Tuesday, October 15, 2019

One Way or Another... Trudeau is Toast






Even praying won't help Justin Trudeau
For those who supported and continue to support the lofty goals of the 2015 Trudeau Liberals, it's a disappointing fall from grace and a nasty betrayal of trust, the failure of the Liberal government to deliver on what it promised landing squarely on the shoulders of Justin Trudeau.

Gaff after gaff has taken its toll on the now dufus Trudeau who can no longer lecture us from the moral high ground over his pet issues like the environment, feminism, equality and climate change.

Gone is his moral superiority that resonated with Canadians in the last election, the disappointment palpable and the betrayal agonizing.
Regardless of what happens, a Liberal or Conservative minority government, Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister or opposition leader is untenable.
While Justin may remain firmly ensconced in his fantasy world, those around him are looking past his tenure as leader with some already planning leadership bids when he inevitably gets dumped.

Make no mistake, although Trudeau has through his actions betrayed those goals and demonstrated that he's a fraud, the Liberal party platform still resonates with enough Canadians that should the Liberals have dumped Trudeau and gone with a new leader they'd have won this election in a cakewalk.
That's right a cakewalk.

I daresay that the Liberal party brain trust would be more than happy to see a Conservative minority government that could be overthrown at will, rather than muddle on in a minority government position led by a completely damaged and discredited Prime Minister Trudeau.

As Trudeau faces his mortality as Prime Minister he is becoming more and more unhinged, making claims and promises that even his most loyal supporters understand to be desperate measures.

His recent warnings that the environment would be the biggest loser under a Conservative government is laughable as if he himself has actually made progress in lowering Canada's emissions.
But my favourite idiotic promise is that he would commit to planting two billion trees to combat climate change.
If as Trudeau promises, the two billion new trees will have a significant impact on our carbon footprint, what of the 320 billion trees that exist in Canada already?

That's right Canada already has 320 billion trees.
In fact, Canada's forests are so large and bountiful that they completely obliterate our carbon footprint and then some. But that fact will  be discussed in another post.

As for the Conservatives, Scheer has demonstrated that he hasn't got the right stuff and aside from traditional Conservative voters, he hasn't moved the needle through a lacklustre campaign and a personality that evokes mediocrity.

The NDP have destroyed themselves with the likeable Jagmeet Singh, whose strong and measured opinions and policies are overshadowed by his turban.
While progressives west of the Quebec border have no problem with the turban, in Quebec and parts to the east,it is toxic.

And then there is Trudeau's position on Quebec's new secularism law that forbids religious displays (read: Muslim) in some government positions.  Trudeau has softly hinted that he may intervene against the law without ever committing to do so, an ambiguous position meant to play to everyone, but in reality, satisfying no one.
This one policy pronouncement has sealed the fate of a potential Liberal majority government by raising the ire of the hitherto silent Quebec nationalist movement. The issue was tailor-made for the Bloc Quebecois and has given new life to the idea that Quebec needs the party to defend its interests in Ottawa. The shift in voter intentions in Quebec is legendary and the rise of the Bloc as a counter to the dastardly multiculturalist Trudeau has caught fire with those Quebec voters who dislike and fear Muslims and Anglophones.
If the Conservatives win a minority they will be propped up by the Bloc with Scheer surely promising Quebec nationalists what he must in order to assure its support.
While it will serve Conservatives in the short run, the appeasement of the Bloc will play out badly in English Canada and be perceived as a naked deal with the devil.

While the destruction of Justin Trudeau will play out, one way or another over the next months, Liberal planners are hoping for sooner than later, so that they can get back to ruling Canada in a majority government in the next election, perhaps a year to eighteen months ahead.

As for predictions here are mine.

  • The Bloc Quebecois will sweep virtually all the ridings outside the greater Montreal and Quebec regions which represent about 35 seats.
  • The NDP will be lucky to save two seats in Quebec, the unlikely Ruth Ellen Brosseau and Alexandre Boulerice the best hopes.
  • The Conservatives will win about ten or fewer seats in Quebec and the Liberal the rest.
  • Nationally. the Conservative will win about ten seats more than the Liberals but not enough for a majority government.
  • The NDP will win nationally less than than 20 seats and the Greens, well who cares about the Greens
  • Look for a defacto coalition government between the Conservatives and the Bloc, which will be opposed by a defacto coalition between the Liberals and the NDP.
  • The Conservative government will last less than eighteen months.


13 comments:

  1. Wow.

    Up until the following sentence I was planning a totally different comment (which I may post separately). But having read it I must comment on it. It reads:

    "Trudeau has softly hinted that he may intervene against the law without ever committing to do so, an ambiguous position meant to play to everyone, but in reality, satisfying no one."

