombing isis a year ago and now there are three. uh and all of them have cut and run especailly uh the four arab states uh so you want us to uh do their killing for them uh because the real dog in thiis fight … oil.

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    A rookie Prime Minister must never behave like a rookie prime minister.

  4. Cory says:

    I was thinking the same thing as you today.

    In fairness though, MG Lewis MacKenzie isn’t exactly non-partisan.

  5. Ted H says:

    Well, Lewis MacKenzie is retired and he also ran as a Conservative I believe so the advice the PM is getting from current military leaders and his Minister of Defense who has been in the field much more recently than Gen MacKenzie is probably much more relevant to his decision making than Gen MacKenzie’s opinions. With other areas of the military falling into serious disrepair during the Conservative years, the navy for instance, perhaps deploying these planes is just too expensive for us, or perhaps the money can be better spent re-opening search and rescue centres and veterans offices. Net benefit to Canadians is the PM’s primary duty.

  6. Kelly says:


    I’m not sure ‘coalition’ air strikes have been very effective. The Russian support of the Syrian army seems to have had a bigger impact in 2 months than the American-led bombing has had in over a year. I think that is why the sudden rash of ISIS bombings outside of Iraq and Syria. They are getting hurt and they have to show the world they are still vital. This issue will be solved on the ground with local forces from Iraq and Syria. Trudeau is arguing Canadians can train that resistance and provide field guidance in order to have a bigger impact than will our ancient planes dropping a few “dumb” bombs. Will it work? Who knows…but the old way definitely has not.

    And I’ve said this before…somebody has GOT to deal with the Saudis. They are the source of ISIS theology and a lot of their money. The Saudis will fund and support anyone if they cause trouble for rival Iran. Iran was getting a serious toe-hold in Iraq and have been major backers of Syria. The Saudis have a lot to answer for. They are global competitors for our oil. And we sell then armaments.

    What is your opinion of the Saudis?

    • Ray says:

      Please. CF-18’s, although over thirty years old, are still extremely capable front-line combat aircraft.

    • Mark says:

      As mentioned upthread, Russia has targeted mainly armed Syrian opposition groups, not ISIS, in order to help prop up their man Assad. The NYT has some informative maps that illustrate this. The Russians most recent stepped-up attacks on ISIS (post-Paris) are because Russia wants to be part of an anti-ISIS coalition (explicitly NOT an anti-Assad coalition) with the larger world powers. Putin is looking for ways to re-engage world powers and gain recognition as a key player in global events (while hoping to have the Crimea annexation and Ukraine war ignored, and sanctions lifted). I do agree that Russia has had the bigger impact; they have successfully advanced their agenda in the Middle East to a much greater degree than the US, Europe, or Canada.

  7. Sean says:

    The Chairman of the Mickey Mouse Club has the authority to stop the Canadian bombing runs any time he wants…. yet they are still occurring daily. If the Canadian bombing runs are so ineffective, why would it be “irresponsible” to stop them now? Canadians are going to have to come to grips that JT very plainly does not know what he is doing.

    • Larry Rhodes says:

      It’s a logistic situation. The CF18s have an inventory of munitions that must be used up before they leave. The supply of new ammo is likely stopped.

      • Sean says:

        So, Canadian jets are bombing foreign cities under Justin Trudeau’s watch for the strategic purpose of….. wait for it….. expending the excess munitions!

        This is pitiful.

  8. Dan Forth says:

    Craig Scott was an awful MP. Each of his missives to his finally freed constituents (like me) spoke of nothing but loathing for the government of the day. Never a good word, always negative. Totally unbecoming of an MP, but totally becoming of a proud member of the permanently offended and self righteous.

    His replacement, she of the smirky smile on her lawn signs, I know little but hope she is seeks out Dennis Mills for lessons on being a good MP in T-Danforth.

  9. Matt says:

    Former Lib MP Ujjal Dosanjh says Trudeau wrong to pull jets.


