Sun Publisher Meets U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra

Heather Klein, Pete Hoekstra and Kevin Klein attend 4th of July party at Ambassador's residence 2026.

In an opinion piece Kevin Klein says he accepted an invitation from U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra for the Independence Day ceremony at the ambassador's residence in Ottawa. Around 200 people were there, including Convoy leader, Tamara Lich. A fly by of CF-18s and F-35s took place.

Klein says the mainstream media makes out the Hoekstra is making a villain of the ambassador. He says he is a hard working diplomat and Carney is to blame. This puts Klein on far opposite of his own Conservative operators who are livid with the gaslighting by Hoekstra on the Gordie Howe Bridge when he said Canada has not really paid for it. Many Stephen Harper officials who were in the room are thoroughly disgusted. Not one of them blamed Carney for this as this a shakedown 101.

Now Klein has managed to save the Winnipeg Sun and other newspapers from certain closure and has a right to publish whatever he wants. It is right to believe that if only there was a Conservative in power, all would be well over the last 10 years and we'd never have a trade issue with the U.S. or Trump. He can believe that but no county has been unscathed in Trump's second administration. The only safety we've had in a trade agreement signed when Justin Trudeau was prime minister. 

Klein said he asked many of the 250 business leaders in attendance and they said Carney doesn't engage them. He said Hoekstra engaged them. Of the under 1000 in attendance, there are certain to be a number of businesses that are not happy with Carney. Conservatives should keep in mind that these past 4th parties used to attract 4000 people. Many businesses felt they could do better attending the Calgary Stampede. So did many politicians. Some are so furious about the bridge in Ontario, they hold Hoekstra accountable directly. The former Michigan Congressman received donations from the Ambassador Bridge owners and there seems to be a direct link to closure of the Gordie Howe Bridge.

Now Klein accepting the invitation to the party could be explained as seeking information on a major issue. But where is the accountability? Does Klein contend that it is all Carney's fault that there is no deal and the bridge is closed? It seems that is what his newspaper claims every day. The Sun writers seem to think that all we do is irritate the U.S. and it would be so easy to get a deal. 

Canadian irritation right back is not merely driven by media in Canada. It is actually greater than the Carney government. People in the country recognize the bullying and even some of the biggest conservatives are fighting mad. For some other Conservatives, they are far more supportive of Trump and even like his kind of politics. There is a fair movement in Canada that are not just separatists but angling for 51st state status.

Conservative media will have to dance on the head of a pin with separation in next months. They would continue to to like to berate the federal government. In many cases they are upset with conservatives elsewhere too. In Manitoba, that is translating into a new party. Since one of the owners Wally Daudrich is running in The Pas for the Keystone Party. It remains to be see whether The Sun endorses him and the party.

Pete Hoekstra is not helpful navigating the next moves Canada will take. He mirrors what Trump says gaslights us when we bristle at being told we need to be 51st state. The gaslighting continues when we are told we didn't pay for the Gordie Howe Bridge. Conservative media agreeing it is all the Liberals fault and Carney in particular only beggars disbelief and raises Carney's popularity. 

I appreciate Klein's purchase of The Sun. We need two newspapers in this town. They don't have to be identical. It is better that they aren't. But we need Team Canada when it comes to the U.S. whether in sport or politics. There is nothing wrong with going to the ambassador's fete. Coming out of it and saying he is doing yeoman's work and he is listening while Carney isn't is not helpful. What might have been helpful is finding out what truly was holding up the bridge opening. Do we really have to give envelopes of cash to the main players? Is it a warning we need to capitulate on everything, accept tariffs, the end of dairy, egg, chicken and cheese industry, our auto industry, buy only American equipment for military, join the U.S. in a fight in Iran, end newspaper and cultural supports, get approval for anyone we trade with, send oil only to the U.S. at a discount and any other things that might result in a deal that Trump changes month to month? This is the work of a diplomat? And this is all Carney's fault?

Royce Koop Seeking Conservative Nomination in Winnipeg South Centre

 

University of Manitoba professor and Winnipeg Sun columnist has indicated he will be seeking the nomination for the Conservatives for Winnipeg South Centre. The riding is presently held by the Liberal under Ben Carr, son of the last Jim Carr, former MLA and MP from the area. Carr was recently re-elected in 2025. The riding has been one of the most consistent federal Liberal riding for nearly five decades. The next election is, at best, three years away now the Mark Carney has a majority.

By all accounts, Koop has been a well liked professor at University of Manitoba. He has degrees from all over Canada and has taught at many Canadian  universities. When he wrote at the Free Press, there was insightful analysis. His columns in The Sun and sometimes National Post are all opinion pieces. His focus pretty much all the time is the Liberal party and why it is bad for Canada. He also writes for the conservative digital news service call The Hub. Just this week, Conrad Black, a frequent contributor said Trump is a good president and his name in the Epstein Files is irrelevant.

Koop is known as a fairly partisan conservative. His Sun columns and podcasts with Kevin Klein have been focused against the NDP in Manitoba and the Liberals in Ottawa. As an academic he is well aware of the micro and macro of the political economy. He knows how the Westminster system works. He is well aware of the ideology of every political party in the country. Knowing all this, his political opinion of things overlooks the failures of his own party and focuses on the failures of the other guys.

It it is unclear if there is competition for the nomination for the federal riding. The last candidate for the Conservatives in the riding was Royden Brosseau, an engineer and businessman, who hasn't indicated that they will run again. Joyce Bateman won for the Tories in 2011 but lost to Jim Carr the following election. It has been a very Liberal since the 1980s even through many Conservative governments.

The Conservatives have felt this riding, with a mix of wealth and high education, has been ripe for the plucking for decades but have continually come up short. And by a long ways most of the time. And some of the right who campaigned in the riding have often shown a level of racism and anti-Semitism dating back to the Reform party. Given the  Jewish strength in the riding, conservatives often think they take the the seat. But that assumes a monolithic viewpoint of Jewish Canadian votes. It dismisses Jewish roots in a spectrum of views rather than single issue politics.

Royce Koop will likely face challengers for the nomination which is might might fight off being more right of center. He will then have to show the riding he can represent all the people that live there. There are many government workers, artists and small business people who live in the riding. Many will be ever alert to threats to health, education and and areas they feel passionate about.

The lesson learned from Pierre Poilievre's defeat in his own riding is that many people in the Ottawa area were afraid of slash and burn policies that could affect their jobs and workplaces. It is possible that if Trudeau had still been in power in 2025 in the election, even Winnipeg South Centre would have turned blue. However, the Liberals turned to Carney and the Trump changed the election into an existential threat. That threat still hangs over Canada.

I suppose the benefit of Koop getting the nomination early is that he can get a feel of the riding. You can bet they will be reading his columns, watching podcasts and so will his opposition. If Carney nose dives in the polls, it is possible this seat can turn over. But it is likely it will only be a narrow window and the community will be watching like hawks the whole time.

Harper Nostalgia from Conservatives

The Conservatives have been have been all mushy nostalgic for Stephen Harper this past week during the Calgary convention to affirm Pierre Poilievre as party leader. It is the Conservative convention so they can mush all the want. However, the Conservatives certainly leave out a lot of stuff when they talk about Harper, not the least of which is how he got thumped by Justin Trudeau for a terrible campaign and based on his record. And thereafter, Trudeau beat the new two Conservative leaders. It was the Liberals themselves who replaced Trudeau and thereafter Carney beat yet another Conservative leader in Pierre Poilievre.

The last time the Conservatives held power was back when Harper was Prime Minister. The National Post are been particularly strong in singing the praises of Harper the past weekend crediting him with a golden era in Canadian governance. They are very strong in condemnation of Trudeau. There is plenty to criticize Trudeau about but on things like military spending, Trudeau's government easily surpassed Harper who had .08% GDP spending even while we were in Afghanistan. Trudeau was at 1.3% and Carney is to bring it to 2% by March and head past that to 5%. Somehow the way the conservative media frames it, Harper was superior. He wasn't but they seek to downplay that. 

In terms of deficits, Harper media supporters say it was the result of the 2008 stock and economy crash. They credit Harper for managing the crisis while saying that Carney had nothing to do with it. I expect if Carney didn't help, Harper would not have offered him the job of Finance minister or be so effusive in praise of his job as Bank of Canada governor. It is all such nonsense. Such obvious digs sound just like they are: blindly partisan.

