This is a shorter piece that just focuses on the audio. Readers familiar with the “pandemic” subject will instantly know what is bein talked about. This is MLA Milobar. He doesn’t even pretend to oppose the tyranny imposed by John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth, or Bonnie Henry.
The expanded version is here. So is earlier coverage of the October 2020 election, and trolling Sadie Hunter afterwards. Notice, no mention in the platform that they object to any of this. Does it look like people in this Province have any legitimate political options? Are there options anywhere?
In fairness, the B.C. Green Party doesn’t get a pass. They signed onto this with the previous NDP-Green Coalition Government.
A serious question to readers: has anyone else gotten this kind of spin, even of you live in another Province? If so, please share your story, and a tape (if you have one).
In politics, lobbying and money make the world go round. Consider a recent talk with a B.C. Liberal MLA (Member of Legislative Assembly), Peter Milobar. You would think that there’d be some real opposition to John Horgan, Adrian Dix, Mike Farnworth and Bonnie Henry. But no, this isn’t the case. In fact, even referring to it as “controlled opposition” is a bit of a stretch.
In case this may just come off as having a bad day, consider what the candidates said in the October 2020 B.C. election. All parties agreed to abdicate responsibility to unelected bureaucrats. That said, trolling one of them afterwards was fun.
Milobar claims to have taken the AstraZeneca vaccine, which has now been pulled off the market. Let’s see if he actually believes what he’s saying. He also doesn’t really object to anything.
B.C. held a Provincial election in October 2020. One would think that with Horgan, Henry and their cronies destroying the place, the “opposition” party would jump at the chance to fix things. Instead, their election platform goes out of its way to avoid addressing the elephant in the room. Milobar isn’t alone in doing nothing for constituents. It’s everyone.
It this problem deeper than what it seems?
A recent piece covered Wellington Advocacy. This is a lobbying firm that has pushed Jason Kenney and Doug Ford into keeping defective PCR rapid test kits made by Spartan Biosciences. It’s worth noting that the same firm also has people connected to ex-Liberal Leader Christy Clark, and now outgoing leader Andrew Wilkinson.
As a BC native, and having served as Executive Director of the BC Liberal Party and Director of Communications to British Columbia Premier Christy Clark, Katy has a unique understanding of the province’s political, public and private sector landscapes. A seasoned expert in communications, corporate planning, campaign management and stakeholder advocacy, Katy is adept at delivering solutions with meaningful and measurable impact on public opinion. Katy has spent over a decade advising senior cabinet members and elected officials including as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Jobs, Tourism, Skills Training and Labour in British Columbia.
Nick spent the last two years serving as Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s Chief of Staff and Campaign Director. Prior to that Nick, served as former BC Premier Christy Clark’s Chief of Staff, as Director of Issues Management to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and as a senior advisor to numerous federal Cabinet Ministers.
Peter joins after nearly ten years advising elected officials and candidates at the provincial and federal levels, and advising companies and non-profits in the private sector. He served as a senior advisor to Jason Kenney and Alberta’s United Conservative caucus and to former BC Premier Christy Clark and caucus. In Ottawa, he worked for then-Minister Jason Kenney in three major federal departments. Most recently, he worked as a director for a national strategic communications firm.
At least 3 members of Wellington Advocacy (which is lobbying for Spartan rapid test kits) were part of the Government of then B.C. Premier, Christy Clark. True, Clark lost power — and her own seat — in July 2017, but she held tremendous influence over the party. And Wilkinson just resigned as leader. This is, of course, just one group that lobbies for money and influence.
On a related note: Ray Novak is also part of the firm. He was involved with Harper’s Government, is employed with the firm Harper & Associates, and is a Member of the International Democratic Union, which Harper chairs.
K-12 restart planning relative to COVID (restart plan, Personal protection equipment, privacy and the use of digital platforms, Foundational Skills Assessments (FSAs), social distancing and class size, ministry guidelines, remote learning options, health and safety standards/guidelines, consistent reporting
The B.C. Teachers Federation has been lobbying the “opposition” Liberals for a number of things, including shutting down schools in favour of remote learning, and forcing masks on very young students. And by young, many want them imposed on kindergarten students.
