02.24.2020 11:09 AM

Things are shitty. But for Trudeau, they’re shittier.


  1. Hey Warren, big fan. I was wondering if you think that Peter MacKay will beat Justin Trudeau in a general election? And if Peter MacKay is a lock for the Conservative Leadership?

  2. Lana Do says:

    I don’t think so depending whom you do ask and depending how the Canadian economy will be
    revealed and exposed and how all Canadians will be affected!
    A change in the governing power and tools won’t be the absolute simplex answer !
    Everything some thing goes sideways not necessary an political hero and genius will be found to replace the present one even though we think the present leader can not be qualified !
    We always have to choose!
    Too bad we don’t have neither very good choice nor adequate choice!
    We have zero option and a recession is likely to happen!
    Thanks Warren for this questionnaire!

  3. Dwayne Schroeder says:

    Who would invest in our country now? Rail lines are blocked and goods can’t reach markets. Companies don’t need the headache of dealing with ever changing regulations ( see Tech)
    Things are shitty???? There going to get alot worse. If a Prime Minister is good for the economy and gives people reason hope for “sunny ways” I couldn’t care less if they were Liberal or Conservative. Optimism is at an all time low

    • whyshouldIsellyourwheat says:

      The economic model the so-called “progressives “are proposing for Canada is to be a “theme park” community for the world’s oligarchs and 1%’ers, where the rest of us are their servants and serfs.

      Learn to love neo-feudalism.

  4. Leaderless parties do better because everyone imagines thier ideal leader in charge.

  5. J.H. says:

    It’s getting worse. Teck is delayed but Chinese get permission to drill on the East Coast?
    And yet some wonder about the talk of Wexit?
    This give you a clue?
    Others credit Trudeau’s willingness to deal with any crook, thug, international criminal or dictator in his single minded pursuit of that UN seat, with the rest of the racist, misogynist anti-Semites seated there now.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Teck are brilliant strategists. They now have lit the proverbial fire under Trudeau and cabinet’s ass. If cabinet really was telegraphing this was not going through — so better fig leaf by withdrawing or delaying the project, then they were foolish beyond belief if the PMO was behind that kind of a political strategy. Now the pressure for outright approval multiplies by a thousand fold. Interesting times ahead for cabinet and LPC MPs. Ah, the upcoming pleasures of a minority Parliament? (Pablo won’t be thrilled.)

      • Ron Benn says:

        Mr. O’Dowd, my take on Teck’s decision is that they lack the confidence that the project, even if approved by the federal government, could be developed in a manner consistent with their business plan. Businesses need to have a degree of confidence that their project will proceed per their plan. Not absolute confidence, but a reasonable degree of confidence. What businesses see is the combination of:
        > a lack of respect for the rule of law by those who do not agree with a policy; and
        > the inability and/or lack of willingness of the governments of this country to take meaningful steps to actually enforce the law.

        Both of these observations lead to a lack of confidence that any natural resource project, or a project involving infrastructure that crosses unceded land can be built without significant disruption, before, during and after construction.

        Once trust has been destroyed, and it has, it is doubly difficult to restore it.

        • Fred from BC says:

          “Once trust has been destroyed, and it has, it is doubly difficult to restore it.”

          Well said, Ron. And yes, businesses (especially huge corporations like Teck) aren’t at all fond of gambling with the amounts of money that will be in play here. They’ll take a risk, as you say, but only after considerable research and only if they can be confident of a reasonable chance of success.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:

          Interesting and logical perspective.

  6. Quo Vadis says:

    “He did well” because he kept his presence low and his ministers did all the media facetime. Frankly, the one time during the Iranian shooting of a passenger plane where – supposedly – he did well he really did not. Why? because he permitted the media to imply that the US (Trump) were somehow to blame for the event.

    Let there now be no misconceptions about him. The real Trudeau is a ditherer and inept when it is time to step up and show “real” leadership.

    As for an earlier comment regarding the blockades “Canada has 49,000 km of rail lines. It has 38,000 km of highways. It has 550 port facilities.” The blockades are folding like Superman on a laundry day.”

    • Campbell says:

      “he permitted the media to imply that the US (Trump) were somehow to blame for the event”

      Just what, pray tell, would you suggest that the government ought to have done to forbid the media from doing such a thing, in a democratic society that has freedom of the press enshrined as a fundamental value?

      • Quo Vadis says:

        It has nothing to do with freedom of the press. It does, however, pertain to a biased media (CBC) that prods Justin with leading questions that he then fails to call out for what they are. Our media should not be so obvious with its “dog whistling.”

        You were saying…

        • Fred from BC says:

          “It does, however, pertain to a biased media (CBC) that prods Justin with leading questions that he then fails to call out for what they are. ”

          That was my conclusion as well. I did express some satisfaction here that Trudeau didn’t take the bait that was dangled in front of him more than a couple of times…I stopped short of wishing he had slapped them down for the attempt, since it’s Justin Trudeau we’re talking about here, right? The bar is set pretty low with him…

  7. joe says:

    Justin Trudeau disgusts me. But I’m going to say he is playing this brilliantly. Why?

