Search the Community

Yesterday Trudeau participated in a convention. When one has their people there with you, some just get over-excited, it seems. Do you agree with Trudeau's statement about Poilievre being angry and unserious? I will answer No, Trudeau should first look in his house in my view, if he were not angry during the trucker convoy, then that movement would not have had the exposure that it did, an unnecessary emergency act to clear up a street of party goers, scandals with charity, CSIS leaking documents to show that the government is not paying attention. Like, seriously, why does he not allow someone else? Why? Politicians being in power where the sugar is, they need it, is my opinion.

⬆️ Trending Democratic-backed Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Janet Protasiewicz has won a crucial seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, defeating Republican-backed former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Dan Kelly. The Associated Press called the race. The elections in Wisconsin were supposed to be non-partisan, however seeing this campaign, just speaks volumes to the ideological battle amongst Judges too.

⬆️ Trending Voters in Prince Edward Island were projected to deliver a majority win to the incumbent Progressive Conservatives after an election campaign dominated by debate over heath care and housing. With all polls reporting, Premier Dennis King's Tories were elected in 22 of the province's 27 ridings, the Liberals won three seats and the Greens two. The Conservatives captured 55.9 per cent of the popular vote, and King was easily re-elected in his riding of Brackley-Hunter River. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-progressive-conservatives-look-to-keep-majority-as-voters-go-to-the/ ---> Not a surprise for me, this result, is my commentary. News is trending and confirmed by various sources.

Poll: Can François-Philippe Champagne build his case to replace Justin Trudeau? This poll is based on this article at the bottom from The Globe and Mail. François-Philippe Champagne suddenly seems everywhere all at once. When he is not cheerleading for Canada’s participation in NASA’s Artemis II mission to the moon, as he did in Houston, the federal Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is ordering the country’s wireless providers to cut cellphone rates or face his wrath, as he did last week in approving Quebecor’s purchase of Freedom Mobile. When he is not wooing auto and battery producers to invest in Canada’s electric-vehicle supply chain, securing promises for multibillion-dollar plants, the diminutive Quebec MP – nicknamed the Energizer Bunny – is cracking down on Chinese ownership of this country’s critical minerals amid efforts to “decouple” the North American economy from China. Mr. Champagne switches with ease from playing good cop to bad cop, in both official languages, steadily building a case that he – rather than Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland or even former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney – is the best person to lead the Liberals after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau steps down. That could be sooner than many think. Full Article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-francois-philippe-champagne-is-building-his-case-to-replace-justin/

