Categories for Feature

Comments (4)

The best thing about being a writer is being somewhere and someone quietly comes up to you, and they say something you wrote affected them and stayed with them. Happy, sad, anger, remembering: whatever.

That’s the payoff.

**

In politics, the job is always hiding a lot of the unattractive things about the candidate – usually anger and impatience. Poilievre is fascinating because he doesn’t do that. He just is what he is.

That’s a big gamble.

**

For the last few years, when I hear “never a dull moment,” I say to myself “I could really go for some dull moments”

**

The thing about the carbon tax is that everyone was in favor of taxing polluters until they found out they were included in the list of polluters and then they were against it

**

Carney’s problem is that he’s never been a politician and it shows. Freeland’s problem is that she’s been a politician and it shows.

Poilievre’s problem is Trump.

**

The politics of this era is the politics of cruelty.

**

Fans of CBC need to reflect on the fact that Poilievre has said he’ll defund the CBC about a million times, and he’s gone up in polling. If fans of CBC want to save CBC, they needed to do more than they’ve done.

**

Carney: fail to launch.

**

Carney and Freeland abandoning the carbon tax. Quoth the Bard: “God has given you one face, and you make yourself another.”

**

Gladiator II: you be glad if you never watch it.

#WarrenMovieReviews

**

This feels like the last regular weekday before everything gets way worse.

Comments (11)

As is well-known: Ottawa and Washington, D.C. are Hollywood for ugly people. Less-known: using good-looking celebrities to win votes doesn’t always work.

Sometimes it even backfires.

Case in point: Kamala Harris, who is days away from watching her opponent take the oath of office at the U.S. Capitol building. Throughout the Democrat’s 100-day presidential campaign – for which this writer volunteered, full disclosure – Harris was notable for one thing above all: celebrity endorsements.

One minute after the debate between Harris and the Republican’s Donald Trump concluded, in fact, the most powerful person in show business posted a statement on X, endorsing Harris. 

“Like many of you, I watched the debate tonight,” wrote music superstar Taylor Swift. “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. I’m voting for @kamalaharris (https://www.instagram.com/kamalaharris/?hl=en) because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them. I think she is a steady-handed, gifted leader and I believe we can accomplish so much more in this country if we are led by calm and not chaos.”

Swift accompanied her post on X with a fetching shot of Herself holding one of her cats.  It was an unsubtle shot at the dumb remarks earlier made by Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, about Democratic “childless cat ladies.” Swift even signed off her post as “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady.”

Swift’s post “caused a major stir,” wrote Billboard. “A tremendous shot of adrenaline to [Harris’] campaign,” the New York Times declared in a three-byline story (not opinion column). Swift’s endorsement “could mobilize first-time and younger voters given her intense fandom,” enthused CBC News. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell declared it “the most important celebrity endorsement I’ve ever seen.”

Well, no, actually. Harris went on to decisively lose to Trump, who himself could only scrounge up endorsements from losers like Kid Rock, Mel Gibson and Joe Exotic. You know: the guy from Tiger King, who offered his support from a jail cell.

Like newspaper editorial endorsements, celebrity endorsements simply don’t have the cachet they once did. In fact – like newspaper endorsements – there is some data to suggest they actually have the opposite effect. An earlier survey by the Beacon Center found 81 per cent of Americans said Swift’s endorsement would not affect the way they voted. Five per cent even said it would make them less likely to take Swift’s advice.

Swift wasn’t the only one who pushed for Harris. Bruce Springsteen did, too, in multiple cities. Beyoncé did, as well, in a final-week star-studded gala. Others who stumped for the Democrats: Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Leonardo DioCaprio, and loads more. Effect on the ground: zero, or close to it.

Which brings, this week, to the Michael Ignatieff with a pocket calculator, erstwhile Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney.  The former Governor of both the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada popped by Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. Which is filmed in New York City, and not Timmins.

Carney was convivial and engaging, and demonstrated that he can put two sentences together without drooling. “I am an outsider,” said Carney, the outsider who has been giving Justin Trudeau financial advice for about two years, and whose leadership campaign is being run by Trudeau’s inner circle.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is the “type of politician who tends to be a lifelong politician,” Carney told Stewart, adding that Poilievre sees “opportunity in tragedy.” Coming from the guy who has now seen opportunity in the tragicomedy that is the Liberal Party leadership, that was bit rich. But we digress.