    One of Justin’s main goals is taking action on climate change. This is his over-riding passion. Through his good friends and people like his senior advisor Sarah Goodman (formerly VP Tides Canada), I contend that Justin knew civil disobedience such as rail blockades was almost a certainty. I knew environmentalists who told me that rail blockades were an effective way of generating publicity, so Justin with closer contacts than me, would also know that and be positioned to take advantage of it.

    I think he was banking on the premiers taking the heat and negative publicity for removing blockades. He would stand aloof and talk about peaceful resolution and dialogue.

    Will he be seen as surrendering to the mob? Hey this mob are in favour of what Justin wants; namely to stop new fossil fuel energy projects.

    As for future mob rule, Justin is banking that Canadians are not that organized, nor that passionate, and not allied with First Nations, to do it for other issues.

    Does Justin have a minority government? In name only. The Bloc, the NDP, and the Greens will support him in this regard. They are all passionate about stopping fossil fuel projects. They won’t risk an election. I predict they’ll prop him up for years.

    I don’t know what “incentives” Justin offered Teck; perhaps they floated a carbon tax on coal exports? Or preferential consideration for mining projects such as lithium in Quebec? But Teck’s withdrawal allows Justin to say “I didn’t kill it, Teck made a commercial decision.”

    If you look at this through a climate change lens Justin got exactly what he wanted. The Bloc, the NDP, and the Greens will support him cause that’s what they want too. Even if they vote him out, Justin wins the issue he is most passionate about.

    As for TMX, I predict the civil disobedience will repeat. Justin will kill TMX saying it’s too expensive and is now uneconomic.

    I detest Justin, but well played.

    • John says:

      NDP, Green and Bloc may prop up LPC, but Justin Trudeau isn’t likely to be at the helm for much longer. Someone tweeted @ Mr. Kinsella several weeks back that Mr. Trudeau won’t run again in the next election and Mr. Kinsella acknowledged that he’s heard that repeatedly.

      Chrystia Freeland has been rumoured as JT’s replacement since his groping re-emerged in 2018. Apparently LPC have increasingly wanted to get rid of JT since the groping scandal through the SNC scandal through the blackface scandal through losing the majority up to now. It’s no coincidence that Ms. Freeland has been elevated to Deputy PM, she’s assumed most of JT’s prior duties (she’s now de facto PM), & the ChrystiaForCanada.ca website has emerged. Although UN’s Mark Carney has also been rumoured as JT’s replacement, if I was a betting man I think LPC will anoint Ms. Freeland as their new leader soon, and in the spirit of feminism they’ll promote the fact that she’ll be the first woman PM in 27 years (and likely to have a longer tenure than the first one).

      Rumour has it more Trudeau scandals are brewing, so I’m sure LPC will want to get ahead of them and remove/replace him before those scandals catch fire. We’ll see. As Mr. Kinsella (and others) have accurately stated, Mr. Trudeau has gone from being LPC’s greatest asset in 2015 to now being their biggest liability, by far.

      • Douglas W says:

        Agreed: JT will be gone within a year.
        Next PM: Marie-Claude Bibeau or Carla Qualtrough.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Yup. But if they gummy up the works with a ChrystiaCoronationTM, they are done both internally and with voters. The internal fight alone will be savage.

      • joe says:

        How do the Liberals get rid of Trudeau? Are the caucus going to force a no confidence vote which might lead to an election?

        I can’t imagine Justin stepping down. What else would he do? Work at Tim Horton’s selling doughnuts?

        But perhaps the rumours are correct. That could explain why Justin has anointed a successor. It might also explain why he is anxious to kill fossil fuel projects. He has to do it before someone drops the next scandal.

        • Douglas W says:

          A “situation” will arise; JT will move fast and resign on cue.
          The narrative will quickly shift to who his successor will be.
          Not a word, what the “situation” was: swept under the carpet.
          Everyone carries on.

          • Ronald O'Dowd says:


            Except all of official Ottawa has known what the situation is for quite some time. Don’t plan on getting sued by going any further.

          • John says:

            Yes, I would fully expect the common political “resigning to spend more time with family” announcement.

          • A. Voter says:

            “Except all of official Ottawa has known what the situation is for quite some time. Don’t plan on getting sued by going any further.”

            Tell us in a “blind item”. Which feminist politician with snazzy socks has…or something like that.

        • Ronald O'Dowd says:


          There’s no pleasure in the job anymore. You can go through the motions for only so long…

        • John says:

          What else would he do? Continue to surf in Tofino and jetset to various islands/beaches, as usual without being hampered by the nagging/grating responsibilities of being PM and the many damaging scandals that have come along with it in his case. His “personal” days and vacation days have seemingly outnumbered his actual working days in recent months anyway.

  8. Steve T says:

    I am no fan of Trudeau’s, and I wouldn’t vote for the Libs if an election were held tomorrow. However, it wouldn’t be because of the barricade situation, at least not directly. I don’t think any other leader could have done much better, given the circumstances.

    Where I do believe JT deserves criticism is his treatment of Scheer, and the overall attempt to keep this a political discussion rather than something about the well-being of the country.