The B.C. Labour Federation is also pushing the Liberals for a number of things, such as more handouts. They also demand more protections for illegal aliens (who they disingenuously call “undocumented workers”), more green jobs, and pay equity, which sounds sort of communist.
The BC Government and Service Employees’ Union (BCGEU), has also been pushing all parties for a number of benefits, or “pandemic bucks”, but has also demanded that masks be made mandatory in all Government buildings. Public unions are very powerful, so it would be difficult to say no.
Drug companies like GlaoSmithKline, Innovative Medicines Canada, Merck and Pfizer have all been lobbying B.C. in recent months. Of course, they would never unduly influence politicians. Except for cases like Jean-Marc Prevost.
The above groups aren’t the only ones trying to influence the B.C. Liberals. These are just a few for which there are actual records. It would be interesting to find out what isn’t documented.
It isn’t just one useless MLA like Milobar refusing to do anything. The entire Liberal Party has no real interest in stopping the medical tyranny imposed by Bonnie Henry, and the Horgan Government. They don’t even pretend to be against it, but avoid the subject altogether.
Nor is their interest in Henry’s flip-flop from when she was an expert witness in the Sault Area Hospital arbitration. She testified that neither masks nor vaccines do much against influenza. Considering Henry was picked by a Liberal Government, they seem particularly indifferent about challenging her.
Press Progress also put out an interesting piece on lobbying in Alberta. It’s well worth a read.
On May 8, 2021, Andrew Lawton of True North did an interview with Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. To put it mildly, this was a softball. Lawton went out of his way to avoid difficult questions, and help Kenney along. Rather than holding the Premier to account, Lawton acted as a form of controlled opposition. Commenters on Twitter were quite angry. He gave more legitimacy to the tyrannical measures imposed in the Province.
True North got its “charity” status under very dubious terms. Rather than founding one (as Candice Malcolm leads people to believe), she took over an existing one. See the CRA or search corporations in Canada for more information. True North used to be called the Independent Immigration Aid Association, founded in 1994.
Prior to “founding” True North, Malcolm and her husband, Kasra Nejatian, were staffers for Jason Kenney. They worked in his office while he was Multiculturalism Minister in Stephen Harper’s Government. This detail is never disclosed publicly.
Kenney used to run the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, a Koch/Atlas think tank. Malcolm worked for them as well. Nejatian is still part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, another Koch/Atlas group. He’s also a Director at True North, but not openly listed. None of this is disclosed either.
It’s beyond hypocritical for True North to rail against media outlets being bribed by Trudeau, while it gets tax breaks from pretending to be a charity. The most likely reason for taking over one, as opposed to starting one, is that there would be far less scrutiny.
Lawton himself was a 2018 candidate for the Ontario Provincial election for Doug Ford. To his credit, that is openly mentioned.
And “staffer” is the impression that interview gives off. Lawton tries his best to make Kenney look good, or at least better. What questions could have been asked?
Why do the goalposts keep shifting on these measures?
Why is the Alberta Public Health Act based on the 2005 Quarantine Act?
Why was the Quarantine Act passed to accommodate the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations? WHO-IHR?
Do these public health orders override AB Bill of Rights?
Doesn’t it do an end run around due process to deny Provincial services to people with unpaid tickets, even if they intend to oppose them in Court?
What really happened when you attended Bilderberg?
Finally: Who the hell do you think you are?
There are more of course, but this just a sample of some of the hard questions Andrew Lawton could have asked. Instead, he allows Kenney to spread his nonsense unchallanged.
It is possible that Lawton his oblivious to all of the above, and did no research at all. However, a more likely explanation is that agreeing to softball questions was a condition of the interview. While having access to politicians is quite understandable, this does the public a huge disservice.