Carney got what he came for. Stewart, who meets the dictionary definition of lifelong curmudgeon, declared that Carney had “charm and debonair wit, yet strong financial backbone!”

For the few remaining card-carrying Liberal Party members – feeling lovelorn, lonely and lost – that’s practically enough to run an entire 36-day campaign on. “Mark Carney: he’s charming, debonair, and he can balance a chequebook! Vote Liberal!”

Will it be enough? Go ask Kamala, Mark. She’ll tell you:

The only endorsement that counts is the one you get from the voters.

Comments (3)

Comments (3)

by Jean Chretien

Today is my 91st birthday.

It’s an opportunity to celebrate with family and friends. To look back on the life I’ve had the privilege to lead. And to reflect on how much this country we all love so much has grown and changed over the course of the nine decades I’ve been on this Earth.

This year, I’ve also decided to give myself a birthday present. I’m going to do something in this article that I don’t do very often anymore, and sound off on a big issue affecting the state of the nation and profoundly bothering me and so many other Canadians: The totally unacceptable insults and unprecedented threats to our very sovereignty from U.S. president-elect Donald Trump.

I have two very clear and simple messages.

To Donald Trump, from one old guy to another: Give your head a shake! What could make you think that Canadians would ever give up the best country in the world – and make no mistake, that is what we are – to join the United States?

I can tell you Canadians prize our independence. We love our country. We have built something here that is the envy of the world – when it comes to compassion, understanding, tolerance and finding a way for people of different backgrounds and faiths to live together in harmony.

We’ve also built a strong social safety net – especially with public health care – that we are very proud of. It’s not perfect, but it’s based on the principle that the most vulnerable among us should be protected.

This may not be the “American Way” or “the Trump Way.” But it is the reality I have witnessed and lived my whole long life.

If you think that threatening and insulting us is going to win us over, you really don’t know a thing about us. You don’t know that when it came to fighting in two world wars for freedom, we signed up – both times – years before your country did. We fought and we sacrificed well beyond our numbers.

We also had the guts to say no to your country when it tried to drag us into a completely unjustified and destabilizing war in Iraq.

We built a nation across the most rugged, challenging geography imaginable. And we did it against the odds.

We may look easy-going. Mild-mannered. But make no mistake, we have spine and toughness.

And that leads me to my second message, to all our leaders, federal and provincial, as well as those who are aspiring to lead our country: Start showing that spine and toughness. That’s what Canadians want to see – what they need to see. It’s called leadership. You need to lead. Canadians are ready to follow.

I know the spirit is there. Ever since Mr. Trump’s attacks, every political party is speaking out in favour of Canada. In fact, it is to my great satisfaction that even the Bloc Québécois is defending Canada.

But you don’t win a hockey game by only playing defence. We all know that even when we satisfy one demand, Mr. Trump will come back with another, bigger demand. That’s not diplomacy; it’s blackmail.

We need another approach – one that will break this cycle.

Mr. Trump has accomplished one thing: He has unified Canadians more than we have been ever before! All leaders across our country have united in resolve to defend Canadian interests.

When I came into office as prime minister, Canada faced a national unity crisis. The threat of Quebec separation was very real. We took action to deal with this existential threat in a manner that made Canadians, including Quebeckers, stronger, more united and even prouder of Canadian values.

Now there is another existential threat. And we once again need to reduce our vulnerability. That is the challenge for this generation of political leaders.

And you won’t accomplish it by using the same old approaches. Just like we did 30 years ago, we need a Plan B for 2025.

Yes, telling the Americans we are their best friends and closest trading partner is good. So is lobbying hard in Washington and the state capitals, pointing out that tariffs will hurt the American economy too. So are retaliatory tariffs – when you are attacked, you have to defend yourself.

But we also have to play offence. Let’s tell Mr. Trump that we too have border issues with the United States. Canada has tough gun control legislation, but illegal guns are pouring in from the U.S. We need to tell him that we expect the United States to act to reduce the number of guns crossing into Canada.

We also want to protect the Arctic. But the United States refuses to recognize the Northwest Passage, insisting that it is an international waterway, even though it flows through the Canadian Arctic as Canadian waters. We need the United States to recognize the Northwest Passage as being Canadian waters.