More from within the academic world in the United States. <--- Just imagine, Bernie Sanders has his way and opens the gates for colleges. More voters for him, what a deal that will be for old Bernie. 😄 Here are his supporters, that can't wait to get in, embracing Bernie as some sort of guru: 😄 The cultism is scary, it reminds me of MAGA world. ---> 😄 but back to the academic world: From Reason.com / Libertarian Platform 40 % of Liberal Professors Are Afraid They'll Lose Their Jobs Over a Misunderstanding As the academy gets younger it grows more authoritarian, according to a new survey of over 1,400 faculty members conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The free speech group's findings portend a dark future for higher education if this course isn't reversed—and if faculty minds don't become more open to dissenting viewpoints. Over the past decade or so, many academic departments embraced ideological views in their teaching and research, promoting social justice–laden scholarship as a way of correcting the wrongs of the past. Unsurprisingly, many departments developed left-of-center academic monocultures, becoming unfriendly to differing opinions. Young faculty entering the profession are only adding to this academic echo chamber. As a professor, I'm on the younger side for faculty members. My cohort is much more illiberal than their older colleagues. Two-thirds of faculty over 55 years old said students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable. That number plummets to 37 percent for faculty 35 and under. Shockingly, younger faculty report more acceptance of violence to combat speech. While 97 percent of older faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech, only 79 percent of younger faculty agree. That one in five younger professors show any level of acceptance for violence to stop speech should alarm all of us. Mixing age with ideology reveals even more pronounced support for illiberal attitudes. Among liberal faculty 35 and under, only 23 percent indicated that students shouting down a speaker is never acceptable, compared with 88 percent of conservative faculty. Moderate faculty in this age group were also much more likely than their conservative colleagues to endorse the acceptability of these tactics. Perhaps most alarming of all, only 64 percent of young and liberal faculty say it's never acceptable for students to use violence to stop a campus speech. Illiberalism runs deep among young liberal faculty members, and their views regrettably resemble those of their students rather than their more senior peers. As newer and far less tolerant numbers of professors replace older faculty, colleges and universities may be in a true crisis if the higher education enterprise destroys its core values. The research also finds that faculty members are self-censoring at higher rates. In 1955, at the end of the second Red Scare after World War II during the age of McCarthy and deep anti-communist fear, 9 percent of social scientists said they toned down their writing for fear of causing controversy. Today, 25 percent say they're very or extremely likely to self-censor their writing in academic publications. More than half of faculty—52 percent—say they're afraid they'll lose their job or reputation over a misunderstanding of something they said or did, or because someone posted something from their past online. While almost three-quarters of conservative faculty expressed this year, 40 percent of even liberal faculty agree. That's staggering: two in five professors who are a part of the prevailing orthodoxy on campus are fearful of losing their jobs over a misunderstanding. As the report says, this "speaks volumes about the climate of fear, intimidation, and censorship on campus." This cannot be the environment of the future. Our society cannot thrive when opposing voices are met with fists rather than facts. And as a professor, I know that what starts on campus rarely stays there. This fear will continue to grow and infect our neighborhoods, our workplaces, and our communities. There is still time to course correct. But students, trustees, donors, alumni, and the public must demand better from the faculty today before these young authoritarians run higher education tomorrow. https://reason.com/2023/02/28/40-percent-of-liberal-professors-are-afraid-theyll-lose-their-jobs-over-a-misunderstanding/?itm_source=parsely-api

The controversial gun amendment has been withdrawn. A win for rural Canada. There was a lot of controversy with this one. I've seen articles even in the European press with the concerns: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-withdraw-controversial-amendment-to-guns-bill-1.6258656 ---> Just seeing how many parties spoke against this and in every newspaper across the spectrum, clearly there are flaws and issues specifically with this. Good choice to be withdrawn, I say.