Last November, Jason Kenney did an interview with Danielle Smith, former head of the Alberta Wildrose Party. Kenney admitted doing reading that indicated 90% of positives could be in error, and he shrugged it off.
Both Deena Hinshaw (Alberta), and Bonnie Henry (British Columbia), has introduced the standard of “assuming” that positive test results are variants. This has no scientific basis at all.
It’s difficult to see who the audience was here. Many of the commenters in the video call out Lawton for his softball approach. No new information was learned, as Jason Kenney just repeated his same lines as before. Although Lawton (may) not have wanted this, Kenney’s handlers certainly would have advised him on which topics are off limits. Overall, it was very disappointing.
Never again should Lawton criticize the CBC for giving Trudeau a pass. He did exactly the same thing here to Kenney.
If you want some real research, check out this HEALTH series, or this COVID series. This is the kind of information that should be shared openly, but isn’t.
Jason Kenney is a fake conservative.
Andrew Lawton is a fake journalist.
True North is a fake charity.
It would be nice to actually talk to a government M.P. Kelowna-Lake Country M.P. Stephen Fuhr is not too far from here. With the ongoing matters, particularly with the Canada Post legislation, he has been away from home. Anyway, this was done to gain information on 5 topics
(a) Bill C-71 (firearms)
(b) Bill C-75 (criminal code)
(c) Bill C-76 (elections)
(d) UN Global Migration Compact
(e) Supply Management
I did email him 5 questions. Questions are in regular text, answers are in bold/italics:
Hello
I had some some questions/concerns about some policies that were ongoing
(1) This Bill C-71, if what I read is right, it looks like re-establishing a gun registry. Is that the case?
With regards to your first question on Bill C-71, the government has been clear we would not re-instate the national long gun registry and have kept that commitment. C-71 fulfills our government’s campaign promise to address gun control and to take action to combat criminal gun and gang violence.
As a result Bill C-71 will make five important changes:
First, it will enhance background checks. It will remove a five-year limitation so an applicant’s full record is considered, helping ensure that those with history of violent or criminal behaviour, or mental illness associated with violence, can’t get a firearms licence.
Second, C-71 will require all sellers to confirm that a buyer’s licence is valid before the purchase of any firearm, including a rifle or shotgun. Oddly, that’s currently voluntary under the law, and only mandatory for restricted and prohibited firearms. While many still ask, by law retailers only need to have “no reason to believe” the buyer does not have a valid licence.
To be clear, it’s the buyer’s license, not the firearm, that’s being verified. This is not a long gun-registry: no information about the firearm is exchanged.
Third, the legislation will help police investigate gun-related crimes by requiring stores to maintain records of their sales, as was the case in Canada from 1979 until 1995 (and in the United States since 1968). Most already do so for safety and liability reasons, and because it affects their insurance.
Store records are private, not accessible to governments, but police would be able to gain access given reasonable grounds and with judicial authorization as appropriate. These records will help police trace guns discovered at a crime scene and detect trafficking.
Fourth, the bill will ensure the accurate and consistent classification of firearms by RCMP experts in accordance with the technical criteria in the Criminal Code. It repeals Cabinet’s existing authority to overrule RCMP determinations, taking political considerations out of the process.
Fifth, C-71 will bolster community safety in relation to the most dangerous firearms by requiring specific authorizations whenever restricted or prohibited guns (mostly handguns and assault weapons) are moved through the community—except between a residence and an approved shooting range. The rules for transporting non-restricted firearms (such as rifles and shotguns) will not change.
Separately, and in addition, the Government has also taken action to help combat criminal gun and gang violence committing up to $327.6 million over five years, and $100 million annually thereafter, to help support a variety of initiatives to help communities reduce criminal gun and gang crime.
(2) Bill C-75, making terrorism a summary offence? How can that be?
Bill C-75 is a substantive response to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) July 2016 decision in R v Jordan, which called on all those within the justice system to work together to address the issue of court delays.
As you may know, the failure of the judicial system to be able to provide justice in a timely manner has resulted in some serious cases being stayed, which many would argue does not make communities feel safer.