    I wasn't aware of this...and upon posting this comment will do some googling and research to see if I can find exactly what Trudeau said specifically.

    Why am I amazed at this?

    Because "intervene" can mean one thing and one thing only: disallowance. That is the federal power under the constitution which allows the federal government to veto any provincial legislation it feels contravenes national interests or violates the rights of provincial minorities, which Bill 21 clearly does.

    Of course, readers of this blog will know that the federal veto power is a theme I write about here all too often...and I apologize if readers are bored with me harping on it once again. But I find it fascinating that he would make such a comment and am eager to see what he actually said.

    It may interest readers to know that it is a requirement of LAW that the federal government review provincial acts...and the reason to do so dates back to the beginning of Confederation; it is to review Acts that actually may require federal intervention, such as disallowance and reservation.

    Here is the law to which I refer:

    "Department of Justice Act

    "4(c)

    "The Minister is the official legal adviser of the Governor General and the legal member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and shall advise on the legislative Acts and proceedings of each of the legislatures of the provinces, and generally advise the Crown on all matters of law referred to the Minister by the Crown;"

    If and when a Prime Minister Justin Trudeau actually does disallow Bill 21 (which I hope he would!) it will set an incredible precedent. Not that he or any other Prime Minister would disallow Bill 101 -- which they couldn't do because of the passage of the window of time within which they could -- but it would send a message to Quebec and the rest of Canada that should Quebec ever think of passing similar legislation that it is available to be vetoed by the federal government.

    But, as has been observed by others (without ever mentioning the, to them, dreaded "D" word), any federal intervention by Ottawa in the Bill 21 affair could have the effect of revitalizing the separatist movement. So, the can of worms that Justin could open is one very huge can.

    Which is another theme I have been harping upon ad infinitum on this blog over the years: the fact that the much touted lowly 30 percentile figures for support that separation public opinion polls have registered by pro-federalists as alleged evidence of the death of separatism is anything but. I've always contended that 30% found in these years of relative constitutional peace in Quebec is an incredibly high figure which only needs a perceived "insult" to the glorious nation of Quebec to be pushed into 60% territory...overnight.

    Why?

    Because we experienced that with Meech Lake. We experienced that with a 15 second video in the late '90s of a group of 5 or 10 yahoos in Brockville, Ontario stomping on a Quebec flag...played over and over and over again on French TV.

    Doesn't take much.

    So we'll see how this unfolds...and the effects it will have on national unity if and when a second-term Justin would ever dream of disallowing said bill (I mean law). And it may not even take him actually disallowing Bill 21 in order to firestart the dormant independence fervour that I contend lies beneath the surface of French Quebec...just a trial balloon and a discussion may be enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an aside, I have done some recent reading of the two fellows who were responsible for introducing to the Liberals and the Gang of Eight back in 1981 the concept of the "notwithstanding" clause as the compromise in order to get the nine provinces (sans Quebec) on board for the inclusion of the Charter of Rights into the Constitution. The principle creator of the notwithstanding clause, Professor Paul C. Weiler, has since suggested that disallowance is the perfect counterpart to a province's abuse of the notwithstanding clause. Bill 21, of course, invokes the notwithstanding clauses of both the Canadian and Quebec charters of rights.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, Tony. Trudope will NEV-VER EV-VER overturn any Quebec law.

      Delete
  2. I dunno, Phil. The CTV stats I saw show Trudope has gained where Sheer stupidity hasn't. Sadly, it's like you wrote recently how voters are going to go behind the voting screens across Canada holding their noses. I'm not as optimistic as you are as it seems Dopey will get away with his SNC Lavalin hijinks and how he threw the Honorable (and I do mean honorable) Jody Wilson-Raybould under the bus for being honest and properly doing her job. As a consolation, at least I hope she wins. She fully deserves to, but too often we get the democracy we deserve. Take that statement however you wish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hooray for me...I think! I called them both right. Too bad about Dopey though!

      Delete
  3. The CAQ separatists have already managed to create so much conflict with Ottawa, which is a great help to the useless Bloc Québécois.

    Editor, do you remember your post back in March 2018 telling us that the CAQ was the best hope for anglophones in the province? Ha, how did that work out? I think your judgement is not what it used to be, dear editor. If any of you still think the CAQ is not a separatist party, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Editor, you've also spend the past months telling us how the liberals and trudeau are terrible. This election is very simple for Quebeckers: a vote for anyone other than the liberals is a vote for the separatists.