Report from the CBC: The consulting firm McKinsey & Company has seen the amount of money it earns from federal contracts explode since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came to power — to the point where some suggest it may have a central role in shaping Canada's immigration policies. A Radio-Canada investigation also learned the private consulting firm's influence is raising concerns within the federal public service. According to public accounts data from Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), the Liberals spent 30 times more money on McKinsey's services than Stephen Harper's Conservatives did. In the nine years of the Harper government, McKinsey was awarded $2.2 million in federal contracts. During Trudeau's seven years in office, the company has received $66 million from the federal government. McKinsey, an American firm with 30,000 consultants in 130 offices in 65 countries, provides advice to both private and public entities — which sometimes have conflicting interests — and does not disclose its business ties. For example, Export Development Canada has paid McKinsey $7.3 million to provide various analyses since last year. The Business Development Bank of Canada paid the company $8.8 million for advice in 2021 and 2022. Major role in immigration department Radio-Canada's analysis shows that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has turned to McKinsey the most since 2015, with $24.5 million in contracts for management advice. IRCC and the Canada Border Services Agency account for 44 per cent of federal compensation issued to the firm. McKinsey refused to answer Radio-Canada questions regarding its role and agreements with the federal government. The government did not provide copies of the firm's reports in response to Radio-Canada's request. McKinsey's influence over Canadian immigration policy has grown in recent years without the public's knowledge, according to two sources within IRCC. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has been McKinsey and Co.'s best customer within the federal government since 2015. (Ivanoh Demers/CBC) Both held major roles within the department during the height of the consulting firm's influence and spoke to Radio-Canada separately. "It was completely opaque. We asked to collaborate, to share our ideas, but it didn't work," said one source with an important position within IRCC. "McKinsey was an idea from the government. The policy was decided for civil servants. It causes a lot of operational instability," said the second source. "These people, these firms forget the public interest, they're not interested in it. They're not accountable." According to contracts, McKinsey was hired by IRCC to develop and implement various strategies for "transformation." An IRCC spokesperson said the consulting firm was tasked with reviewing, developing and implementing digital tools, processes and services. The department spokesperson said the contract was revised during the pandemic — at an increased cost — to help IRCC respond to pressures related to the pandemic, deal with acute demand and maintain essential services for clients. A mandate for 'transformation' Representatives of McKinsey facilitated or attended about 10 meetings of the IRCC transformation committee, according to documents obtained under access to information law. The documents do not include details of those presentations. "We had a few presentations on very generic, completely vapid stuff. They arrived with nice colours, nice presentations and said they would revolutionize everything," one of the sources said. "In the end, we don't have any idea what they did," the source added, referring to "nice marketing" that "isn't science." Before a federal committee hearing in late November, IRCC Deputy Minister Christiane Fox said McKinsey was involved in the transformation and modernization of the department's systems. "According to managers and politicians, everything that comes from outside is always better, even if we had enough resources internally," said one department source. "[McKinsey] always says they have great expertise, but it doesn't make sense because we have expertise and we're completely pushed aside," said the other. McKinsey head recommended immigration boost The IRCC sources are also critical of McKinsey's possible influence over Canada's immigration targets. Ottawa announced a plan this fall to welcome 500,000 new permanent residents each year by 2025, with an emphasis on fostering economic growth. The target and its stated justification follow similar conclusions in the 2016 report of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, chaired by McKinsey's then-global head Dominic Barton. Then-Finance Minister Bill Morneau (right) looks on as Dominic Barton, chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth, speaks at a news conference in 2016. Morneau formed the council during his time as finance minister. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press) The advisory council recommended a gradual increase in permanent immigration to 450,000 people per year to respond to labour market dynamics. At the time, Canada was accepting about 320,000 permanent residents. John McCallum, the immigration minister at the time, expressed his reservations about the "huge figure" presented in the report. But one of the sources at IRCC said the department was quickly told that the advisory council's report was a foundational plan. 'Telling truth to power' While Dominic Barton chaired the advisory council from 2016 to 2019, he left McKinsey in July 2018 after a 30-year career with the firm. The next month, the consulting firm started its first contract with IRCC. Trudeau named Barton Canada's ambassador to China in 2019 — a post he held for two years before leaving and joining the mining firm Rio Tinto. Shortly before the pandemic, parliamentarians pressed Barton on the work he did for Chinese businesses during his time at McKinsey. "I'm very proud of my career and time in the private sector," Barton said. "We're known for telling truth to power." Barton is also a co-founder of The Century Initiative, an advocacy group calling for policies that would bring Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Dominic Barton was Canada's ambassador to China from 2019 to 2021 after 30 years at McKinsey. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press) The group was founded in 2011, while Barton was still at McKinsey, and has an current executive from the firm on its board of executives. The Century Initiative has been listed on Canada's lobbyist registry since 2021. It has organized meetings with the immigration minister's office, the minister's parliamentary secretary and Conservative and NDP MPs. Radio-Canada's questions to Barton about the increase in McKinsey's contracts have not been answered. Single-source contracts Departments other than IRCC also have turned to McKinsey. Public Services and Procurement Canada used the company for computer services. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada hired it for management advice, as well as science and research services. The Department of National Defence also paid McKinsey several million dollars for leadership development. Some of these contracts are still in progress and their total cost isn't known yet. According to Radio-Canada's research, PSPC has called upon McKinsey on behalf of various federal entities for 18 contracts since 2021 — contracts worth more than $45 million. All of those contracts were sole-source, according to documents obtained by Radio-Canada. The Prime Minister's Office referred questions to the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). In a statement, the TBS said external professional services bring in specific expertise and help to address fluctuations in the civil service workload. According to TBS spokesperson Martin Potvin, such a contract could help fill shortages in certain work groups or geographic locations. He said the decision to resort to outside firms rests with individual departments. 'Shadow government' Benoit Duguay, a professor at the Université de Québec à Montreal's School of Management Services, said he's surprised by McKinsey's apparent influence. "How come McKInsey has the skills to do absolutely everything a government does? ... It looks like another level of government. Almost a supranational government," Duguay said in French. (Duguay is a former consultant himself, though not at McKinsey.) Isabelle Fortier, professor at the École nationale d'administration publique in Quebec, said the use of firms like McKinsey suggests a break between politics and administration of the state. She said it supplants the internal expertise of the civil service and operates as a "shadow government" without transparency or legitimacy. The federal government said it employs consulting firms to provide high-quality services and ensure the best possible value for taxpayers. It said departments are required to award contracts in a fair, open and transparent manner. Controversy and calls for accountability McKinsey has advised many national governments on their COVID-19 pandemic response in recent years, including those in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Mexico. The governments of Quebec and Ontario also hired McKinsey to advise them on their pandemic responses and plan for the economic recovery. McKinsey and Co. was hired to provide advice to the governments of Ontario, Quebec and several countries on pandemic response and recovery. (AFP via Getty Images) An investigation by the French Senate accused consulting firms like McKinsey of undermining national sovereignty and making the state dependent on them. McKinsey also has been under investigation in France over tax filings, the awarding of contracts and its role in President Emmanuel Macron's 2017 and 2022 election campaigns. In Canada, some experts are also calling for an inquiry. Ontario lawyer Lou Janssen Dangzalan, who has been studying IRCC's digital reforms, said an inquiry could provide transparency on how consulting companies handle government contracts. Fortier, who studied McKinsey's record in France, said she supports a public inquiry into the use of consulting firms. "We must force the black boxes to open," she said in French. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mckinsey-immigration-consulting-contracts-trudeau-1.6703626