Following the decision in Jordan, federal-provincial-territorial ministers and officials collaborated to work on solutions to address delays in the criminal justice system. This bill is intended to bring about a culture shift within the criminal justice system, something the Supreme Court in the 2016 Jordan decision has stressed is required. As the criminal justice system is shared by all levels of government, accordingly, many of the reforms proposed in this legislation reflect collaborative efforts to address court delays, and have been identified as priorities by federal, provincial, and territorial Justice Ministers.
With regard to the legislation and certain offences, it is important for Canadians to know that in deeming certain offences as hybrid offences, the offence remains an indictable offence unless the Crown elects to proceed by way of summary conviction.
In undertaking the Government’s Criminal Justice System Review, the Minister of Justice and her Parliamentary Secretary held Canada-wide roundtable discussions in every province and territory with justice system partners and interested parties. Participants also included victim advocates, restorative justice proponents, representatives of front-line community support systems, and importantly, representatives from areas such as health and mental health, housing, and other social support systems. In these meetings, participants raised pressing issues about the criminal justice system.
With this legislation, our Government is taking an important step forward to act on what we heard and create a criminal justice system that is just, compassionate, and timely and reflects the needs and expectations of all Canadians
(3) Bill C-76, getting rid of voter ID requirements….? Again, hoping that I am reading this wrong
On the issue of voter identification and Bill C-76, the bill will reintroduce the Voter Information Card as a piece of identification someone can use when they vote. We encourage you read the following Baloney Meter article which provides more information on the importance of the Voter Identification Card: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/baloney-meter-is-voter-information-card-a-doorway-to-electoral-fraud-1.3933707 .
(4) Also, there is the UN global migration compact that I keep hearing about. Why the heck would we even consider giving our sovereignty to the UN?
With regards to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding surrounding this issue and we wish to dispel the myth that Canada’s borders are open; our borders are secure, ensuring an orderly migration system that protects the safety of Canadians while respecting our international obligations to legitimate asylum seekers.
In light of your concerns, we encourage you to read the following column written by our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Minister of International Development, and Canada’s UNHCR Representative: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-canada-will-lead-the-charge-on-the-uns-global-refugee-plan/ .
Canada has a longstanding history of welcoming refugees and people in need from around the world, including some of the world’s most vulnerable people trapped in often unsafe or violent situations in their home country that are outside of their control. As the number of displaced persons reaches unprecedented levels, the Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need.
(5) When NAFTA was getting renegociated, Trump made comments about how our dairy industry is rigged to prevent competition. Is this true, and doesn’t that violate the principle of free trade? It’s infuriating that my food costs twice what it should
Finally, with regard to your question about supply management and the cost of dairy products for Canadian consumers, our dairy industry sustains 221,000 Canadian jobs and contributes $19.9 billion to our GDP and for that reason the government remains committed to maintaining Canada’s supply management system. That being said, through Canada’s commitments under the WTO, CETA, CPTPP, and USMCA, Canadian farmers and processors maintain approximately 90% of the Canadian dairy market, while foreign dairy suppliers will have the opportunity to compete for a share of the Canadian market equivalent to approximately 10% of Canadian milk production. In this way we support our farmers and processors, maintain consumer confidence that the dairy products they consume are made in Canada, while giving consumers more choice through a more competitive market place.
Some clarity on these would be nice.
Thanks
Alex
Thank you again for writing to Mr. Fuhr. We trust that this information will be useful in addressing your concerns.
Sincerely,
The Office of Stephen Fuhr, CD, MP
Member of Parliament for Kelowna-Lake Country
Room 313 Justice Bldg.| Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0A6
Email: stephen.fuhr@parl.gc.ca
Tel: 613.992.7006 | Fax: 613.992.7636
While Mr. Fuhr did send a lengthy email back, there were some positives and negatives. Regarding the UN Compact, I was directed an article the Immigration Minister submitted to Maclean’s magazine.