    Some notable statements:
    Dosanjh also took to Twitter Sunday to criticize the new prime minister, saying that his emphasis on “sunny ways” will be no match for Kalashnikov-wielding Islamic State jihadists like the ones who initiated the Paris attacks.

    Trudeau has*repeatedly pointed to his election victory on Oct. 19 as proof that Canadians stand behind him and his pledge to withdraw fighter jets.

    But Dosanjh*rejected that logic, saying that the “last election wasn’t about the combat mission.”

    “[Trudeau’s victory]*was about changing the government and I believe that nobody went into that booth and said*’I’m going to end the combat mission in Iraq, no matter what.’ I think that’s something Mr. Trudeau needs to consider,” Dosanjh said.

  10. Matt says:

    Happening now:

    German soccer stadium evacuated after “concrete intel” explosives were to be detonated during Germany/Holland soccer match later this afternoon with Angela Merkle in attendance.

    Hamburg police chief – “Serious plans for explosions thwarted”

  11. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Of course the Russians’ strikes are more effectual, they operate with few, if any at all, constraints regarding collateral casualties. Putin could not bloody well care less! Meanwhile, Obama has his own pilots flying with one hand tied behind their backs, apparently with instructions not to strike if even so much as one civilian might be at risk. And, of course, this reality of US command of the coalition overhangs RCAF sorties as well.

    As for Lewis MacKenzie…I don’t doubt for a second that, had he been critical of the previous government in any manner whatsoever (and he has in the past), the same usual suspects here would be quoting his every word. That said, the General has been there, done that, and knows of what he speaks. That brings credibility, and merits respect for his advice.

    We won WW2 on the strength of two specific premises: a) We were prepared to do whatever the hell it took to settle the matter. b) The enemy was offered no option but complete and absolute unconditional surrender, period!

    • Rod says:

      So you are prepared to have 300K troops on the ground and thousands of Canadians coming home in body bags?

      Because we ain’t gonna win this one from the safety of our CF-18s. No matter how big they are.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        Listening to an ex-commander of the US Military today on one of the news channels. Essentially said that, if we went after ISIS with air power to the same extent that we did in Serbia or the Gulf War, it would be over for the most part in a matter of weeks. Most I have listened to over the last several days think the current rules of engagement inflicted upon the coalition by the Obama administration are bloody well pathetic.

        And therein lies the real problem. ISIS, correctly and astutely so, have surmised that Obama is pretty much a chump, weak, gutless, and without any semblance of resolve. (For that matter, no doubt, so has Putin.) And that European leadership is, for the most part, even more so.

        Because of this, IMHO, things are going to get a damn sight worse before it turns around. In too many respects, at it’s essence, the same nonsense that finally resulted in WW2…and 50,000,000 + dead.

        Only this time we’re likely to fighting some of these battles on the streets of America and Canada.

  12. Jack D says:

    I sincerely hope the Conservatives continue their descent into the Republican-ization of their party. If this continues on as long as Rona Ambrose is leader, they’ll render themselves completely unelectable in Canada.

    Its great watching Conservatives spin into their angry, mouth-foaming state of xenophobia while hurling all sorts of insults at the new Prime Minister.

    …change of tone my ass.

    Remember, while the honeymoon will likely end at some point, it doesn’t necessarily mean the nightmare will end for the opposition.

    • Matt says:

      Point to any Conservative who has said don’t bring refugees from Syria in.

      You can’t, because none have. All that has been said is slow it down.

      And it’s not only Conservatives. The immigration minister in Quebec is expressing “seriuos reservations” about Trudeaus December 31st deadline.

      What would be the harm in pushing it back to 25,000 by March 31st 2016?

      And speaking of tone, even Trudeau fanboy Michael den Tandt thiks Trudeau is tone deaf on the issues.