We also need to reduce Canada’s vulnerability in the first place. We need to be stronger. There are more trade barriers between provinces than between Canada and the United States. Let’s launch a national project to get rid of those barriers! And let’s strengthen the ties that bind this vast nation together through projects such as real national energy grid.

We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats.

Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers.

The whole point is not to wait in dread for Donald Trump’s next blow. It’s to build a country and an international community that can withstand those blows.

Canadians know me. They know I am an optimist. That I am practical. And that I always speak my mind. I made my share of mistakes over a long career, but I never for a moment doubted the decency of my fellow Canadians – or of my political opponents.

The current and future generations of political leaders should remember they are not each other’s enemies – they are opponents. Nobody ever loved the cut-and-thrust of politics more than me, but I always understood that each of us was trying to make a positive contribution to make our community or country a better place.

That spirit is more important now than ever, as we address this new challenge. Our leaders should keep that in mind.

I am 91 today and blessed with good health. I am ready at the ramparts to help defend the independence of our country as I have done all my life.

Vive le Canada!

Comments (12)

Time to choose.

Do you support Canada, or do you support the hostile power that intends to use “economic force” against us?

Do you support this country, or the dyspeptic Yankee president-elect, who refers to us as the 51st state, and who publishes maps showing that we no longer exist?

Because, make no mistake: that is the choice, now – Trump or Canada. And what Trump is actively promoting is not entirely unlike the pro-Hamas forces’ “from the river to the sea,” is it? It means that Donald Trump wants to see an imagined adversary wiped off the map.

Us.

The Canadian fans of Donald Trump – less than 20 per cent of us, and a number that is shrinking with every passing day – have a standard response to any of this. They use it all the time.

This is what they start with: “Trump is joking! It’s not serious.”

When that inevitably fails, they say: “You’ve got Trump Derangement Syndrome, snowflake.”

And then, when it becomes apparent to everybody that Trump is indeed serious about imposing his manifest destiny madness on Canada (and Mexico, Panama, Denmark, and Greenland), they say: “I agree with him. Our country doesn’t exist anymore. It’s all Trudeau’s fault.”

Rinse and repeat.

No fan of Justin Trudeau, is this writer. There are several hundred opinion columns over more than a decade to prove it.So forgive us for pointing out that Justin Trudeau wasn’t the one talking about using “economic force.” It was Donald Trump. With his own mouth.

And, while we are on the subject of the soon-to-be-departed Liberal leader, here’s another headshaker: The people in Canada who love Trump and wanted Trudeau gone? They are now blaming Trudeau for leaving when Trump is threatening to use “force” against us.

Pick a lane, Trumpkins.

Consider this, too: Trump isn’t going after Canada simply because he objects to the woke-ist government of Justin Trudeau. On Tuesday, in his rambling and saturnalian press conference in Florida, Trump went after Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre as well. Viciously.

Trump said he “didn’t care” about the eminently reasonable pro-Canada stance of Canada’s Tory leader. “I don’t care what he says,” said Trump about Poilievre. That’s a direct quote.

So there you go. Trump isn’t just attacking Canada because of Trudeau, folks – he’s attacking the man who is almost certainly going to be our next Prime Minister, as well. (So much for the vaunted influence of Conservative MP Jamil Jivani on his college buddy JD Vance, by the by.)

Who speaks for Canada now? Ontario Premier Doug Ford, for one. Finance minister Dominic LeBlanc, for another – who put aside his personal political ambitions to confront the Trump threat. This newspaper, too, whose Wednesday front page expressed it perfectly: PUT CANADA FIRST!

That is indeed the choice. Put Canada first, or put Trump first. You cannot do both.

Many Canadians have been in denial, in recent weeks. Since the moment Trump posted his intention to impose 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian goods coming into the United States – which will indisputably send our economy into an economic tailspin, and likely a recession – many Canadians have refused to believe it.

Don’t the Americans remember that we fought on their side against the Nazis, against the Taliban, against many other foes over many years? Don’t they know that we have deeply-integrated economies, and cultures, and values? Don’t they recall that we have always been their best and closest ally?