It is nice to get information straight from the source, but the article reads like a puff piece, that glosses over many legitimate questions about the compact. Indeed, for such a project to even be considered, a lot of details need to be worked out and then disclosed. Here is my followup email to Mr. Fuhr’s office (in italics).
Note: If and when a response ever comes, it will be posted in its entirety.
Hello,
Yes, it was informative, in some sense. But with regards to the UN global migration pact, I actually found the content of the Macleans article to be more alarming.
(1) The immigration minister keeps referring to ”refugees”, yet the UN compact keeps referring to ”migrants”. This seems to be a blurring of the lines here. Are we taking refugees, or migrants? Further, how many do you plan to take?
(2) As with people coming across the border from New York and Minnesota, Hussan got offended at the notion these were ”economic migrants”, calling it ”divisive”. However, once you travel from one safe country to another, then they are in fact economic migrants. It is an accurate description.
(3) Europe, in particular, Germany and Angela Merkel, has had lots of problems with this issue since 2015. How would this be different?
(4) There seems to be little mention in the UN compact of assimilating to the host culture.
(5) There is no real mention in the UN compact of screening or background checks. Ibrahim Ali rings a bell.
(6) There is no mention of how the host country would meet these costs.
(7) While the Macleans article referenced work and entrepenuership, the UN compact makes little mention of work or self-sustaining. Would Canada expect they work, or is it welfare?
(8) The Macleans article promotes Middle East/Africa as locations. However, given treatment of women/LGBTQ, as well as FGM, honour killings, etc…. in those locations, how can we ensure the safety of Canadians?
(9) What health measures are in place to prevent any possible infectious diseases? There is always that risk from any foreign travel.
(10) As for sovereignty, are we in control of our country, or does the UN call the shots?
Far from being re-assuring, the lack of detail in the compact, and from the immigration minister make me wonder what exactly we are getting into. Does this not cause concern that we are signing over our sovereignty for something so vague?
Alex
At the time of publication, this followup had been sent to his office 5 days prior. Again, any response will be posted. And if he agrees to a telephone or in person meeting, the full content will be disclosed.
(A fine review of Rempel by CanandaPoli. Watch his channel.)
Who says democracy doesn’t always work? (Rhetorical question). After repeated attempts to contact Conservative MPs, and getting not a single response, it seemed better to try at home. To be fair, the MP didn’t know I had any party loyalty.
I sat down with my Member of Parliament, Cathy McLeod, on Tuesday, November 13. While mainly wanting information on the U.N. Global Migration Compact, I actually got a lot of information on other topics. In 45 minutes we covered a lot. And to be frank, her honesty was quite refreshing. That will be listed below.
Cathy McLeod, CPC MP
Futile Attempt To Get CPC MPs to Email on UN Compact
(Sent in several emails): all CPC MPs were contacted to get information on the global migration compact. When this failed, I went to my local MP in Kamloops-Thompson.
Media Inquiry on UN Global Migration Compact (to all CPC members)
Sat 10/11/2018 01:55
From: editor@canucklaw.ca
To: dave.vankesteren@parl.gc.ca, Arnold.Viersen@parl.gc.ca, Cathay.Wagantall@parl.gc.ca, mark.warawa@parl.gc.ca, chris.warkentin@parl.gc.ca, Kevin.Waugh@parl.gc.ca
Cc: Len.Webber@parl.gc.ca, alice.wong@parl.gc.ca, David.Yurdiga@parl.gc.ca, Bob.Zimmer@parl.gc.ca
Hello,
I work for a small independent website out of BC, covering law and legal topics.
This inquiry has to do with the UN Global Migration Compact, which Trudeau is expected to sign in December.
Most Canadians would be shocked at the proposal of giving the UN control over our immigration laws. However, I have not been able to find any definitive information from your party. Moreover, I don’t see any indication that the CPC is even concerned about this.
This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Canadians need to know who sides with Canadians, and who sides with globalists.