The seeds of most leaders demise show themselves early. The electorate initially appreciates or tolerates it in the early going. Most voters are are not extremists. They tend to vote for their own reasons. Having said that, the seeds of Harper's demise came from the social conservative side and his desire to end collection of data in some quarters. The cancelling the long form census and gagging government departments from reporting stuff not approved by his office was very concerning. The focus on immigrants and what they wore turned off a number of people as well as associating with the extremist side with the cultural barbaric practices hotline. Holy ICE in Canada! For Trudeau, it was the performative side of things. He went to India and was annoying in his costume and family holiday. Serious trade and security issues needed to be talked about and they were outshone by superficial stuff. Eventually, with high cost of living, the charismatic Trudeau looked destined for a thorough defeat.

Usually the leader are blind to their own weakness. And why would they think that anything other than victory was possible. Both Harper and Trudeau clobbered opposition. Liberals are not nostalgic for Trudeau insofar that they want him back. I personally believed that some of his personal foibles would have resulted in loss of position by almost every other Liberal MP if they had committed them. Still, I approved in general the change in cannabis law, the handling of the pandemic and the free trade agreement in Trump's first term. As for the cost of living and handling the crime and drug addictions, I was like many people not very happy.

It has been interesting to note in recent days that Harper and Chretien were on stage together talking about national unity. It is hard to imagine this in the U.S. right now. In fact, both men mentioned the issue of Donald Trump and how the country should come together. It was fairly funny to but it also emphasizes Poilievre's problem. While he can embrace nostalgia for Harper, he is having a hard time being critical because there are so many Trump supporters in his party, some who even welcome being the 51st state.

Based on the way the Conservatives are acting, it is clear they don't want to pull the trigger on an election right away. If the act with bravado and block things, Carney might be compelled to call a snap election and call their bluff. Minorities don't have long. If no more floor crossers join the Liberals, the election could be in 2026. Poilievre is meeting Carney to discuss the session. It doesn't seem likely he would do that if he was going to vote non-confidence in the next month.

In the mean time, conservative media will continue to say what a grand time a Harper conservative government was and say nothing bad ever happened. The relationship between Canada, the U.S. and China was never as good as some on the right have said. Harper never did get a pipeline in Canada or the U.S. either. Trudeau got the one in Canada completed. Harper kept the worst instincts of the party down until he didn't. 

Carney and Chretien were present this week when Stephen Harper had his portrait unveiled in Ottawa on 20th anniversary since he was in office. Peter McKay was present too. But no Poilievre. It was probably not a thing he wanted to show a non-partisanship appearance at. A missed opportunity to grow his base. However, his base in furious and angry. About everything. They want to control the courts and judges. They want to end bilingualism. Go to zero immigration. They will go to extremism if they see the Conservatives give on these issues.

It is hard to believe that the Harper nostalgia doesn't teach anything new to present day Conservatives. They certainly don't seem to be listening to Harper now.

Carney in the Post Davos World

 

Much has been made of Mark Carney's speech in Davos, Switzerland about the current situation the world sees itself after one year of Donald Trump's return to office. It is interesting to note that is has had a world-wide response and the speech was re-printed in Le Monde and the New York Times. Donald Trump has reacted negatively and disinvited Carney to his Board of Peace. This may be a blessing for Carney. And Trump is escalating. He says he will launch 100% tariffs on Canada for the recent trade deal with China which does not involve sending any goods to the U.S. but a lowering of tariffs to pre-2024.

In Canada, Pierre Poilievre credited Carney with with an excellent speech and then went on for pages after criticizing him and his government. His main argument is that Carney has done nothing and his party has done nothing. This could be posturing for the election leadership review that Poilievre faces in two weeks. Every opportunity to bring down the minority government he has passed on. We'll see if he is ready to take the government down in February.

We don't have as many silos of only right wing or left wing views as the U.S. has. The American-owned National Post just doesn't have the reach nor does right wing radio or podcasting media in Canada have near the influence it does south of the border. Our bookstores have smaller politics section than U.S. ones where every politician or media person has a book out, it seems. Even social media is light on politics in Canada even on X (Twitter), TikTok and YouTube. Most Canadians seem to get their news from a diverse number of sources and stubbornly hug the middle in most things.

Nevertheless, Conrad Black, who received a pardon from Trump, says that Canada and NATO countries have been have been letting the U.S. do all the work. He seems to forget Afghanistan when Canada honoured Article 5 and went to fight. The first four Canadians killed in Afghanistan were killed by "friendly fire" from American forces. A total of 158 Canadian Forces killed along with 6 civilians seem to have been forgotten. Not just by Trump but by Conrad Black. The Super Conservative forgetting all this is appalling as is the soft pedaling of the disgust many Canadians feel about the threats that Black largely ignore. He gaslights us by calling it derangement syndrome.

The election in 2025 very much felt like a vote for stability when Mark Carney was elected. Canadians seemed to have a visceral response to the chaos south of the border. Many are angry at the aggressive bullying from Donald Trump. It has changed travel and shopping patterns and continues to alter them. It seems like whatever conservative media there is clearly is not reading the room at the rage against the U.S. and Trump in Canada. Every time the Conservatives blame Carney, they are likely setting their own prospects back.

The Winnipeg Sun seems to recognize that Trump's criticism of Carney helps the Liberals get their majority. The editorial believes it might be a conspiracy. The truth is a lot of conservatives are not looking for a united Canada. Some want separation. Some want 51st state. Polls consistently say that the majority in every province are against that. Even when Conservatives have power provincially and federally, there has been a separatist minority so blaming Liberals for them doesn't wash.

Pierre Poilievre had said the Liberals under Carney are not doing anything which is not exactly true. The budget passed but other pieces of legislation have been held up in the minority parliament. Parliament seems stalled as so often happens in a minority. The Carney government has announced GST relief that Poilievre says he will support. Since it is a financial measure, a vote down would likely trigger an election which Conservatives don't seem prepared for.

Trump might be miffed with Carney and his ambassador and cabinet are uttering threats and encouraging separation of Alberta. The ambassador seems perplexed why we won't just surrender our industry to the U.S. or why we'd consider them a threat? Not entirely sure some in Trump's team will every get why were not on board with their plans. Ultimately, it could be Carney is waiting for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the tariffs. Based on the questions the Supreme Court had for Trump officials, it seems likely they are worried that it might be an overreach on Congress and their constitutional power. However, given how the administration looks to dump the Second Amendment when it is a anti-Trump rally and shoot a protestor, who knows?

Although Poilievre has been critical of it, Carney has been travelling lots. He will continue to do in 2026 with India and Australia in search of business and security deals. The Europeans just signed a massive trade deal with India this week and Canada may be close to doing so as well. In Australia, Canada is buying a billion dollar defense system to be used in the north to detect intrusions. It is hard to believe that Poilievre would sit at home in some chauvinistic way to appeal to his base rather than making business, security and business deals around the world. His fear of being called a globalist would do harm to Canada.

Poilievre using the same talking points of the last election may not serve him well. The Canadian public has pivoted and it has a lot to do with Trump. And Poilievre still doesn't know how to respond well to Trump because a lot of his base loves the man. As we swing to separation talks in different regions, the fear is that the U.S. will meddle. They already are. And Poilievre can't be seen to lead the conga line for that. 

The Trump people have so many fires to put out that they started and the mid-term elections are happening this year. Time is running out to run on a winning message. The Supreme Court is to weigh in at any time on tariffs any time up till mid-February. This could result in a reversal of Trump tariffs. As it stands now, China has ordered many shiploads of canola at a reduced tariff and should stay within American red line limits. Prime Minister Carney might just have to wait things out till then.

For now we have to put up with Treasury Secretary Bessant and Commerce Secretary Lutnick gaslighting us about how it is Canada that started this fight with drugs crossing the border and our unfair trading practices. A list of Trump officials will have nothing good to say no matter what concessions are made. And Trump himself is likely to take it as weakness to try for a takeover. It isn't just negotiating strategies. After Venezuela, everything has to be looked at as a shakedown.

The Conservatives in Canada have been saying they are not Trump MAGA while re-posting MAGA comments. Liberal support is up mostly at the cost of the NDP and Bloc in the post Davos speech polling. The Conservatives have called it virtue signaling and said if the Liberals are not adopting the the Poilievre plan, they are doing nothing. Given the tax and GST cuts, the Liberals are not exactly doing nothing. And the canola shipments are hard to argue with except if Conservatives are saying they wouldn't sign tariff reduction deals with China.

A number of media outlets have indicated that Carney has a long list of additional travels in 2026, Some Conservatives are critical saying he should be back in Canada in Parliament facing a blocking opposition. This ignores the amount of Team Canada trips that Stephen Harper did that Conservative are extolling now. India and Australia trips are coming up and there are hints that trade agreements are pending. We can't completely replace American trade. It is simply too big and North American is too integrated to not reach a deal. However, we can't act like we are the ones blocking a deal.