None of that matters anymore. Not with the new guy. Donald Trump is saying, over and over, what he intends to do. It is in our self-interest to start believing him.

And it is time for Canadians to choose: stand with him, or stand with us.

And if you’re with him, get the Hell out. 

We don’t want or need you.

Comments (25)

And they’re off!

The Liberal Party’s leadership contenders, that is. Although some have been quietly organizing for many months. Does that give them an advantage?

Not necessarily. Here’s the LPC race card, so far:

CHRYSTIA FREELAND: She was Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister until Justin Trudeau clumsily attempted to fire her in December, and replace her with the unelected Mark Carney. Livid, Freeland hit back, calling Trudeau’s signature policies “expensive political stunts” – and warning him he faced electoral defeat. She’s been working the phones with Grits ever since. She’s a contender, but can Freeland win? She has two problems. One, she’s still going to be tarred with every Trudeau scandal and misstep. Two, going back to Brutus, history rarely ever rewards the ones who stab their leader in the back (or the front).

DOMINIC LEBLANC: LeBlanc has been the Trudeau government’s Mr. Fix It and is well-liked by most, including Conservative Premiers. He’s worn many hats: LeBlanc has been an advisor to Jean Chretien, held multiple senior cabinet portfolios, and studied at Harvard. Dom, as he’s called, is the son of former Governor General Romeo LeBlanc and was even Justin Trudeau’s babysitter. Some, however, would say that LeBlanc never stopped being Trudeau’s babysitter – and is therefore too close to Trudeau’s many scandals and controversies. Has had a leadership team in place for months.

ANITA ANAND: Telegenic, affable, capable. Lots of ambition – but no name recognition. Currently slated to lose her Toronto-area seat in a big way. Therefore not a serious contender. If you can’t win your own seat, how can you win the country?

FRANCOIS-PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: Frankie Bubbles, as Brian Lilley famously dubbed him, is a centrist Liberal. He is well-respected within the party and represents Jean Chretien’s former Quebec riding. That’s the biggest problem he faces, however: he’s another Quebecer. The Liberal Party has a long tradition of alternating between Quebec and non-Quebec leaders. Many will accordingly say that it’s not Champagne’s turn.

MELANIE JOLY: Joly, like Champagne, is a Francophone Quebecker. That’s a problem. Also a problem: she is arguably the worst cabinet minister in Canadian history, and has energetically destroyed the Liberal Party’s reputation with Jewish voters, likely for good. In the Trudeau government, there is no minister closer to the pro-Hamas position than Joly. If she wins, it’s lights out for a once-great political party.

MARK CARNEY: He’s got the highest IQ, and he’s run big organizations. Born in Canada’s North, fluently bilingual, Carney is clearly favored by Trudeau and his circle. But he’s essentially Michael Ignatieff with a pocket calculator: if you were to look up the word “elite” in the dictionary, you’d see Carney’s high school graduation picture. One upside: if you are getting ready to enter tough negotiations with Donald Trump about debilitating trade tariffs, having the former Governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England representing you is not a bad thing.

CHRISTY CLARK: She may not be the one to beat, yet, but she’s the one the Liberals should pick. She’s brilliant and a scrappy political fighter, and it’s dangerous to underestimate her. Unlike most of the others, too, Clark is an outsider and untouched by the many Trudeau regime scandals. Unlike most of the others, she is a blue Liberal, and actually believes in balanced budgets. Unlike several of the other others, she is a woman who has held the highest public office (Premier of BC) – and it’s well past time that the Liberal Party had a female leader. (They are the only party which hasn’t.) The one who makes Pierre Poilievre nervous.

Other names will enter the race, but mostly just to improve their name recognition. They won’t matter.

The ones above are the contenders. They are the ones to beat!

Comments (21)

Justin Trudeau didn’t decide to resign this week, sources say. The decision was made weeks ago, in plain view. 
 
And few noticed. 
 
It happened on December 18. On that date, Trudeau’s PMO abruptly cancelled interviews with multiple media outlets: Global News, CBC, CTV, Radio-Canada, TVA Nouvelles, along with what was to be a joint interview with CityNews and OMNI Television. The move was unprecedented.
 
Few Canadians understood the significance of that decision. But senior Liberals knew it almost certainly meant the government end of Trudeau’s reign had arrived. 
 