  13. James Smith says:

    Mr T needs to stick to his commitments. We knew what they were when we voted for him. If not, the honeymoon will end far faster.
    I would urge all to read Mr Sears OP ED in the Star ( http://goo.gl/yz3mFO ). One may recall that it was the Oh-By-Jingo! policy of Mr Bush that opened the door for the rise of Daesh. The WEST needs a new approach not repete of Mr Bush’s policy.

    • Matt says:

      Every media poll on the fighter jet/refugee issues since the attacks in Paris (granted they are not scientific and can be manipulated – but I haven’t seen any polls from any polling companies on the fighter jet/refugee issues yet) show between 63% and 74% want the jets to keep bombing ISIL and the refugee resettlement slowed.

    • G. McRae says:

      “Heave Steve” was the reason the Liberals won and a lot of the campaign promises were just baggage including the Syrian refugee and ISIS issues. Trudeau could have said the exact opposite on these matters and he still would have won. He can back down on these and suffer little to no consequences.

      • Maps Onburt says:

        Absolutely right. Unfortunately for us, the Liberals will use this as a battering ram to shove all sorts of silly campaign promises down our throat that the majority don’t want. A significant gas (I mean Carbon) tax is an obvious one. He’ll have a short honeymoon if he keeps this up.

      • The Doctor says:

        Exactly. It’s like that stupid promise that Chretien made on the campaign trail back in 1993 to cancel the EH-101 helicopter program. He insisted on following through with it, and it ended up costing Canadian taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in penalties etc. All to adhere to a dumb-as-hell, purely political promise that was made just because Mulroney was in favour of the program. Just like if Harper is in favour of bombing, well then it must be wrong. Evidence-based decision-making, my ass.

    • James Smith says:

      Respectfully, Mr T isn’t wired like a normal cat, that’s what folks voted for. If he proves to be “just another politician” he changes his brand & honeymoon over.

      I suspect Mr T is thinking more on the lines of Mr Sears & former Daesh hostage M. Henin http://goo.gl/pZxTks. If so, IMHO he’s on the right side.

    • Kelly says:

      No, just undoing idiotic Conservative policy that should never have been implemented in the first place. Lots, lots, LOTS more of this stuff to come (apparently the blue is already starting to come off of government websites.)

  14. Kelly says:

    The USA has been bombing Iraq since 1992. In 1991 ISIS did not exist.

    Russia, and now it seems China, could turn Isis held territory into an ashtray and the very next day a bomb could go off at the Sydney Opera House, or the CN tower or the town square of Toadsuck Arkansas…Isis, like Al Qaeda is an Idea. It’s too late. This is something that has to be resolved within the context of Arab/Muslim culture. Not by Western European Catholics…and especially not by know-nothing hicks from flyover states who don’t know the difference between a kebab and a corn dog.

    Where was the hollering in the Conservative newspapers when Beirut and Turkey were hit by Isis? Why do we think the Russian Plane got blown up because of Russian meddling yet the Paris attacks had nothing to do with France’s actions in Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Mali, Central African Republic and the support they give to dictators in Morrocco and Algeria…oh yeah…and the absolutely crap way they treat young unemployed Muslim Men in the suburban slums of Paris?

    Innocent people died because jihadi terrorist scumbags and Western elites are at war over turf a million miles away. And now we are getting sucked into it because of the unthinking foreign policy of the last federal government.

  15. patrick says:

    All the bombing does is create environments for badly wired men to be exploited by cynical, power hungry men. The bombing, the hysteria in the media and the chattering political classes makes a relatively powerless and doomed for failure suicide sect far more powerful and effective than its actually capabilities.
    Paris? 150 dead? By terrorists.
    2.5 million people die from alcohol every year.
    150 workers die every day at work.
    3000 children die a day from malaria.
    3287 die in a car accident everyday.
    20000 die from cancer every day.
    21000 die from starvation every day.
    10,000 civilians a day during the Iraq war.
    1000 civilians a during the Afghanistan war.