    Forget your god damn "english language rights", you're in quebec. If you're not happy with the language issues I'm sure Mr.Sauga can suggest a good real-estate agent in Mississauga. Stop being selfish and vote smart, vote anti-separatist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think your headline is correct. With anything less than a majority for Trudeau, the knives will start to come out and he'll be encouraged to take a walk in the snow. Liberals only ideology is do what it takes and promise what it takes to keep power. Trudeau's downward trajectory of popularity is unstoppable and by next election I suspect the electorate will be thoroughly sick of him. Thank God at least we won't be having to listen to his sanctimonious moralizing.
    As for idiotic promises, the tree planting is up there but he attained true meathead status with the 'send underprivileged families to camp' promise, as if their direst need is to learn how to pitch a tent and paddle a canoe. I'm pleased, though, that with the Black-face scandal, the SNC issues and firing Wilson-Raybould for having principles, the Kokanee Groper is unlikely to be sitting on many corporate boards after the Libs turf him out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What I want to happen:

    - Liberal minority government, due to a strong showing by the Bloc which takes away many of their Quebec seats, robbing them of a majority;
    - Bernier's party's few percentage points is enough to rob the Conservatives of badly needed seats;
    - A few months after the election, momentum builds for a merger of Bernier's People's Party and the Conservatives, with the removal of Scheer and replacing him with Bernier.
    - In a year's time, there is an election call and the Conservatives get a majority with Bernier at the helm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well again Philip you and I are pretty well exactly on the same wavelength as what you said is pretty much what I am expecting.

    Its a no-brainer that it will be a weak minority government but less clear who will end up with the most seats. I totally agree that the Liberals would have easily won with any other reasonable leader instead of pretty boy. I could say the same for the Conservatives..if they had Maxime Bernier as leader they would have won a majority easily or perhaps Lisa Raitt or Rona Ambrose. I think both leaders of these parties should be dumped after the election and before the next one coming up in 2020 or 2021 however the parties likely will keep both on until one of them loses again.

    The Cons if the win the most seats will try and work with the Bloc but honestly dont think it will work out well or for long. I think the most likely outcome is the Libs working with the NDP and possibly Greens for some sort of pseudo-co alition which may last 2 years or so but shift us even more in the wacko leftist world..ie higher deficits, higher taxes, weaker economic growth, climate change fanaticism.

    I have no idea what Justin was thinking when he attacked Singh saying that he was the only leader willing to "possibly" step in to fight against Bill 21. Its a complete lose-lose statement..first of all possibly is such a meaningless word but strong enough to allow Legault and the Bloc to jump down his throat and ensure Justin has no hope of a majority government as he watches the seats in Quebec disappear. It shows how dumb, desperate and dishonest he really is..only a complete fool would say something like that.

    I have to agree with another comment about Legault..I had high hopes for the CAQ 5 years ago but then started to sour on them a couple years ago and was becoming more negative before the election last year. Its become pretty clear as others noted that he is effectively PQ-lite or PQ-more cunning which is actually more insidious. They clearly are very calmly and strategically turning up the heat on the rest of Canada..first with Bill 21, then talking about one income tax return, then more language restrictions for federal industries, strengthening Bill 101 and so on. Its pretty clear that their strategy all along is to worsen Quebec-federal relations but deny they are doing it..its less in your face than the PQ and so far its working even though the Feds have pretty well done nothing to stop Bill 21. Its going to get worse next year and the year after and I suspect at some point Legault will say something like "well I am not convinced that Quebec can stay in Canada given its harsh treatment, bla bla" and suddenly the CAQ may start opening the door to secession again.

    Even though I live in Quebec and know it will throw the anglos under the bus again I do hope the rest of Canada finally grows a backbone and says enough is enough and basically asserts its authority even ifit means another referendum within 5 years and possible Quexit situation. I think its time for the ROC to boot us out of here and unfortunately I think Montreal will likely have to go with Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Complicated writes:

    "I think its time for the ROC to boot us out of here and unfortunately I think Montreal will likely have to go with Quebec."

    If it ever comes to actual Quebec separation and independence, I think that is precisely what will happen: Montreal will likely have to go with Quebec.

    My partition friends -- virtually everyone I know on the "anglo-rights" side -- are convinced that, ha-ha, Quebec, if you separate we in Montreal and the South Eastern corner of Quebec will separate from YOU and get to stay in Canada. But, of course, that is NOT what will happen; at the crucial stage of the independence process in which negotiations between a separating Quebec government and the Government of Canada are negotiating the conditions of separation, Ottawa will, as they have over the past 45 years, once again sell the Quebec anglos out.