One very senior Liberal, who has years of experience with different Prime Ministers and their offices, said that is the moment when Trudeau had truly decided to go. “No leader has cancelled year-end interviews, ever,” said the Liberal. “They’re a tradition. They’re important, because lots of Canadians watch them. And Justin cancelled.”
 
Trudeau’s behavior in the days that followed did nothing to alter that decision, sources said. Trudeau made a some canned remarks at the Liberal Christmas party on the Hill, and then just a few words to the media after he shuffled his cabinet for the last time. He then got on a Challenger jet and flew to British Columbia to ski. 
 
Few, if any, heard from Trudeau during the crucial days when he needed to be working the phones to save his leadership. Trudeau mainly communicated only with the small circle who remain loyal to him, and with family members. Some urged him to stay and fight.  
 
But Trudeau had no fight left in him. Everywhere he looked, sources said, his prospects were bad and getting worse. President-elect Donald Trump was mocking him on the world stage, calling him the governor of the 51st state. Caucus members – including the crucial Atlantic, Quebec and Ontario caucuses – started to publicly demand that he step aside. And an Angus Reid Institute poll was issued, suggesting that the Liberals had fallen to only 16 per cent support nationally.
 
That’s not all: Liberal leadership campaigns started organizing, more or less openly, and talking to the media – anonymously, of course – about their prospects in the post-Trudeau era. Among them was Dominic LeBlanc, who Trudeau considers one of his closest friends – and Chrystia Freeland, the former Deputy Prime Minister who had dramatically quit Trudeau’s cabinet two days before he canceled his year-end interviews.
 
“He’s human, you know,” said another Liberal insider. “He was down. He asked his circle [of advisors] if there was any way to hold on and avoid a full caucus revolt. They came up with nothing.”
 
“It had nothing to do with Poilievre,” said one Liberal. “He still thinks that Poilievre is a pipsqueak.”
 
But the Parliamentary holiday recess was like bankruptcy, another Liberal said. The process of unraveling is very slow, and then it suddenly reaches its grim conclusion very, very fast.
 
“He knew it was all over,” said the senior Liberal. “His kids were saying to him, ‘Dad, it’s time to go home’.”
 
[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (18)

Comments (1)

The Left is antisemitic.

It was not always thus. The manifestations of Jew hatred – both hardcore (Aryan Nations, Ku Klux Klan, Heritage Front et al.) and fringe (Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, et al.) – were almost always on the Right. Not so long ago, either.

Something changed. For sixty years, the Anti-Defamation League did polling in North America about antisemitism and its malevolent variants. Year after year, the polls showed that young people considered themselves progressive. They passionately opposed racism and antisemitism.

Five years or so ago, there was a shift. Progressive young people still considered themselves anti-racist – but they started to associate Israel with racism.

Israel, young progressives eventually told ADL and other opinion-seekers, was a fascistic, colonial, apartheid state. The reality was otherwise: a quarter of Israel is Arab, and about 45 per cent of the Jewish population is from Africa or Asia. Non-white, in other words.

It didn’t matter, because hate is always disinterested in reality and facts. To oppose Israel was to oppose racism, young progressives told themselves. Every Israel-hating protestor you now see in our streets – every bit of “anti-Zionist” libel you see on social media – can be traced back to that lie: Israel is white supremacist empire, subjugating and oppressing the impoverished, brown-skinned people who were there first.

Yossi Klein Halevi is a renowned Israeli author. He shakes his head when asked about the antisemitism that has now infected the Left and young people in the West, like a virus that defies any vaccine. “There’s been a progression of accusations against Israel,” he says. “Beginning with colonialism, moving to ethnic cleansing, accelerating to apartheid – and now culminating in genocide. And there’s nowhere else to go after genocide.”

“That is their ultimate goal,” Klein Halevi says of those who have persuaded young progressives to embrace a lie. “Because if Israel is a genocidal state, like Nazi Germany was, then Israel becomes incapable of waging a legitimate war of self-defence. Because a genocidal state has no right to self-defence.”

It is not just young people who have been seized with this hateful virus, of course. It is seen everywhere in this country – even with those who have power. Those who, without exception, are on the ideological Left.

[To read more, subscribe here]

Comments (4)