    Car bombs, canisters filled with shrapnel are the tools of the powerless, not the powerful. Terrorists are no threat to Western civilizations. Our way of life is not teetering on a knifes edge no matter the babbling incoherence of internet warriors spewing fear from their easy chairs in Sudbury (a terrorist target if there ever was one).

    We can scream for war and death and join the 70 virgin promise with the end of times prophecy and turn this glorious planet into a glowing
    nuclear ball and expunge this solar system of a collective sentience that was incapable of getting past nonsensical religious myths and died because of it.

    Want to do something.

    Don’t name the dead. Don’t give out a number. Don’t name the terrorists. Don’t name the groups. Don’t name the groups that claim responsibility. Attack their websites to make them go blank. Remove the propaganda that these groups so desperately need.

    Then, fight quietly and deadly if necessary but lie about what is being done and the level of success. Let fear and rumour fester in terrorist camps.

    Won’t happen, I’d bet on the glowing planet, but I think it would work better.

  16. nobonus4nonis says:

    noob here

    there are 35 posts here. 11 so far are from a guy named matt and 6 from al in cranbrook for 17 total who favour bombing the bejeesus out of innocent citizens. who are these guys and why are they hijacking this website i was told to frequent because warrenkinsella has a plethora of opinions but why would anyone want to plow through so much repetitive bullshit.

    • Matt says:

      Bombing innocenct citizens are we? Yeah, think you got that wrong big guy.

      ISIL are the ones killing innocent people.

      As for the number of my posts, Warren moderates before putting them up. If he doesn’t want them he won’t approve them.

  17. nobonus4nonis says:

    new holiday coming.

    it’s called … wait for it


    but it won’t be festervus for the rest of us as only festering whiny conservatives who bray constantly in public and online, their proxy hobby horse politicians and soon to be extinct base are allowed to celebrate .

    their patron saint will be stephen harper who will be grand marshall of the first ever whining road parade to be held this Christmas in downtown bumfuck.

    their theme song will be “forever bummed” sung to the famous dylan song.

    i will be posting more information about this new magnificent day coming at a website I will announce if Mr kinsella allows.

  18. Cath says:

    Hey WK. Do you ever get the feeling that few posts here reflect your initial column on the normalcy of “honeymoons”?

    I think that the time has come to throw over every tradition and “expert” out there. We’re treading new territory on several fronts….including honeymoon periods. It would seem to me that the honeymoon period is over for a political leader when the public says it’s over.

    Leadership requires leaders to move on when the public gets restless, scared, suspicious and vocal. Leaders either hear that and ignore it, or act.

  19. Matt says:

    8 suspected ISIL fighters arrested while trying to get to Germany posing as Syrian refugees.

    But by all means, lets forge ahead accepting 25,000 in the next 6 weeks.

    Trudeau is being willfully blind to reality.

    He IS a bigger ideolog that you progressives CLAIMED Harper was.

  20. Mike says:

    It appears that the advisers around Trudeau may have learned some lessons from their time at Queens Park.

    Many conservatives in Ontario will with great admiration say “Agree or disagree with Mike Harris, but he campaigned on what he was going to do, and then when out and did it” This reputation has to this day stuck with Harris even though he lost his way after the initial flurry of cuts.

    Funny how conservatives admire Harris for sticking to his campaign promises, but now think Trudeau should go back on his.

  21. Rich says:

    It looks like a bunch of clowns is in charge of this operation.
    Maybe the honeymoon deserves to be over if this is the best Mr T can do. No info on vetting…nada on the plans to transport…nothing on resettlement here….zot in terms of communication, explanations that are mindless pablum, it’s a mess on every front.
    What the hell is going on in this country?
    Considerably fewer selfies and a 100% increase in doing your damn job are needed.

    • Matt says:


      Mr. Open and transparent Justin Trudeau is ordering Immigration and Citizenship officals not to talk to the media??