And your immigration ”Shadow Minister”, Michelle Rempel seems determined to avoid the topic altogether. I have attempted several times unsuccessfully to get an answer.
2 Questions:
(1) Do you support or oppose the UN global migration compact?
(2) Do you support or oppose Petition E-1906 (from Max Bernier) to reject the compact?
Thanks,
Alex
Editor/Founder
http://canucklaw.ca
Please sign this petition
PETITION E-1906 (IMMIGRATION), to reject the ”Global Migration Compact”
Keep Canada’s borders intact CLICK HERE
To date, no one has answered the email.
When emailing didn’t work, I took a visit to the local MP. Here is a summary:
(1) U.N. Global Migration Compact
This was the topic that was hardest to get any information out of Ms. McLeod. After asking several times about the Migration Compact, she did eventually admit that the CPC does not oppose it. Rather they will ”study” the issue, and likely get experts to appear.
Regarding Petition E-1906 (yes, this petition sponsored by Maxime Bernier), she dismissed it as a populous move, and trying to attract attention.
Ms. McLeod said that since it was non-binding, there was little to worry about. There was no risk of people flooding in, that this was nothing like the situation in Central America. She also seemed uninterested when it was pointed out that the UN doesn’t respect nations’ borders.
The United Nations Migration Agency, IOM, is providing support and assistance to migrants crossing Central America in several self-styled caravans, while expressing concern over “the stress and demands” they are placing on host countries.
All migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status – IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico
All things said, it was strange how indifferent Ms. McLeod seemed about the entire Compact. She claimed that there would be no giving up on Canada’s sovereignty and borders. There was no reason to be alarmed and that other scandals going on merited far more outrage.
Personally, I think the CPC fully supports this UN deal, but doesn’t want to talk about it since it would be political suicide. Better to stay quiet.
(2) Disdain for Maxime Bernier
Ms. McLeod didn’t hide her disdain for Maxime Bernier. It was really the same old talking points about how he is selfish, and is more concerned with his ego. Interestingly, she never said ”how” his policies were bad, or how CPC policies were better. And that leads to the next topic….
(3) No Platform on Website
Those looking to run for office often put their platform online so anyone can take a look. However, the CPC has decided not to. Ms. McLeod explained that posting a platform was unnecessary, since an election would not be for a year. It would be rolled out bit by bit.
When I explained that other ”right leaning” parties, such as People’s Party (Bernier); the Libertarian Party (Moen); and the Nationalist Party (Patron), all did. The response was that (to paraphrase), unless there is actually an election, there is no need to post what you stand for.
Bernier claims that the CPC governs by polls, and their beliefs change along with the polls. It seems he has a point. People’s Party has a detailed agenda up, while Conservatives just post stories bashing Trudeau.
(4) Fake Refugees Coming Into Canada
The Conservative Party is willing to declare the entire US/Canada border a ”POINT OF ENTRY”, at which a potential refugee would have to cross and apply for asylum.
However, there is no real will for removing some 30,000-40,000 people who have illegally crossed from the United States. Declaring the whole border a ”POINT OF ENTRY” does nothing to the people already here. Further, Ms. McLeod gave the impression that the CPC wasn’t willing to take harsh measures to prevent what were obviously fraudulent claims. New York is not a war zone.
And while not willing to immediately deport people sneaking across the border, CPC would shorten the refugee hearings. A start, I suppose.
(5) Corporate Welfare
From the talk today, I have to wonder if the CPC even supports free trade at all. On the topics of ”bailouts” and of ”subsidies”, I was told that yes, this is how things are done in the real world. Apparently (my paraphrasing) major businesses can only succeed if they get large amounts of taxpayer money.
Note: One could argue that nationalising might be a better option. Although taxpayers are still on the hook, at least they would be part owners.
(6) Supply Management
Yes, the Conservative Party supports farmers, and Bernier keeps bringing it up for political points. That was pretty much the response.
(7) Equalization Payments
As far as attracting votes, I got the impression it would be political suicide to attempt any real reform.
(8) Terri McClintic and Gladue/Ipeelee
To the Conservative’s credit, they were quite thorough in bringing this up, and in seeing a child killer put back in prison.
However, there seems to be no will to address the underlying issue: the racist laws in Canada, which permitted this abomination to happen. Different sentencing guidelines base on race or ethnicity have no place in an equal society.
While living conditions and history were cited by the MP as justifications, it was refuted easily. Even if harsh 3rd world conditions result in higher crime, then lessening the punishments won’t erase the 3rd world conditions. Removing the effect won’t stop the cause.
(9) Statistics Canada
Originally, I thought this was a hoax story. It was actually quite nice to see the CPC fighting against this Orwellian scheme to raid the banking information of 500,000 Canadians (per year). See here, and see here.
Global News first exposed this story, and it became a national outrage. It was stunning to see this attempt at prying such personal data for ”research purposes”. Due to public backlash, formal complaints and legal challenges, the program is on hold indefinitely.
(10) Back Door Gun Registry
This was mainly in reference to bill C-71, and Ms. McLeod admitted that it was a ”backdoor gun registry”, and that CPC will oppose it. That was nice to hear.
(11) Carbon Tax, Paris Accord
The CPC opposes the carbon tax, which does nothing to reduce pollution. But to be fair, why vote for the Paris Accord at all, which specifically “endorses” a carbon tax? It does so in several passages.
However, the CPC still supports the Paris Accord, and in our talk, Ms. McLeod conflated carbon dioxide (which is plant food used in photosynthesis), with actual carbon products to be eliminated. They oppose the tax, but still support the Accord, as they don’t want to be seen as anti-environmental.
(12) Civility in the House of Commons
This touched a nerve, mentioning the childish behaviour, grandstanding, and being evasive that goes on in the house. It didn’t matter who sat in power, the antics were an embarrassment to watch. Here is one of a great many examples.
The response to my comments were that things still get done at times.
(13) M-103 — anti blasphemy motion
Ms. McLeod said that it was non-binding, but shurgged off my comments that it would (if it became law), prohibit truthful speech, and that it gives preferential treatment.
Are Conservatives an Alternative to the Liberals?
Not really. With all of the hype notwithstanding, there appear to be few differences:
(1) Conservatives oppose the carbon tax, while supporting Paris Accord
(2) Conservatives actually support legal gun owners
That is about it. Even the identity politics and pandering they are starting to embrace even more. Legitimate questions about multiculturalism and Canadian values is off limits. CPC does go out its way to avoid saying anything meaningful on the subject, or its challenges. Bernier found that out the hard way. Liberal issues like corporate welfare; trade barriers; and equalization are embraced.
Someone like Michelle Rempel is actually quite dangerous. Rather than opposing the disaster of a government, she creates the illusion of opposing. The so-called ”opposition MPs” focus on the small details, it makes one wonder how sincere they are.
To be fair, the CPC does play the outrage card quite well when scandals break: (a) Ethics breaches; (b) Terri McClintic; (c) StatsCan; (d) Illegal immigration in Canada. However, ”any” party could do this, and it serves as a distraction for the lack of real differention between LPC and CPC. One can legitimately ask: what is conservative about this party, other than the name?
Regarding the UN Global Migration Compact: the CPC is not opposing it, but will go through the motions of ”studying” it. See Point #1.
It seems that walking away from traditional parties was the right one. If all the CPC has to say is ”we’re not Trudeau”, while acting Liberal-lite, then I want nothing to do with them. While getting some honest information from my MP was nice, it actually did confirm everything Max Bernier said when he left the party.
It could be very messy for ”Conservatives” in October 2019.
Update to the Posting
There have been a few questions as to the authenticity of the article.
After pondering it, I’ve decided to post it. The voices are a bit wonky, haven’t been able to fix it yet,
Again, CPC doesn’t actually “oppose” UN global migration compact.
Further Update to the Posting
The CPC has now said that they oppose the UN Compact. More on that in another video