Did you know that you now can’t get a passport in less than about 4 months unless you can provide proof of a necessity to leave the country? Our government has imprisoned the population without any mandate from citizens. Try getting a passport and you’ll find out. If you already have a passport, enjoy your short-lived freedom until it comes time to renew it.

If it came to having a ruling party with a ruling Prime Minister, who would you pick?

For the past 20 years I have given my unequivocal support to the Liberal party, but with time I have started to struggle to reconcile my political beliefs with the party’s ideals, and that has nothing to do with Trudeau’s mess-ups. In general, people have liberal and progressive views when they are younger, but slowly turn to conservatism later in life. I am growing older, and I am leaving some of my liberal aspirations behind, but I still cannot jump on the conservative bandwagon. I cannot be liberal anymore because: 1. I am 100% against abortion (it is murder) 2. I cannot support third and fourth wave feminism in the western world (they are irrelevant) 3. I am a tired of political correctness 4. I am against equality of outcome and quotas based on gender and race (while being with equality of opportunity) I cannot become a conservative because: 1. I do not support the right to bear arms 2. I cannot understand climate change doubters and I feel sorry for them 3. I am opposed to chauvinistic views against immigration 4. I am with the government taxing the rich to provide more services to the less fortunate Let us discuss this. I am all for free speech.

Trudeau doesn’t appear to be supporting Ontario infrastructure projects because the provincial government is Conservative. The Liberal Feds have announced funding of major Montreal and Vancouver projects but nothing for Toronto. Liberals claim it’s because the Ontario Conservatives haven’t put forward an adequate proposal, yet the Ontario proposal resembles those provided by other provinces that have Liberal governments. Meanwhile, Bombardier will be cutting jobs in Thunder Bay if new Toronto transit programs aren’t funded. The Federal Liberals are playing politics with Ontario jobs and transit.