It is still likely an election happens this year unless there is another few floor crossers to the Liberals. Minority governments never last long. Until then, Carney will run a government trying to mitigate the chaos in the U.S.

Crossing the Floor - House of Commons

In 2018 Andrew Scheer had no problem with floor crosser when Liberal Leona Allslev joined his party. Now that is Conservatives crossing to the Liberals, you have Conservatives screaming treason and trade offs that are illegal. They're not. Since Confederation, there have been over 300 floor crossings. People elect MPs. If they elect enough of them from one slate, they get official party status and resources from Parliament to do their job. The party that has the most MPs elected gets to attempt to form government, even in a minority situation. This means in a minority, the governing party has to work with MPs across the floor to govern. This includes inducing them to cross the floor to help form a majority.

Justin Trudeau got this when one of his MPs crossed the floor. Scheer crowed about it, said the Liberals were weak and Trudeau should resign. He apparently, didn't see anything wrong with it. As for what it achieved, the election that came soon after resulted in a repeat minority and it was Scheer who had to resign.

It is a but rich to see Andrew Scheer talking about the Liberals meeting with Conservative MPs and calling it anti-Democratic. It is the opposite of that. Some of the media, including people in academia, question the MP how they thwart the choices of people who voted for the party. People elect MPs. Those MPs are expected to vote or act on behalf of all those who live in their riding. That includes people who didn't vote for them or can't yet vote.

Parties can't dictate that people first sit as an independent. It is unenforceable in our system. It also lacks transparency. If a minority government relies on a few MPs to pass their agenda, it is better to know what the trade offs are. In the last government, the NDP and Liberals negotiated to pass an agenda. Unfortunately, for the NDP, it didn't result in seat gain. But it did result them getting things they wanted passed in legislation. It is up to electorate what they want from their MP and who they want. The parties always find this out and trying to force party loyalty on a riding often won't go well.

Conservatives are raw with anger. Perhaps some know that cries of treason are politicking. However, it often seems that some pundits are unware of of how democracy and our system works. Many still can't figure out what Ontario has more MPs than say, Alberta. Perhaps because it has three times the population and also has the biggest economic impact in the country.

It is worth noting that one of the most celebrated leaders in history, Winston Churchill, crossed the floor twice. Many seem to chose to forget that when they list him as a great leader. But then again people choose what they want to choose even when it is contradictory. You would they not get furious when it is pointed out to them. It seems entirely based on whose ox gets gored.

It is very likely that Pierre Poilievre believed that he was going to defeat the Liberals this week and head into an election. Now, he is two MPs short from where he was day earlier. A final budget vote takes place a week from now. It remains to be seen if the bleeding has stopped for the Conservatives. If all the opposition parties vote against the budget, there will indeed be an election and all the hysteria about floor crossing will be mute.

It is interesting to note how rattled Pierre Poilievre was as a result of the two MPs leaving the caucus. He has been acting like he is 30 points ahead in the polls. Perhaps things will be unsettled in Canada till a majority is voted in. It is only then that an opposition party knows that it at least three or four years till the next election and that is a marathon rather than a sprint. If the feeling is that an election is always imminent it seems to encourage dumb behaviour.

As far as social and mainstream media goes, perhaps the angry outbursts is to get clicks or support from the base. Calling people liars in an unsigned document from Conservative party doesn't cut it. Two MPs are gone. They blame the Liberals for this. The big question is whether the Conservatives have enough votes to bring down the government in a confidence vote in a week or whether they even want to do that. 

To be sure Pierre Poilievre has had a bad week. And while the bleeding might have stopped from loss of MPs, it might mean that some MPs are looking to the leadership review in January to demonstrate their displeasure. Raging against unhappy MPs will not go well. Even if floor crossing is shut down, it might not stop people leaving office.

CBC Manitoba Adds Steinbach Bureau

 

Between CBC Manitoba Radio One and CBC Manitoba Television, CBC has a fairly large presence in the news department. Aside from Brandon, CBC Manitoba has a fairly light presence in covering anything outside the perimeter. The radio unit does make regular attempts to send the team to various parts of the province. And the TV unit does cover stories outside Winnipeg but the capital remains the biggest source of news material.

Brandon has had a news reporter based in the city for many years. They have needed one since their affiliation with CKX television in Brandon ended. That brought the station to an end in 2009 and CBC now had no real coverage for the second largest city in the province. A number of correspondents have worked the Brandon bureau. Their assignment is the city of Brandon and rural issues.

For decades some of the biggest advertisers on CBC Manitoba's evening news was ag related commercials. It is less so now. While CBC Radio One's Winnipeg broadcast is number 1 in the ratings, that is not true of the CBC local TV news in recent decades. It was once the top newscast but changes at the anchor desk and consistency at the other stations saw CBC slip to second and then third.

In today's market of cord cutting, as people sign on for streaming services and the like, the audience for local news goes down or appears to be on the decline. Certainly, how media reaches their audiences has changed greatly. When Bell dropped sports radio, it opened up several podcasts for former broadcasters and new entries in this niche. It is fairly shocking how pretty much all the local stations have dropped their sports reporting.

It certainly isn't written in stone that this is the best approach. Looking south to Fargo, North Dakota, we see WDAY use digital options to create a sports channel offshoot of their ABC slot dedicated to high school and university sports in the state. No media comes close to this coverage in Manitoba and North Dakota has a smaller population.

The overall CBC English and French service receives a lot of federal money. However, compared to other industrialized countries, it is below almost everyone except the U.S. The American have even cut their support more but have left the tax credits in place for people who donate to PBS and NPR.

In the last election the Conservatives said they would end CBC funding while the Liberals said they would increase spending. Since the election, Prime Minister Carney has ordered CBC to look for savings but kept the increase promised in election. All government departments have been asked to make cuts so the CBC is among those departments and Crowns. At the billion mark, there is a lot of money in the system. CBC Radio and Radio Canada, the French service punch above their weight class. They are both popular services and in the case of radio, have no advertising taken away from private broadcasters. CBC North can be regarded as an essential service given the lack of any alternatives.

The CBC English TV, with the goal of trying to serve a wider audience, the network decided to hire 30 more journalists in 22 communities. The Prairies would see the most of any region with nine communities having reporters. For Manitoba, the Steinbach/Hanover community the allocation is to be two reporters. The first one has already been hired. The second one will be soon. This will increase the coverage from 48 to 66 stations and bureaus across the country. It is long overdue.

CBC Manitoba is often accused of perimeter-itis. While it has reporters who know the outside of the city, it is not as often reflected in news. It isn't in their remit if they are reporting on city hall or the legislature. It remains to be seen how the new reporters will be utilized from Brandon to Steinbach. The Brandon reporter in recent years seems to have one digital story a week and regular contributions to the broadcast through the week. 

The CBC Manitoba evening news has a new set. The one old overlooked Portage at Spence. 

Brittany Greenslade took over as full time anchor after a period of rotating anchors when Janet Stewart left to take over the noon radio call in show for a year. While there isn't anything wrong with the new set per se, it really doesn't allow for much interaction between anchor and guest. Compared to APTN down the street, it isn't a very active set. National CBC programs have far more interesting sets for discussions which largely seem absent on CBC Manitoba.

I mention the news desk set because with two bureaus outside Winnipeg, it would be interesting at times if the Brandon or Steinbach correspondent could have a segment where they interact with the anchor. There have been occasions when correspondents have interacted in analysis segments. The Kives/Kavanaugh explainers were always interesting. Most of the interactions are now between weather anchor and new anchor. No stations carry sports reporters anymore. It is disappointing because nothing gets reported in Manitoba on high school and university sports. It isn't what happens south of the border. Nor does it happen in Britain. The BBC is full of sports coverage. That will be a discussion for another day.

The most important thing from the posting outside of Winnipeg will be new perspectives from those areas. And so it will go with all of the new bureaus. Will it magically make CBC television news number 1 in the markets it serves? No. There still needs to be a review of what CBC offers Canada. The future for CBC would appear to lie in streaming and they have moved local broadcasts to that format but so far it doesn't seem to coordinated enough to extend this service world-wide like BritBox or Acorn does with British programming.

I expect we will see more reporting from the bureaus across Canada in the fall as they are fully staffed. Given how many parts of the country have lost newspapers and radio stations, it may be the first full time reporter for those communities.

Is Mark Carney a Conservative?

A short note: Blogging had a moment about 15 years ago more or less. It lasted a while and a few are kicking around today in Manitoba. There were some brilliant historians, analysts and humourists at the time and it was thoroughly enjoyable. Some faded into retirement from writing long form thoughts. I like reading long form material. Social media, whether it be TwitterX, Facebook, TikTok or any of the various messenger services lacks detail and history although some can be informative, timely and entertaining. In the last several months social media has become increasingly filled with AI and is an ever growing source of hostility. It is hard to know what is real or true a lot of the time.

Blogging is slow. And in search engines, something that was written years ago can suddenly take off again as people seek out information, history or news. Mainstream media can fulfil this when it is not firewalled. A blog is there so long as the website remains and the author keeps their posts up. 

I have rarely removed any past posts except where links might not be around anymore. I have fixed poor formatting or typos which there are many. In other word, I tend to leave things alone. Prior to the pandemic the views steadily rose till just prior to the pandemic. For a few short months saw 45,000 people a month in viewers, It dropped in the pandemic and has been steadily rising again till this past June it has reached 45,000 people once more. 

Thanks to those readers. I really don't look all that much or try to write anything that is clickbait. I write what interests me. Take pictures of what I see. I don't limit myself to any one topic. So thank you in this short note.

---

Some conservative media is back and forth on what to think about Mark Carney. Many conservative voters are still scratching their heads about what happened in the election and are now looking closely at Pierre Poilievre's performance. He is still months away from getting a seat back in the Commons. To that end, he appeared on CBC in a interview this week. It is the first time he has done that as leader. Before he had his list of enemies who were never to be engaged. Once he was to become PM it would be the end of the CBC.

Even conservatives seemed to quail at the raw vitriol. Some in the base loved it and even raged further but others, many of them women, sensed this was an anger that could turn on them. There will be a lot of analysis done of of what happened in the election. The truth is that is that the Liberals chose exactly the right candidate and platform for the moment.

I have said here before the Liberals have both left and right contingents in the party. The Conservatives have driven off the progressives in their party federally. More critically, the Conservatives have driven the NDP to near extinction by appealing to working men in labour while at the same time driving women and those afraid of the right to the Liberals. It is not a recipe for a national win. The wind went out of the sails of the federal campaign when Justin Trudeau stepped and when Mark Carney won the leadership.

To distinguish himself in the campaign, Carney said he was ending the carbon tax on gas. He also said he was raising military spending. Much of this was in response to election of Donald Trump. The Justin Trudeau government showed no intent on changing those policies but the Pierre Poilievre-led opposition couldn't seem to benefit from any of this because every time Trump talked about the 51st state, it shifted voters to the party in power.

Even before this, Liberal members were convinced that a fourth term under Trudeau was unrealistic and that it could lead to the party being wiped out. I'm not sure why Conservatives were surprised Trudeau left. In fact, at times they seemed to suggest that it was somehow illegal for them to change leaders or use proroguing as a strategy. It should have come as no surprise. The Conservatives have used such tactics themselves as they are perfectly legal in our system.

The NDP and the Conservatives often say the Liberals steal their policy platforms. They should be flattered. However, if their policy platforms were completely gold, one would think they would propel said parties to victory. The truth is that some parties still have parts of their policy platform or candidates that don't inspire faith. And while some federal parties might say that electoral reform in needed nationally, they make no attempt to change the system provincially when they are in power.

However, back to Carney. He was elected because he appeared to be the person to best deal with Trump and to steer the Liberals back a bit from cliff they were headed to. This is not to say the Liberals are withdrawing from being progressive. On issues like marriage and abortion, they are not about to head in the opposite direction. The Conservative platform in the election chipped away at those areas of law.

I mention the social issues because women played a huge role in the election outcome. There are conservative women to be sure but the over the top hyper masculine approach was only going to go so far. If women don't trust a leader or the policies as they apply to her and her family, she will vote against that leader and party even if a partner votes the other way. The value of the secret ballot remains a woman's best opportunity for change.

The changes on taxes, carbon and otherwise is a right of center Liberal move. But we are not seeing a cut on daycare, dental and pharmacare changes made under Trudeau. Those are progressive ideas. The NDP have all but been wiped out so there is less influence and chance they want to go straight into another election with no leader. Likewise, the Tories have no leader. And the BQ were badly bruised. The one thing that everyone seems to agree on nationally and provincially is the economy needs to be juiced with everything that is happening in the U.S.

So far many premiers are supportive of Carney and his approach to nation-building programs. Federally, the Conservatives supported the bill to try to speed through projects. First Nations leadership has expressed alarm at speed but with 600 chiefs, some are in support of moving forward. It seems unlikely that Carney would push through a project without consultations or support. 

And to be fair there are many projects with First Nations, Metis and Inuit already on infrastructure, housing and a host of other areas. Expediting those already agreed upon would be a boost to economies across Canada. The federal government has a duty to consult in a meaningful way. It does not give 600 First Nations sweeping vetoes according to legal experts. Carney will be looking to get discussions going. It can't be easy. The chiefs wanted to bring lawyers, experts, elders and others to the talk. Assuming a max of 10 people and six thousand or more, an arena would be needed and probably a few weeks/months of discussions. So far it has been limited to chiefs which is a lot.

It is unclear what sort of legal challenge might be coming but there are a number of chiefs who wish to move forward and if some don't want to proceed, it is likely money will be re-directed elsewhere. However, Carney has negotiated with businesses and governments for years. It seems likely he can navigate the waters.

In recent weeks, more conservative media commentators have considered whether Carney is actually a conservative. Or at the least a progressive conservative. This is not great for the Conservative party because when Liberal have been more conservative, the party was wiped out like with Chretien. If Conservatives veer too far to the right, it will hurt them more than they think. They eventually only beat Paul Martin when the party went left with NDP support and corruption in Quebec.

Carney will find that more progressive conservatives might move to him and the party if he continues a path that appears to looking to the right the ship. Poilievre will find it harder to tap into the visceral hatred of Trudeau in dealing with Carney. And the fear and dislike by Canadians for Trump means they are not interested in hearing how everything is broken over and over.

Chretien and Paul Martin were able to convince a large number of Canadians of their goals while splitting the conservative vote. Now, with the progressive vote not split, the Liberals now are just short of a majority. If they can convince enough Conservatives voters to to change their votes next election, the Conservatives might be looking at being longer in opposition. A lot can happen but already Carney is doing things that a Trudeau government would never do.

The Anger of Conservatives in Manitoba

The Conservatives lost the last federal election and the Progressive Conservatives lost the last provincial election in Manitoba. As far as the federal election goes, the Tories were so certain they were going to, they were figuring out the wallpaper in the prime minister's office. After two years of relentless campaigning they almost saw the Liberals win a majority and their own leader lose his seat.

Polling in Manitoba now shows a majority of Conservatives supporting separation. It is a minority position in the overall poll. Some men are so angry and upset that they are all in on western alienation and separation. It is unclear how that translates into a win with a full referendum. It is worth noting that separation parties in the provincial byelections finished third.

There seem to be a lot of conservatives who embrace the 51st state. Certainly there is anger at the election results and in some cases, those that saw their party lost question the electoral system as fixed against them. And by fixed, the suggestion was that Liberals were changing boundaries and stuffing ballots. No amount of evidence could be presented to convince those that believe that. Thankfully, the actual Conservative party didn't make a call to the battlements over losing both the election and the leader's seat. That didn't mean they were happy.

The Liberals are pretty wily. By changing their leader and proroguing Parliament, they changed the calculus. But some of these tactic the Conservatives had done themselves with success. It think what caught Conservatives by surprise is how fast Liberals changes policy platform. Despite calling it cynical and a lie, it ignores how the Liberals have always had right and left components within the party. It is that right that is in power now.

Men are more likely to be separatist than women. And Alberta and Saskatchewan are more likely to have separatist segments of the population than B.C. or Manitoba. In Manitoba it is likely a rural male who thinks on the line of separation. This closely resembles the rest of the west. Those in the city, especially women, are more likely to be in support of a united Canada.

Polls are often snapshots looking backwards. Many conservatives are still stinging from Trudeau and are still stunned the Liberals won with Carney. The popularity if the Liberals and Carney have steadily risen. Even now though some conservatives are mad about Covid, vaccines, the electoral process on a host of issues social and economic. It is unlikely that some on the right will ever forgive the emergency measures. But then again, there is little sympathy from a lot of Canadians who regarded the convoys as being a threat to health and safety.

Carney appears to be managing the premiers fairly well by being open to projects of national importance. Still, Alberta's default position is to criticize the federal government often as a cover for their own performance. Trudeau authorized a full government pipeline that brought more money into Alberta than before and got no credit for it. Harper had no success getting the pipeline through.

Ontario has 15 million people living in the province. Even with the entire western Canada population included, it is smaller than Ontario. For would be separatists it should be obvious that the population of cities in the west outnumbers all of the rural and northern areas. This is important because a lot of separatists are often saying majority rule is unfair. They don't meant the just eastern Canada but cities over rural areas too.

In Manitoba this often mean rural men are angry at people who live in Winnipeg. Does separation mean separating from Winnipeg? These are legitimate questions. If Canada is divisible, does it not mean provinces are as well? And First Nations can easily say they won't separate. Does that mean the province sends the police in? This easily can lead to a civil war.

As mentioned, this is a snapshot on the past months and the present government is not even a year in. Federal-provincial relations seems to be in a much better place than they were a year ago and nation building projects seem to be a focus. Housing and inflation are also on the priority list. All these things combined are likely to take the steam of the separatist agenda.  As this most recent Canada Day has show, the Canadian flag has been reclaimed by those who want a unified Canada. The majority does not want to break up the country.

Election Aftermath

Three months ago the result would have been very different. It is likely the Conservatives would have won a supermajority. Now, the Liberals under Carney has come up 24% in the polls and are just shy of a majority. The resignation of Trudeau, the election of Carney as leader of the Liberals, the tariffs of Trump and the 51st state talk and the collapse of the NDP all contributed to this win.

The post election speeches were telling. Poilievre congratulated the new leader and didn't dispute the result despite losing his own seat. Singh, losing his seat as well and party status, announced he would be stepping down. Blanchet lost a third of Bloc seats. He has only had to face criticism from the Quebec government for a poor campaign. Very quickly after the election, Blanchet indicated he won't be bringing the government down any time soon.

As far as Poilievre goes, he has to face his caucus to see if he can retain their support going forward. Since he lost his seat, Parliamentary rules clearly state the Opposition has to pick a leader in the House. This can be an interim leader but it has to be someone who is a MP. It appears Poilievre has called everyone to solidify his support. But his loss means he is out of the Commons for at least a few months and out of the official residence at Stornoway which is only for elected officials.

One thing is clear is that Poilievre won't be in the Commons until the fall unless Parliament has a summer sitting. And they might if Conservatives make a big deal about it. The G7 meeting is in Alberta in July and it is expected that there will several trade missions around the world. July 1 is the self-imposed deadline for a provincial free trade agreement and it looks like the country made finally get one.

The Trump Effect is not just limited to Canada. Australia just elected a a majority Labor government and the opposition Liberal (conservative) party lost, including the leader's seat. Similarly, the opposition leader in Australia had held the seat for 20 years just like Poilievre. This reversal of conservative wins worldwide will be monitored by many.

In Carney's press conference, the need for speed was emphasized. The Trump tariffs are hurting Canada and they are hurting the U.S. as well. Carney will be looking to get tariffs off of Canada in some sort of agreement. Nevertheless, the U.S. could still have a hard economy due to trade pressures around the world. This affects Canada too.

In Trump's first term, Canada tried to stay below the radar and got a trade deal. However, any hope of getting a pipeline through even under Trump's administration has proven to be fruitless. However, there are LNG projects that will come on stream in B.C. that will benefit all of Canada in terms of economic gains. On Friday, Carney met Premier Danielle Smith and she was reasonably satisfied that the discussion was productive.

An Alberta tradition is to bash Ottawa. However, I think she is aware that if she takes it too far, it may involve violence towards the federal government. There is no control if it devolves to that. As in the time of Covid where some Albertans gathered arms and planned an event at the border, the fear is that there will be a move from politics to terrorism. It seems very unlikely Alberta wants to see what happens to districts that vote on separation. It hurt Quebec badly and still places them in jeopardy.

Carney will have a difficult time to navigate the path on the U.S. but the key will be to agree to negotiations. Any growth plan he has for Canada will have to be get free trade in the country moving. Infrastructure will be key. And looking for trade relationships outside of the U.S. As for the rest, I expect Carney will be looking to keep free speech and democracy strong. He is likely to show tolerance but not be the lightning rod that Trudeau was.

In the end, being an adult, focusing on the economy might be enough to forestall and election for a year or more. Trudeau managed to keep his government going till the edge of the cliff. The trick will be to avoid senseless provocative stances and continue to focus on economy. Even environmental work needs to focus on affordability and sensible and measurable improvements in people lives. A national energy grid comes to mind. Electricity, natural gas and the like but also a real push for supports for new windows, doors, insulation and new technologies. And most importantly, housing. This is what hits many people the hardest. Improve on that and some of the other things will feel less terrible.

Poilievre vs Carney and Threat of Western Separation

What a difference a few months and an external factor like Donald Trump can have on electoral fortunes. Pierre Poilievre seemed to be sailing into one of the most massive majorities in Canadian history for the Conservatives. Justin Trudeau was determined to go into the next election until the opposition said they were going to pull the plug at the earliest opportunity. This led to a flurry of Liberals saying they were not going to run again next election. With cabinet holes to fill, he looked to move the Finance minister Chrystia Freeland to some other position to bring in, allegedly, Mark Carney into Finance. 

Freeland's resignation was the moment that Trudeau found there was just not enough support in the caucus to carry on. And Mark Carney, who opted not to jump into a cabinet with a lameduck PM. He just had to wait till a leadership convention was called. A prorogued Parliament and a leadership convention was a re-set from how 2025 began. As interim PM till the leadership was decided, Justin Trudeau probably had the two best best months an outgoing leader could have. Carney became the PM and had streamlined cabinet sworn in. However, support for Liberals had been steadily rising every time Trump imposed or threatened tariffs. By the time Carney became PM the Liberals had pulled numbers not seen in years.

Oddly enough, even though the Conservatives said they were going to bring the government down, they haven't seemed unprepared this far. They have not been able to adjust to the constant changing campaign that Trump's proclamations bring. Carney has not been perfect thus far. Some of his MPs have gotten in trouble. Some he has removed including his own seat and some he stubbornly keeps in place. One recent MP stepped down after he defended him. It is early in campaign and not uncommon for leaders to have a few candidates who don't work out. It remains to be seen whether these incidents hurt Carney. Or Poilievre. Generally, most people don't pay attention to these incidents.

Preston Manning suggests that anything less that a Poilievre majority win is a vote for Alberta separation. This is the same type of blackmail that Quebec has used over the years. Sad that it comes from Manning who has generally been considered to be not be as extreme. It could be that speaking to the volatile male base of the party makes him presume such an outcome. The enormous gender gap in what polls are saying could make for some surprises. Some men are just not opposed to Liberals. They are angrily opposed. However, if that is the case then it can be said women are even more resolutely opposed to Conservatives. 

This is something to keep in mind when voting on separation takes place. What do women think about this? Truly. A landlocked Conservative province separating? Most polls suggest that only a small minority want a 51st state in Alberta. That same percentage is in Quebec in terms of 51st state. The most recent polling on separation from Canada in Alberta stands at about 20. Still a minority view. Manning's 

If Poilievre is having a hard time figuring an angle with Carney, it is the same problem with all the opposition leaders including Blanchet from the BQ. The more Trump fills the airwaves, the more a unity movement grows. For the moment it is in support of Carney since he is the prime minister. And as such, Carney's response generally has the backing of all the premiers. It is enviable position to be in during the election. Usually the caretaker role is less pronounced. However, it can be said that the authority to respond to an emergency overrides this. Looking like a prime minister is what many Canadians are looking for. 

The premier of Alberta flirts with separation but also calls it nonsense. She knows the polls show it to be a possible loser for her. Danielle Smith already has enough problems in the province as she breaks the crockery. And yet Poilievre does little to distance himself. The person he does need help from his Doug Ford from Ontario and yet never seems to ask. Ford has found it easier to deal with Trudeau and Carney.

At this point in the election, it is clear that neither the premier of Alberta or Poilievre are interested in talking about separation of Alberta or Quebec. Even flirting with it is likely to do harm in Ontario. And that is where he need seats. According to polls, the heavily Conservative Alberta has a loathing for any Trudeau Liberals going back 60 years. However, when they've elected two Conservative majorities, they have felt pretty miserable about that too. 

The polls could be the most off we have ever seen in Canadian history given the crowds turning up for Poilievre. However, Winnipeggers know that just because we loved and turned up in numbers for Phantom of the Paradise, it didn't mean it was a blockbuster. 