    • Fred from BC says:

      “Where I do believe JT deserves criticism is his treatment of Scheer, and the overall attempt to keep this a political discussion rather than something about the well-being of the country.”

      You’d think that Trudeau (or at least his handlers) would figure out that their apparent strategy of antagonizing Andrew Scheer at this point is counterproductive at best and could even backfire badly. Scheer has nothing to lose, and can not only afford to be as nasty as he wants, but won’t take a PR hit for doing it; he’s not going to be the Conservative leader, and he knows it.

      Good thing for JT that nastiness doesn’t come naturally to Scheer, at least…

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Scheer, for all practical purposes, has become on his best day the political equivalent of a potted plant, politically speaking, nasty or otherwise.

        • Fred from BC says:

          I watched some of Question Period yesterday in a Burger King.

          Scheer did okay (if a bit predictable) in his attacks…Trudeau was getting visibly angered and started to hit back. The Speaker piped up every second question or so to remind people about proper decorum and such. The Bloc leader was stale and predictable.

          The real eye-opener was Jagmeet Singh. Not because he was effective, though…but because he was so *lame*. Everyone else was talking about the rail blockades and economic damage a job losses, etc…not Jagmeet, though. He’s special. He asked the same question over and over again: “When will the Prime Minster admit that it is his responsibility to deal with reconciliation?”

          Umm…Jagmeet? He prefaces *every answer* with that. Are you even listening to these proceedings, or are you just listening to music on your Iphone?

          A perfect example of why the NDP is going nowhere under this guy.

  9. Tom Smith says:

    But an election won’t be held now, so his popularity at present is of no consequence. Elections always follow a campaign, during which various social issues (abortion, attendance at pride parades) rise to heightened levels of importance. What with a disengaged electorate, a fawning media (for the most part hostile to his chief competitor, whoever that might be), a message of fear that anyone else would make ‘Fordian’ spending cuts, and another endorsement from Obama, he’ll come out smelling of roses.

  10. Pamela Ingold says:

    Yeah, I wonder how the other leaders would deal with the blockades. Seems like a no-win situation. That having been said, Trudeau’s performance as PM has been terrible. I wasn’t fooled by the “serious bearded politician” act, because it was just that – another performance.

  11. PJH says:

    The coup de grace for him will be if Sars CoV-2(its new name) gets out of control in Canada…..I hope and pray to God it does not….but if Iran, Italy or S. Korea are any indication, it looks like we may be in for it too…..Other issues may be quickly forgotten, but if many people get sick because of lax inspection and quarantining….they are going to be looking for someone to blame.

    • Jorge Tarkanian says:

      There are over 10 direct flights from China each day. Other industrialize countries have banned them. Why not us? We could be hit very hard because Trudeau is a pussy and is scared of our Chinese masters.

    • PJH says:

      I never said it would be his fault…..I said that the electorate would be looking for someone to blame…..a scapegoat if you will….

      • Pedant says:

        Calling those of a different philosophical leaning stupid. Worked well for Hillary.

        Having spoken to a large number of Toronto leftists, particularly young women who voted Trudeau they like his hair and rear end, I don’t think they have anything to teach others when it comes to intellect.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Change your last name to Stockman cause the PMO is likely to take you to the woodshed for calling a good portion of the electorate not too swift. Even Trudeau won’t like that one!

        (The golden rule says something about the advantages of leaving some things unsaid in politics.)

  12. Mike Jeffries says:

    There is no advantage for Alberta to remain in Canada. None! TMX will be the next target. Jason better come to his senses about everything. Become President of Alberta Jason or continue to let Rachel blame you for not kissing Ottawa and blame you for Alberta’s downfall! Time for the referendum. There is no other option.

  13. the real Sean says:

    At this point, I can’t imagine the purpose of JT actually showing up at any meetings anymore on any issue, in any circumstance.

  14. Quo Vadis says:

    Things just got shittier for Justin. Did everyone see the welcoming that Trump got in India?

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Anyone who welcomes Trump deserves getting him.

    • Quo Vadis says:

      You missed the context of my witty comment. Let me explain…

      What do you think disturbs a poser like Justin more? The self inflicted problems currently rattling Canada or that Trump is greeted more warmly by the Indian public? Or put in another way, his all out cultural pandering failing to stuffy boring suits and trade deals.

  15. Chris Sigvaldason says:

    So Trudeau and Cabinet allows Quebec to build a cement plant that will emit 2 mega-tonnes of carbon dioxide, all without having to go through an environmental review.

    Yet Alberta and BC cannot build already-approved energy projects. Hmmm.

    • Ronald O'Dowd says:


      Trudeau, like Kenney, are absolutely perfect representations of your average politician. Throw Legault in there as well. The cement plant falls under provincial jurisdiction, while pipelines, by their very nature, are trans-provincial. Trudeau can do zip in law about permitting the cement plant, while we all know that regardless if the CPC wins the next election, we will still be stalemated to some extent because FNs will not allow a CPC government to take them for a ride. We need substantial changes in law now to expand FN economic rights otherwise any future government is likely to have to deal with potential bloodshed and its severe political consequences.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *