Two kinds of argument here aren't entirely persuasive to me.
One is the number of people who were eager to volunteer that the main consideration here is security. Trump just got shot, after all. Yes, and: Kamala Harris was just in a room with 14,000 people, and everyone in the world has known that rally was coming for a week. Incidentally, do we also believe the systematic falsification of the itineraries online was for security?
The other disappointing argument is any variation on "Well, the other side does it." See how easy it is to say that? That's why you shouldn't.
The PMO did not put out an advisory on Tuesday night, after this post appeared. This morning's advisory correctly specifies that the PM will be at the Royal St. John's Regatta today. It notes the time, which is several hours in the future. This overdue onset of clarity makes it a little harder to sustain the security argument that is so dear to a few people here.
I continue to be utterly baffled by people who argue that the Prime Minister's Office was somehow pursuing security objectives by reaching into its web archive to retroactively add the missing clarity to advisories for events that are already in the past. If that activity didn't constitute lying, I don't understand the word. And if anyone thinks I ever use the word "lying" lightly, they must be new to my writing.
It's also interesting that this government is in the process of bringing in legislation to try and combat misinformation and disinformation, and here they are the biggest spreaders.
I was shocked that you did use the word 'lying' at all. I've read your work for many years, and can't recall you ever being so blunt, when perhaps you could have been.
The PMO, and by extension the PM himself, are lying, and I commend you for pointing it out so clearly in this instance. I'd argue there's been countless other examples.
This PMO and PM seem deathly allergic to personal & professional accountability and critical self-examination. Why anyone else would consider hiring these people given their demonstrable and complete lack of honour is quite baffling.
Thank you for drawing attention to this, Paul. I really do hate being the guy who says what I’m about to say, but, if the Prime Minister I worked for had done this, the ENTIRE press gallery would be writing about this, and rightly so. We would hear nothing else. For at least a week. And yet, (relative) silence. For the record, I would never have had the balls to try to pull this off.
A very fair point. Why is the press gallery not writing about this? Why are they giving Trudeau a break that they wouldnt give to other leaders? ( cue the media Chorus: why is Polievre ‘silent’ , not sharing with the public his policies and priorities before the election? Whats he hiding?)
The media and voters shouldn't normalize this behaviour. And this isnt a partisan issue.
Once again, it appears that the Trudeau team dont believe the rules apply to them. They are special. Exceptional. The right Canadian values. Like telling the truth. Really? Dont think so.
MacDougall, the Prime Minister you worked for did far worse. This is trivial by comparison. I guess it's a testament to your competence that he largely got away with it :-)
This is a fair point. I would also say though that the security of the PM you worked for was just as worrisome. I went to an event where his very nice wife was once and I was appalled at only 3 RCMP for the PM's wife. I have long thought we don't take their security seriously enough.
It's interesting how this government's vision continues to narrow and recede until it now takes in just the shortest range ahead, day by plodding day. No more big-picture thinking -- at this stage, the only goal is getting to and getting through the next election, one low step at a time. All tactics, no strategy, and not even much of a point to it all: What would he even *do* with another term? He's doing nothing with this one.
Morale inside that operation must be nearing rock-bottom. I'd feel bad for them, except morale out here already reached that point awhile back.
I don't think he wants to do anything; I think he just wants to keep the other guys out of office. It's not clear that his presence will help with that.
Let us know what Poliviere’s ‘big-picture thinking’ is all about. At this point, all I’m seeing are 3 word slogans and an army of Twitter bots supporting his recent rally in Northern Ontario.
Teresa, there is certainly room to query PP's thought, positions, etc. but the eminent Mr. Wells has been talking about the JT, and with good reason.
The fact that you are bringing up PP rather than talking about the PM suggests to me - respectfully, I assure you - that you are deflecting from JT's venial sins (as identified by Mr. Wells) as enumerated herein.
I say this as a Liberal at early middle age: with the exception of 2015, I don't know that we've made a case in any election in my lifetime to vote for us rather than against the other guy, and there was a lot of Harper-bashing in that one too. *Maybe* Chretien in '93.
Verbal support, lots of talk. Competent management? Legislation? Not so much. But where are the programs? For example: gun control. In 2019 election Libs announced ban on assault weapons. Since then: no ban. Reproductive freedom: talk. No action. Nothing actually needs to be done ( except get Canadians family doctors). Support for academic institutions? Presume you mean universities. They are funded by provinces. Federal government trying desperately to fix the immigration system they have destroyed: too many foreign student visas for post secondary institutions.
These are not reasons to vote Liberal. Those of us who arent Polievre fans need much more than this to vote Liberal again.
1 reproduction freedom(abortion) conservative aren't going to change anything,to believe different you have fallen for misinformation.that refutes points 1 and 8
4 The whole debacle with foreign interference undermines our democratic institutions
5 we already have very strict gun controls,and yes I believe there are people that shouldn't be allowed to have guns (but not a blanket ban on ownership)
3 and 6 health is a provincial responsibility
10 all MPs do silly things without thinking things thru.not really a reason to vote liberal(or conservative)
I mean, you're right that these ten points don't have "Poilievre" or "Trump" in them, but every single one of them "implies", "The other guys are the barbarians at the gate, and if we don't stay in power, they will do bad things."
Which is absolutely true, but it's not an argument *for* us, just an argument *against* them.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Use your words, sunshine. Just don’t tell people to ‘go away’ if you can’t summon up the energy to respond in a respectful way.
Mr Trudeau continues to chip away at my optimism for this country. Just face your public sir, and stop sneaking around. Not fair to the press, not fair to the citizens. Much to hide I guess...
With respect to changing the itinerary records ex post facto, I’ve been rereading an old book which contained a similar reference. To whit:
“The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter or as the official phrase had it to rectify… Winston‘s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones… As soon as all the corrections, which happened to be necessary in any particular number, had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and corrected copy placed on the files in its stead….”
Firstly, thanks for explaining why various media outlets will carry the exact same CP report and photos. It is not their doing. Good to know.
Secondly, chances are the PM is attempting to limit advance notice to potential protestors., and thus better control his narrative. This does come with the negative side effect of restricting access to reputable journalists, such as yourself, and as Pierre Poilievre is learning, best to have those reporting and commenting on your events to be on your side.
Thirdly, jetting here there and everywhere in carbon spewing jets is for me the most baffling. I know Pierre Poilievre is also out there, but he is not subjecting Canadians to a carbon tax. The PM and Minister Guilbeault seem to suggest that Canada can save a burning planet if we pay a carbon tax.
If they are serious about controlling carbon emissions, then they should practice what they preach and limit emissions when and where possible.
It's concerning that the climate warrior spews more carbon into the atmosphere in a month than most Canadians will in their lifetime, and that he is obviously campaigning on the public dime.
To be fair, the "campaigning on the public dime" argument can be thrown at pretty much any MP. They all are given generous travel allowances, and the line between official business and campaigning has always been awfully fuzzy. I don't think there's really any way to stop that. The issue at hand is a PM who campaigned on being "transparent by default" being anything but open about his daily schedule.
I often see this criticism about his emissions, and I don't fully understand it. Done properly, his job *requires* more travel in a month than most Canadians' jobs will in a lifetime. What would you have him do differently on this front?
I'm saying his carbon emissions in a month are more than our total emissions (gas, home heating, travel etc.) are in a lifetime, not just travel for work. What I would like him to do differently is go to his office and take care of the business of Canada. Do his job. Be the Prime Minister, and quit trying to be a celebrity. He doesn't need to jet all over the country, and world, looking for podiums and microphones. He doesn't need to attend every festival, carnival and Boy Scout troupe graduation in the country.
He was in BC, flew to Ottawa, then a day later flew back to BC to …. Be in a pride parade.
That’s not a critical part of the job. He could have either adjusted his holiday itinerary to stay in BC one more day, or skipped the Vancouver parade. More campaign than governing at this point.
His actions show no willingness to reduce travel to reduce his emissions. He jets back and forth way more than I ever recall other PM’s. On climate he’s lost all credibility.
Right. Is it not the role of the Governor General to attend various ceremonies on behalf of the country? The PM should be governing. He just does not get it!
I don't have stats - maybe you do - but I feel like every prime minister jets all over the country, and internationally, all the time. Glad to be corrected if I'm wrong - I would actually love to see those numbers. I tend to think in an alternate universe where he chained himself to his desk in Ottawa, those who dislike him would then say, "He's not even attending festivals, carnivals, and Boy Scout troop graduations! What a jerk! Not a man of the people like Pierre!"
"Absurdly, the itinerary has also been corrected to put Hinton in “Central Alberta” instead of “Northern Alberta.”
That's the funny thing about Alberta. Edmonton's pretty much right in the centre geographically (maybe a little South of it, even), but everyone just uses Edmonton, Red Deer and Calgary's locations as shorthand for Northern/Central/Southern and just extends "Northern" from Edmonton to the NWT. Hinton's about 490km from the Southern border, and 730km from the NWT. Sounds pretty central or
Don't take it personally - or regionally: people say North Bay (which is almost 400 km below the 49th parallel) is in "northern Ontario." We may not be as bad as our southern neighbours, but geography is not necessarily a Canadian strength.