It is possible that Carney's French might hold him back or that he stumbles badly in upcoming debates but the desire for stability is something the electorate craves. Poilievre has said he will disturb that but he has said everything is broken. That message is tone deaf when the public fears the country will be carved up by external enemies. Many take a dim view that Conservatives may in fact desire that outcome. For this reason, the polls have been reflecting a new dynamic not seen in Canada ever.

Three weeks are left in the campaign and the only thing we can say is that it is volatile out there.

 

Trump Dismisses Pierre Poilievre

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370211707112

Conservatives in Canada are probably in disbelief. Two months ago it looked as if there were going to face Justin Trudeau and go to get a supermajority of seats in Canada. The latest polls suggest the biggest defeat for the Conservatives in decades. It could be there has been a boost as a result of Trudeau's resignation and for the subsequent Liberal leadership race but the real driver of polls in Canada has been Donald Trump.

Tariffs have dominated the discussion and fear has pervaded across Canada. Trudeau in his final weeks probably showed the best leadership with the provinces that anyone had seen in three years. Every insult aimed at Canada and Trudeau saw Liberal support rise. Showing fortitude worked for Dough Ford as well who rode a wave of unity to a third term for the PCs in Ontario.

Pierre Poilievre literally had to change tact of saying everything was wrong with Canada to defending Canada against Trump. His campaign needed to change as soon as Trudeau announced he was stepping down but his party seems to think that they just have to say that the new PM Mark Carney is just like Trudeau. Clearly the polling suggests that voters don't think so.

Trump has dumped on Poilievre for not being MAGA enough just when Canadians are looking for a leader who will not just stand up for Canada. The problem is that there are a lot of Trump supporters in the Conservative party and a fair number who support being 51st state. Poilievre treads a fine line of being critical of Trump tariffs and not making his base unhappy. He wants to keep the focus on the Liberals leaders but Trump comments on Canada every day. The people of Canada have no choice but to focus on Trump because of the tariff issues ands existential threat to Canada. Pussyfooting is not going to cut it.

If Conservatives thought Trump would be the best thing in the world for them and that his success would be success for them, they can't be more shocked than they are now. Some in the media are saying that Trump saying Poilievre is no friend of Trump's is a good thing. The FOX interview with Laura Ingraham tried to steer the conversation to China multiple times but Trump wasn't having it. He full on said he doesn't support Poilievre and said he'd prefer to work with a Liberal.

Canadians are in a mood not seen since World War II. There is a nationalism and determination to face the challenge.  Shopping habits and travel changes borne of betrayal and anger are happening each day. Buying Canadian and travelling to non-U.S. destinations is producing noticeable numbers. Canadian leaders who are not standing up for the country or who sound like Trump could face resistance.

This is matter of great difficulty for Poilievre because he has pocketed phrases by the bushel from Trump and leans heavily on sloganeering. Given the polls, it might not be working. Or conversely worked so well that he had already defeated Trudeau, Singh and all the policies he has singled out over two years. 

But Poilievre can't overcome Trump himself. And as the election has started, it could be very well that he has no time to pivot. It is early on though. It may not matter if the NDP, Green and BQ support collapse and go the Liberals.

Pierre Poilievre Next Prime Minister of Canada?

Double digits poll support over the Liberals, it would seem the Conservatives are in a position to take a historic victory with a majority not seen since Mulroney. His axe the tax stand of removing the carbon tax is resonating with a lot of people. However, he hasn't made clear if he is dropping all the efforts in the area of climate change. For example, will he drop electric car support, geo-thermal, solar or electric power grids in favour of oil and gas. Some of their policies suggest they will sell water and allow resource development in presently protected areas. There doesn't seem to be anywhere to ask questions about if any of this is true. Increasingly, Conservatives are not responding to any media...even those that would seem friendly to it.

It probably isn't necessary. Poll numbers are great, money is coming in and even if the economy improves, it still doesn't change the message. The gas tax cuts will be the first things to go if and when Poilievre is elected. Climate change supports are likely to go next. The only thing that might mitigate that is what happens in the U.S. and the world. If the markets start to really change for oil and gas products, it will not help if Canada is not manufacturing electric vehicles and investing in other technologies. The German government has already said they are committed to energy such as hydrogen. Some Conservatives have attacked her for saying this.

On crime, the statistics are bad over the last ten years with rising numbers. While some numbers are lower, violent crime and property crimes have spiked. It isn't just as federal government problem. It affects provincial and municipal governments as well. The Conservatives say this all began when the Liberals took over as government in 2015. While this is true, it ignores the others levels of government, few of which were Liberal. Police themselves have said there are many factors leading to more violent crime, some of which are are at levels of government below the federal one such as social services, education and housing.

The Liberals though are taking it on the chin mostly from inflation. And even though it has come down to 2%, a lot of people are still carrying a lot of debt and renewing debt on such things as mortgages at higher levels. Bank of Canada rates have come down and are forecast to come down more but people are still hurting. After nearly 10 years, it very hard to win elected office again for the same leader. Nearly impossible. Pierre Trudeau couldn't do it and relied on the Conservatives under Joe Clark not being able to retain confidence. Poilievre is hoping to land a large majority to keep that from happening like it did to Joe Clark.

The government could collapse in October if the Bloc don't get some of their policies pushed through on seniors. They appear to be expensive promises and it is uncertain if the government supports them or believe they are necessary. The Liberals will likely weigh the benefits of supporting this plan, especially if it only buys a few week of confidence. An election could easily be before Christmas.

The Bloc Quebecois could end up being the Official Opposition in this scenario as they were from 1993 to 1996. The difference then was the Liberals were in government and campaigned to keep Quebec in Canada. Would the Conservatives do that or would they push them out the door? There are so many policy issues that largely remain unknown. A vote on the carbon tax is what Poilievre wants to make the election all about but he hasn't indicated much detail on other areas including defence and national unity.

Poilievre has said he will make it a priority about bringing down the cost of housing. This past year thus far has seen housing starts go up 4%. Lower interest rates should help builders with more starts but even with historically low rates a few years back, housing prices were rising. This isn't something the Conservatives can change any more than the Liberals. 

The Conservatives think inflation might go down if they eliminate the gas tax but it could increase spending in other areas which could raise inflation. It certainly did that for housing prices even when the overall rate was 2% inflation. The only thing that will really moderate prices is capacity. We don't enough housing units overall and haven't for many years.

The market is tricky that way. If there is a mad rush and bidding on houses goes crazy, people will not benefit. Supply chain issues, zoning and approvals all take time. Some areas in Toronto and Calgary are saying no to anything except detached housing. This happened when Harper was in power as well with Poilievre in cabinet. Now the Liberals are in power but provinces in Ontario and Alberta have conservatives governments and struggle as well. The truth is that all levels of government are responsible for this.

In some university towns in 2024, there are now rentals available because the federal government has limited students. However, this is now putting pressure on universities because of reduced tuitions. Meanwhile, some businesses won't have skilled people coming out of the university system leaving the job market unfilled. 

Clearly, we need more policy ideas from Poilievre if he is to become prime minister.  If tax cuts are the only thing offered, the possibility of rising deficit is strong. And if service cuts are in the offing, where will they come? In Manitoba, we saw a balanced budget under Pallister but it came at the cost of cutting constructions budgets, not settling contracts and a whole host of other spending throttling that was eventually was going to have to be paid later on. The NDP under Kinew seems reluctant to end some of those tax cuts even as the deficit grows. They will have no choice at some point because borrowing money to pay for tax cuts is just not on.

What a Poilievre government might do aside from cutting taxes, climate investments and the CBC is unclear. And will the social conservatives on the team have sway on abortion, IVF, assisted death and other areas? No one knows. It is possible his government might be as light on legislation as the Republican Congress in the U.S. is. The big difference between the U.S. House of Representative and Canada's Parliament is that a majority in Canada is able to achieve far more with less chance of a veto by the courts and Senate.

As far as foreign affairs goes, it is likely that aid to Ukraine could come into question. Some Conservatives are outright hostile to the assistance and our more supportive of Russia. As far as Israel goes, there are enough evangelicals in the party supporting a war there for biblical reasons. Canada's allies give the country less leeway to not pull weight. Presently, the Liberals are being pressured to get to 2% GDP for defence spending. Poilievre has said he is not committed to spending that much. It is unlikely he will be able to pull that attitude in NATO meetings. 

A sudden election could very well have Pierre Poilievre become prime minister without a clear direction. One possible clue of what is to come is to look at the Doug Ford government in Ontario which defeated the Liberals who had been in power for 15 years. Ford has won two majorities and seems set to win a third majority. Ford, unlike Poilievre, is a populist which propels his agenda. It remains to be seen is Poilievre can get people to like him as much as Ford. Moreover, there tends to be a trend in Canada that provinces often balance out political support. In other words, if Canada goes Conservative, it often results in changes on the provincial level.