    Why assume that, all of a sudden, Ottawa will "get religion" and advocate for us when their proven pattern has been to abandon the Quebec anglos? No, at a time when essential points such as shared trade, shared military, shared currency, a corridor between the Maritimes and Ontario, and shared national debt are on the table, we will be the negotiating point which will be given up for concessions on these more precious things. Sure, Ottawa will talk a big game regarding partition but only as a threat...and something they can give up for more value from the list of things that really count for them.

    Of course, people like Pierre Trudeau mused about "If Canada is divisible, so too is Quebec" but this was just that: musing (and a veiled, empty threat). I have only once seen an official of a sitting federal government say what, specifically, that would mean vis a vis partition. And that was Joe Clark when, as a cabinet member of Mulroney's government after the failure of Meech Lake, saying that perhaps the aboriginals of the North will have a claim to staying in Canada but, no, the anglos of Quebec can expect to separate with the rest of Quebec.

    Even though the 20% "no" bloc vote by the non-francophones of Quebec "saved" Canada in both the 1980 and 1995 referendums in which a majority of francophones voted "yes," we will continue to be spat on by Ottawa for our efforts. That, my friends, is what you can count on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you meant the SOUTHWESTERN corner of Quebec, but a lot of those Ontario border constituencies voted for DA BLOC, so the proposed Montreal City-State would be landlocked, unless fought for...as if those Québécois yellow bellies would fight! Hmmmph!

      Delete
    2. Actually, Tony, you have to partially discount your so-called "20% 'no' bloc" because about 8% of non-Francophones votes "yes" at least in the 1980 Referendum. You forget CASA, i.e., the Committee of Anglophones for Sovereignty-Association. I remember those yutzes coming to my university with their ridiculous propaganda. To me, anyone who voted "yes", esp. in the 1980 Referendum was a Kapo. That referendum was really a two-part program where a "yes" vote would have given Quebec the go-ahead to negotiate separation (sov-assoc, my ass) and then put it to another referendum that I'm sure would have had a question or statement equally ambiguously stated as was the case in 1995.

      In 1995, there was no doubt about it. A "yes" vote was a vote for separation, end of story. According to the late Jock Parasite, the Jews ("money") and the Greeks and Italians ("the Ethnic Vote") saved (or spoiled) the day (depending on your point of view). Why do I say these three particular minority groups? Because Parasite specifically named those minority groups about seven weeks after the 1995 Referendum while on some kind of political junket in Calgary.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Sauga, without looking up the actual figures, off the top of my head the figures were:

      1980:
      99% "No" anglos
      95% "No" allos
      52% "Yes" francophones

      1995:
      99% "No" anglos
      95% "No" allos
      62% "Yes" francos

      And they aren't my figures but a demographer's figures...I hope my memory is accurate but if not I am not far off and if the 8% is close to anything it would be to the allophone "Yes" vote, not the non-francophones which includes anglophones...and they registered 99% "No" in both referendums.

      While I disagree with Parizeau's assessment about "money" from the "money and the ethnic vote" quote -- I'm all for the U.S. Suporeme Court's Citizen's United decision and the reasoning behind it -- I don't think it had anything to do with so-called "Jewish money" and not in a million years do I think Parizeau meant it that way. Instead, he meant it as a reference to federal spending.

      As for the "ethnic vote" part of the quote quote, not only did I not have a problem with , I believe he was at completely accurate. "Ethnic" -- relative to a geopolitical entity, Quebec, which is 80% White French Catholic -- is the 20% non-francophones which are comprised of anglophones, allophones and non-French Catholics. Just as in Iowa where the majority is, I presume, heavily White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, "ethnic" would mean someone who is Italian or French Canadian or anyone else not of the majority stock. So it is important to realize the reference point from whence the statement was made...and from that vantage point, Parizeau used the term accurately.

      So on that front, Parizeau was absolutely correct and there was nothing racist about what he said because it WAS the ethnic vote that won the day for the "No" side. No two ways about it.

      Indeed, in a press conference a few years before his death he mentioned a specific number of polling stations in an anglophone riding that registered ZERO "YES" votes. He actually got that reference from me because, as far as I know, I am the only one who ever did research on that particular question and I know for a fact that Parizeau read my book which cites those very statistics (he was referring to the "NO" and "YES" votes from the riding of D'Arcy McGee in the 1995 referendum). And the question that invoked his comments about the shut-out polling stations was asked during that press conference, if memory serves, about the money and ethnic vote blurb he made referendum night.

      Delete