We the people of Canada DEMAND change in Government. We the people of Canada demand that the government that belongs to us and to whom we lend our democratic power to lead this country and to sit in opposition, change the laws that govern the behaviour of those politicians that take the oath of office. We are tired of the way that parties spend our hard-earned tax dollars on things that do not benefit this country. We are tired of the lies by all parties and we are tired of the personal agendas that you all bring into the house of commons instead of working toward the common goal of bettering this great nation. We are tired of the ethics violations, the misappropriation of money that does not belong to you and the way you spend on other countries while here in Canada our own go without. We are tired of the way Canadians are left out in the cold as soon as you take office and the opposition all of a sudden becomes sanctimonious in the way they say they want to save us. We are tired of the Pandering politicians on all sides. We are tired of the insider trading. We are tired of the wealthy being the ones that you listen to and not us average Canadians because in fact most of you have never worked a solid day in your life. We are Tired of the way that the people we elect as our Members of Parliament stop speaking for us the moment they are told to tow the party line. We are tired of the way the country gets ignored because as soon as you take power and the house sits you then worry about the next election rather than worrying about us the people. We demand change and we have some changes we want: 1. We the people demand, not ask, that recall be brought into law. 2. We the people demand that restricted parliamentary privilege be restricted to times that it is a benefit to the country not the politicians. 3. We demand that under conditions that regular Canadians would lose their jobs that the same apply to politicians in the same fast manor. 4. We demand that if fired there is an end of your pension no if ands or buts. 5. We demand that any financial penalties that politicians receive be proportional to the wages they earn so as to sting them as we the citizens get stung. 6.We the people demand that when a politician ends his term that he not use political influence to enrich himself or family, if they do they are to be prosecuted. 7. We demand that all monies earned by the writing of books or speaking engagements by any serving politician or politician that has served (because they were only in that position to serve the country) should be paid to charity. 8. We demand that any politician caught deliberately lying to the citizens of this country be removed from office immediately. 9. We demand that any politician working against the people of this country be removed from office and if deemed serious enough be charged in a court of law. These demands are put before you by citizens of all political parties, All genders and all races. We the citizens of Canada have had enough of governments dividing the peoples and spending recklessly so as to force our taxes to a level that makes it hard to support our families. Go to change.org to sign this petition called We the people of Canada DEMAND change in Government.

1. A climate change policy 2. Legalized pot 3. Electoral reform 4. No more talk of niqabs or barbaric practices hotlines 5. An end to CRA targeting of charities 6. Scientists who can speak up

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/canadas-liberal-leader-backs-muslim-face-coverings-opposes-calling-honor-killings-barbaric/ Quick review: 1. He was uncomfortable describing (Islamic/ist) practices such as child marriage, child rape, polygamy, honor killings, and stonings as "barbaric". 2. His first instinct, within hours of the Boston Marathon bombing by the Islamic/ist terrorist Tsarnaev Brothers, was to make sure to walk on eggshells around Islam/Muslims and seek the "roots causes" (presumably economic isolation, social marginalization, and insufficient funding for "safe injection sites"). 3. He regularly describes Harper and Conservatives as bigoted and "Islamophobic". 4. He pushes the neo-Marxist narrative of Muslims-As-Victims, which works out well for his electoral fortunes with Muslim voters because so many Muslims perceive politics through a similar lens of grievance. 5. He joked about attending a Wahhabi mosque. 6. He actually attended a Wahhabi mosque to pander. 7. That mosque was associated with Saudi-funded radicalism, and belonged to an Islamic umbrella group which subsequently lost its charitable status due questionable ties with extremism/terrorism. 8. He draws weird parallels between the Jewish experience in the 30s and 40s and the Muslim experience today (grievance narrative). 9. He fits in perfectly after Dion and Ignatieff.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/21/former-legislator-ban-political-ads-from-canadian-tv-radio/ A former MPP wants the government to destroy freedom of speech and expression - in the interests of "fairness". Now that the LPC is trailing in fundraising for its propaganda, it wants to government to hijack the process of political messaging and campaigning. Naturally, he makes no mention of the over one billion dollars flowing from taxpayers to the left-wing CBC that campaigns endlessly against conservatism and in favor of leftism (LPC and NDP, naturally). The left is so typical.... if you don't like something, BAN IT. If you can't get your way, USE THE IRON FIST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO FORCE IT.