Change is important in government. It also allows the opposition to rebuild and focus their role as critics and alternatives. At the moment, it is hard to see what change will be coming, especially with an election possible very soon.

Pierre Polievere New Conservative Leader

This past weekend Pierre Poilievre was elected to leader following Erin O'Toole stepping down from the last disappointing result that brought another minority government of Justin Trudeau. In a member held vote, it was the biggest vote account and a massive majority over the next leading contender of Jean Charest.

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now...the present Conservative party does not have room for progressives or moderates. It isn't a libertarian party either because there are too many in the party who wish to impose laws on social conservative areas such as abortion. Charest might retain his membership but no one was interested in his moderation. They want a fight and they want it now. And that was supported by the tens of thousands who votes for Poilievre.

Even before the pandemic there have been Conservatives who have been opposed in the extreme to Justin Trudeau. They have been shocked and angry they have not won the last few elections to the point that some of them, especially in Alberta, have talked about separation. Despite many conservative governments in Canada, many conservative chafe under any rules. We have seen conservative on conservative clashes about breaking the law in the UCP conservative leadership campaign.

Now that Pierre Poilievre is the leader, he has to tread more lightly.  If he truly intends to fire the Bank of Canada governor, he can expect that it might affect the markets. Any inkling of instability sends the markets on the move. If he is PM he has every right to his own governor. But a showy removal of the governor and a replacement that seems to have no independence will be harmful and Poilievre likely knows this. It remains to be seen if his party does.

Poilievre has also said he wishes to defund the CBC. Even Stephen Harper did not end the CBC. Even the United States has public and state broadcasters such as PBS, NPR and Voice of America. The President of the United States appoints representatives to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Will he support a PBS model with charitable tax credit or will he cut all all support for public broadcasting? Will he eliminate all tax supports for magazines, newspapers and television? Certainly in his party there are those who want it all gone. And if he doesn't deliver, will they turf him? Or abandon him? One Quebec MP has already resigned to sit as an independent. This was no ordinary party MP, he was Scheer's lieutenant in Quebec. He supported Charest and made it clear he was not comfortable with the new leadership. Poilievre blasted him as a Trudeau enabler and enlisted a social media campaign to get him to resign immediately. There were apologies about that and probably shock at the level of harassment. The damage done has other Conservatives in Quebec upset.

The next days will be about appearing statesman-like with the Queen's passing. These moments are important because if it appears too political with attempts to kneecap your opponent at every turns, it doesn't look very much like a prime minister. Many Canadians are not nearly as political and vote according to what they see. It is why Harper's bid to be re-elected failed as the campaign had taken a meanspirited turn when Canadians were clearly not comfortable where it was going.

I had no special insight into that last Harper election. I thought he was going to win massively in 2015 because I thought his messaging on past leaders of the Liberals was so effective that they were beaten even before the election started. Where Harper went wrong is when he just didn't focus on the opposition parties but on citizens he felt were a threat to Canada. His snitch line and embracing extremist tactics in Ontario was rejected in favour of a more positive Liberal campaign. In recent years, Harper's embrace of anti-Democratic conservative movements in places like Hungary shows where things might have gone.

There won't be an election any time soon unless the NDP decide to take advantage of a change in their relationship with the Liberals to support the minority till the next mandated election. The Conservatives will have time to refine their opposition, firm up their finances and come up with an election platform. The Liberals could tip the apple cart by calling a snap election if their poll numbers indicate a majority. However, evidence from last election suggests Canadians might just return the same minority government again. Possibly a different minority.

One of the reasons Harper won aside from a long reign from the Liberals, corruption, hard times and a rise of the NDP was the fact that he presented a plan that attracted supporters. Governments usually collapse rather than the incoming government given ringing endorsement to rule. However, Harper had a simple package of policies that were understood and he could introduce as bills. Getting nominated leader doesn't necessarily mean an election platform has to be presented when the election is a few years away but his policy so far of firing the Bank of Canada Governor and promoting crypto currency is a winning formula.

Poilievre has won the base, the next thing is to do the math and calculate what seats in Parliament might flip to the Tories. His relationship with the Freedom Convoy might be more of an anchor for him beyond his core supporters. They may have donated big to him but many of them are not likely to be in any mood for the give and take that real politics requires. Many of them have conspiracy theory-based thinking and believe that a vote for their party equals dismantling Canada. This seems to be the rationale for some of the supporters in the leadership battle in Alberta who are also federal Tory supporters.

None of that happens even if Conservatives get a majority. Other levels of government, the courts, the markets and international pressures limit you as they are the guard rails in the system. One consequence of changes in national government is that provincial governments often change to counter it. Canadians are funny that way. Provincial governments get a lot of mileage running against the Feds and blaming them for woes in their provinces. Having the same party provincially and federally is not always fruitful for that type of bun fight.

The Liberals and Conservatives used to be brokerage parties that cast wide tents. In recent years more center/right Liberals have been squeezed out for more left policies. Some in part to prevent gains from NDP but just as much because of Liberal choice. Likewise, Conservatives used to be called Progressive Conservatives and had a center/right tent with many Red Tories who took more socially liberal view on a range of subjects. Today's Conservatives have squeezed out the progressives in both name and idea in the new party.

The cold calculation of the Liberals and the Conservatives is that you can win a majority with 30% of the vote if you target certain ridings across the country. Is it no wonder that 70% of the population often feels that elections don't reflect their vote. Attempts have been to change the system of voting but at a provincial level, it has always been voted down or rejected. And provincial wings and federal wings often disagree on something like proportional representation. 

Poilievre has succeeded in getting younger and diverse members in the party. His digital communication strategy and messaging has helped and the Conservatives will have a lot of new members which is good for them moving forward. If Canada falls into recession, it can give the Tories an opening to see a rise in support. As it stands now, Trudeau is able to look statesman-like at the Queen's funeral and even non-partisan with other former PMs including Poilievre's former boss Stephen Harper posing for pictures in London. 

One assumes that when spring arrives Trudeau once again will be in London for the Coronation which will be another state event that naturally elevates you in the public eye. Most times that is. In India, it went bad which goes to show you that less is more in overseas trips. And if you do have to speak out as in the funeral of a Queen, speak about that person with grace and humility. 

It remains to be seen if Trudeau runs again. It is possible an international job awaits him although Canada has earned a lot of enemies in Russia and China recently so U.N. jobs might be out of the question. Or not. If Trudeau serves as an MP till 2025, he will have served as MP as long as his father who retired at 65. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Trudeau might want to do something different. Even Joe Biden in recent days has not committed yet to running for a second term. In his case, he might judge it based if he feels another six years on the job and whether he is up for it.

Poilievre for all his talk about elites is a political lifer. He has 18 years in Parliament and if Trudeau serves a full term, it will be over 20 years. If he becomes PM, it will be 25 (given a majority). That is called a career politician. If indeed he wins, it will be the pinnacle of a long career. Alas, if Trudeau does run and wins a majority, those long years may not serve the Conservative leader very well.

Trudeau has proved himself a nemesis to the Conservative party. Poilievre has some time to build the party. The question is will he rely on elements of the party that make people question their ability to govern? They can't assume that people will hate Trudeau enough to remove him. And winning every seat in Alberta and Saskatchewan by huge majorities doesn't earn you enough seats. It will come down to personal appeal and finding candidates who can win seats they don't presently hold. And that usually is in Ontario.

As mentioned, I'm not good at predicting. I once thought Alberta would have a PC government for as long as I lived. I was wrong. I thought the 1980s Liberals in Ontario would win another term. I was wrong. I thought Stephen Harper would win another majority.. I was wrong. Truth is that a lot of people are not wedded to any particular party and you have to win their votes. Or, at least not have them so mad at you, they want to toss you out.

It will be interesting to see. What is more interesting is that world issues of climate, war, migration and authoritarianism are are all buffeting countries. Those things can cause both a politician's fortunes to rise or fall. Which will it be? Who is to say?

Election 2015

I voted on Sunday in the advance poll.

It was a pretty glorious fall day to start off and I wanted to get it done so on election night, I could watch and not have to be running around too much.

I have voted in every election where since I turned 18 save for when I was living in Japan. I haven't regretted voting ever even though I've supported losing candidates more than winning candidates on the whole.

My involvement in elections varies. Once I was a candidate, many times I have been in the trenches, other years just a donor or putting up a sign, many years a political party member, some years not. Always a voter though.

This year and for the last few years I have been a member of the Liberal party and donate a bit each month. I didn't get involved in nominations or campaigning much this year. Work schedule can always be a bit of an issue. I usually donate a chunk of money at the end of the year when I know what I can afford to give.

Election 2015 has been a very long election campaign. That was by design. Stephen Harper and the Conservatives called it earlier than they had to and their reasoning probably felt sound. They had the most money to spend and it was a good way to shut down third party ads from organizations as they would be forbidden from being shown during the election. The only bad thing was no government advertising either. On the balance it seemed a small price to pay.

Despite the fact that the NDP were in the lead at the start of the campaign in August, the Conservatives must have felt their chances were excellent. The addition of seats in the House of Commons in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. were in areas that Tories felt paved the way to majority.

Negative ads month after month had worked at pushing Justin Trudeau down to third place in the polls after an extended honeymoon after he became leader. At some point Stephen Harper must have figured the time was never going to be better. And so we plunged into this very long campaign during the hot months of summer.

Most political organizers will tell you that as a soon as an election is called, it is difficult to gauge day to day issues that rise above carefully scripted days. Limiting the amount of questions and media exposure is a tactic to control the message. Even though the Tories knew that the court hearing on Mike Duffy would be on with an early election call, they figured they could manage it. The PM would only answer 5 questions a day.

It made Tories very angry that all five questions for days and days were about Mike Duffy!

Conservatives at rallies began heckling the media for asking questions based on the latest from the Duffy trial. Not a good situation and one that lent itself to stories about Tory anger

I, like a lot of Canadians, watched the Duffy case with interest. It is hard not to be disgusted or disappointed in the failures of the Senate. Any thoughts I had when I was younger about reforming it are now grounded in the reality that it requires constitutional change. Both Mulcair and Harper have proposed policies this election on the Senate which won't stand a Supreme Court challenge. At some point, if either the NDP or Tories got elected, they will have to appoint senators. The law says so.

But that debate is for another day.

Despite the trial, Conservative poll numbers didn't take a beating. However, the Liberal ones rose up at the expense of the NDP. For the longest times this campaign, the polling numbers in aggregate have been stuck at 30%. No one close to a majority and for once the Tories not making big noise about a coalition. Why? It is because there appears to be enough people out there that want Harper gone who may wish the other parties to agree to govern. Unlike last time, it could happen.

In a 338 seat Parliament, a majority comes at 170 seats. No party seems close to that number. Talk of a minority government became inevitable.

The debate in English and French came early and not without controversy. Still, it didn't seem to move the polls until the issue of the niqab came up. But I don't think anyone really saw how things would turn out. Stephen Harper and his party saw an area that could create a wedge. Banning face covering for citizenship and possibly civil service looked to have majority support across Canada. Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May and Tom Mulcair were on the side of the courts and said the issue seemed moot since only a very few had asked for such a thing. Gilles Duceppe with his finger on the pulse of Quebec went all in and supported the ban.

So what was the result? NDP support began to dip. The niqab might not be the only reason for the slide. In truth, there will some soul searching among the NDP as their campaign plan was mostly sound. However, the party has had trouble expanding their support and had all parties chipping away at their strongest base in Quebec. The main beneficiary has been Trudeau.

In the last week before the election, NDP and Conservative support appears to be waning. Is it Trudeaumanina? That seems a bit of reach. Support in polls has been incremental, notching up only a bit at a time. Is it a media swoon? That might be giving the media a bit too much credit given that it isn't only about the leaders.

Perhaps I don't listen to or watch the right media. Private radio has been traditionally conservative and appears to remain so. CBC takes it on the chin a lot but their popular political news and panel shows on TV and radio have members of all parties debating every day.

How about newspapers? Every major newspaper in Canada endorsed the Conservatives last election except one. The Toronto Star endorsed the NDP.

Of course, I'm sure some will have a different view of all this and say for sure that Trudeau has been the recipient of a love-in. There are probably quite a few NDP and Conservatives who might say so.

I have never been a fan of Stephen Harper. I believed his politics were narrow and mimicked the worst aspects of the Liberals he so wished to defeat. I often hear even from some Conservatives nowadays that they still are Conservative but not always comfortable with the leader. I think this has been the case of Liberals and NDP from time to time as well. It happens.

The longer a leader is in place in Canada, the more power the Prime Minister's Office has to act in the stead of cabinet and caucus. In recent years, we have seen orders given out to MPs and Senators from the PMO that thwart how the Parliamentary system operates. The contrast to Britain and Australia has become more pronounced over the decades as MPs and Senators in Canada become like potted plants standing behind their leaders.

The threat a MP faces is to be kicked out of caucus or not have their nomination papers signed by the leader. The threats to Senators are also being kicked out of caucus or other sanctions. We have seen during the election campaign how candidates are tossed under the bus at the first sign of trouble. This isn't limited to one party. It happens to all of them.

In the case of Stephen Harper, he has taken control to new levels and tried to stifle independent offices of Parliament such as Elections Canada, Parliamentary Budget Officer and civil servants in general. The one thing he has not been able to control is the Supreme Court which has sent a great deal of legislation down to defeat. This despite the fact that Harper has appointed 8 of the 9 Justices!

This election won't change this awful power dynamic of the PMO. However, a new PM could certainly change the contemptuous nature of the leadership. Parliament in and of itself is important and should operate not at the behest of an unelected chief of staff appointee. While we need a good prime minister, he has to share the heavy lifting and quite honestly, Harper has had fewer of those not more.

Many have said this election is about the economy and I don't disagree it is a driving factor. But it isn't a one man show as it seems to be now. We will need 338 members of Parliament who are prepared to work hard, research the issues, listen to the public, form plans and initiate legislation on health, defence, immigration, finance, aboriginal affairs, foreign affairs and trade.

There are three things when considering voting: 1: Local candidate 2. Political party and policies and 3. Leader.

It should always be remembered that a voter elects a member of Parliament. I look at my local candidates always. It would be very hard for me to vote for my candidate if they were totally wrong for the riding.

Next, political party and policies are important. If the candidate I like wants to separate my province from Canada, I obviously have to move along. In other words, I look at the platform and determine if the party as a whole is compatible with my world view. I know not everything will be perfect but it has to be more or less something I can support.

Lastly, the leader is final thing to consider. We are simply too leader-centic. A captain on a hockey team doesn't win games by themselves. They do set the tone, do a lot of heavy lifting and keep the team going. This is what I look for. I am not looking for a genius in every category. I do want a leader who find the people to be the skilled and dedicated person in their area of expertise. I believe weak leadership is not being able to delegate.

So there you have it. I looked the last fours years of record. I looked at candidates, policies and leaders. I rejected my Tory candidate Steven Fletcher despite the fact that he is a better MP now than when he started. Getting demoted from cabinet has actually allowed to be freer on speaking on issues his party doesn't want to deal with such as "right to die" legislation. Still, he has been more polarizing and divisive figure rather than a visionary one.

I have already looked at the Conservative policy platform and leadership and find both wanting. I can't say that I am too impressed with their economic record. A lot of the credit goes to the previous Liberal government who left the cupboards full. Never have I been too comfortable with the tax credits aimed at different groups. Taxes should be easier not more complicated. It's a mess. In other policy areas, I find myself often disagreeing with their strategy.

I have left the NDP till the end. My local candidate for the NDP was tossed at the last moment. I found his removal to have been hasty to say the least. They have replaced him with the previous candidate who has been barely visible. Can't say it was an impressive more from Tom Mulcair and the NDP. They crippled their campaign in this riding.

I like Elizabeth May from the Greens and Parliament is better with her in it the Green local candidate won't be able to take down Steven Fletcher.  Also, I can honestly say that the platform of the Greens still leaves me doubtful on their ability to run the country.

Foe me that leaves the Liberals. I have a solid Liberal candidate with Doug Eyolfson, an ER doctor in the city. He is a longtime resident and his resume looks strong. I like the Liberal platform this election and I like Justin Trudeau as leader. There are a few policy areas I disagree with but I am satisfied about intentions of the vision of the candidate, the leader and the party.

Endorsements don't mean a thing and it is okay to be very private about political votes. But too quiet sometimes means afraid, complacent or ignorant. In short, some should speak when others won't. I am more unhappy with people not voting than by who they are voting for. A disengaged public can be led to ruin and they will not even have had a say in the matter because they excused themselves from doing so. I will be voting for Dough Eyolfson in Winnipeg Charleswood for the Liberals and win or lose, I will be happy with that decision.

Be happy with your decision as well. But do decide to vote.