      And despite that order they are doing so anyway? Wow. Two weeks as PM and he’s already got civil servants disobeying his orders.

  22. Jean A Paterson says:

    I may be incorrect but my understanding is that the refugees already being well-screened to come to Canada are from camps in Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey, not the ones crossing into Europe in a mass chaotic flood.

      • Cath says:

        Seems that this message is NOT getting out there as strongly as it should, either by media or government sources.
        Not sure it would make a difference but the effort would work to ensure and quiet Canadians rather than ramp up suspicions amid spin and the ever changing 24/7 news cycle.

    • Matt says:

      Respectfully Warren, that’s wrong. The UN only does initial screening.

      It is up to the resettlement nation, Canada, to conduct the indepth screening.


      The UNHCR does some initial vetting to check if anyone was a combatant in the Syrian civil war during the registration interviews it conducts with all refugees — if they were this would usually exclude them from consideration, Rummery said. The UN agency also tracks biometrics, including retinal screening, of those it registers.

      However, it is primarily the responsibility of host resettlement nations such as Canada to conduct “in-depth screening” for security reasons for those who were “identified for resettlement,” Rummery said.

      ISIL could still plant fighters among the legitimate refugees in UNHCR camps.

  23. Rich says:

    Point taken..thanks. Still…the ones who arrived/arrive in Europe will need to be thoroughly screened as events have clearly dictated.
    Even going through the European screening process did not stop some/all of the assassins from getting in if I understand what has been reported .
    The rest my comments are appropriate in my view.
    In a perfect world, the gov’t would release all details about how the screening takes place (subject to security clearances)and go through a
    dozen or so checks….explaining what happens, step by step, to waiting “investigative reporters”. (cough)
    It’s too easy to have the person appointed to “deal with” the refugee securityissue fob off concerns with generalities pulled from their nether regions in order to get thorough today. In short…by lying.
    The vague answers and non-specific bumf that we have been given cause me to doubt what is being said about the depth and trustworthiness of the screening “checks”.

  24. Rich says:


    This stuff just keeps coming down the pipe.

    Correct me if I am wrong, is it still the case that Trudeau’s promise is that all 250K refugees WILL be in Canada by the end of Dec.?
    If so, he confirmed that at least twice that I know of. There is no leeway with WILL…none whatsoever. We’ll see if he keeps his promises.
    Why he would lock himself in is beyond me….anyone care to explain it?

    • Matt says:

      From the article:

      Josee Sirois, a spokeswoman for the Public Safety ministry, said that a “thorough” screening process would be in place, but that the vast majority of Syrian refugees “pose little or no risk to Canada.”

      Umm, how about you slow the fuck down and make sure all 25,000 coming in pose NO RISK to Canada.

  25. Ron says:

    You can’t kill an idea, even a bad one. Religion is and has always been used by men to rule other men by using fear.

    ISIS’ goal is a world caliphate under sharia law. They have schools where their children are taught, from age 3, not how to be literate but how to fire a pistol, an assault rifle, a grenade, a suicide vest. You would have to kill them all.

    Is that who we are ?

    The world is a big place and many have tried to conquer it. All have failed, so will ISIS.

    The goal of any strategy should be halting the spread of ISIS. On the internet, by banning foreign fighters from returning home, by cutting off supply lines, by choking off the flow of funds. Measures such as these wouldn’t require a single boot on the ground.
    Time and again throughout history war has solved nothing, except to beget more war.

  26. Rich says:

    I thought that ALL were refugees. Hard keeping up with all the facts..
    FYI Later today, the French said that 8 refugees used the same passports (fake Syrian ones) earlier as used by an assassin.
    Here is info about this:-
    For sure one of the assassins was from Europe, he was headed for Greece when his boat sank and he was picked up, processed, and was passed along but had other ideas. The others?….anyone have any facts as to whether any were among those who made it to Greece etc and became refugees in Europe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.