Newspapers are dying and Trudeau while giving tons of money to a few, removes good paying jobs from journalists who have nothing to write about, but copy what everybody else is printing. Freedom of the Press does not exist anymore, another freedom Trudeau is tramping on. No wonder people stay removed from news. I am a news junky and should be able to decide which way I want to go.
Two important starting points: first, Sir, as always - always, I say - sterling work. Second, I must acknowledge that I have always, right from the first time he sought office as an MP been derisory (to be excruciatingly polite) about JT; in fact, I have trouble saying/typing his name without spitting - an unsanitary response for (opinion, to be sure!) an unsanitary individual.
Okay, I also feel that he is deserving of vacation time. Has he had too much vacation? Not enough? I truly don't know, but he is entitled to vacation. I also believe that, strange as it might seem to some folks, that he is entitled to an element of privacy. Not the privacy that one would have seen, oh, fifty years ago when no one reported ANY news about the individual but he is entitled to some privacy.
What he is not entitled to is to feed we the public absolute lies that have no discernable official purpose than political expediency. The fact is that this approach - particularly when it is exposed by someone as distinguished as PW - reflects on him and causes me (well, I gotta be personal but am I not representative?) to simply nod in confirmation of my prior opinion?
It seems to me that with so much of mainstream media firmly on the “public payroll”, there is all the more need for scrutiny of how journalists and their (ostensible) employers are being used [manipulated?], by a self-interested government.
Even though there is undoubtedly an “inside baseball” quality to reporting about such things.
Because, of course, no one who watched the SNC Lavalin affaire unfold, would be surprised that this PM and PMO are disingenuous. Jody Wilson Raybould certainly had no such illusions, which is why she taped her conversations with purported colleagues.
What is significant though, Paul, is that it is YOU that is breaking this interesting story and not the “mainstream media”.
Just like your excellent pieces on the systematic, and obviously intentional limits on access to information - despite solemn promises of “transparency”. And which are about as believable as planting billions of trees.
Because democracy dies in darkness; so keep carrying on in the noble tradition of I.F. Stone (yes I am that old).
Paul’s use of the word “lying” leaped out of the page for me. So our PM and his staff are liars and that is acceptable? What have we become and why do we apparently accept such things…. Rhetorical….? Not really.
“…..And a small number of journalists are told, every day, “for information purposes only” — i.e., on the condition that they not tell other journalists or the public — about the public events the PM has scheduled but is lying about.”
The Liberal government is not composed of liberals - it is now controlled by those liberals who have embraced progressivism.
True liberalism is based upon pragmatism, inquiry,
debate and respect for democracy.
It is a philosophy of social evolution that tests accepted norms by subscribing to logic and common sense as well as peaceful revolution.
Progressivism is based on the conceit of moral and intellectual superiority - a belief that society is composed of a superior element that must lead its inferior element.
It is a philosophy that posits that the means justifies the ends and that the progressive agenda is perfect to the point of being indisputable.
There is no need for debate or inquiry - matters are settled and those would dispute or contradict the progressive orthodoxy only confirm their inferiority by doing so.
Principles that predate progressivism are dispensable and cannot be allowed to hinder the reformation that society requires.
Freedom and democracy are stumbling blocks that simply hinder the progressive plans for the perfection of society as well as humanity.
Lies must be told - small potatoes in the rhyme of the great progressive ambition.
As a progressive, I think certain elements of your description of progressivism pretty much define all political partisans (I don't dispute that that encompasses my approach too). You want to tell me right-wingers don't also think certain matters are settled, or that their views are morally superior, or that the ends justify the means? I promise you, by these three metrics, the average conservative feels as strongly as I do about where a trans person is allowed to poop, and in roughly the same way ("It's settled, I'm right, I'm better than you, and my guys might not be perfect, but at least they're smart and decent enough to know you are what gender you're born as!")
But, I mean, I don't know when's the last time a Liberal government was classically liberal in the sense that you describe. I don't know what's conservative about telling people to buy cryptocurrency. I don't know what's particularly "new" about a sixty-year-old political party. The party Stephen Harper led circa the early '00s was no more of an "alliance" than any other party is an "alliance". Elizabeth May is white, not green. Parties have names. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is.
Personally I think cryptocurrency is a Ponzi scheme, and is definitely uninvestable, so I don't know why Mr. Poilievre mentioned it. He is a pretty smart guy though so it would be interesting to find out what his thought process was. If he did invest in it two years ago, and sold when it recently hit $72,000 he would have made a tidy profit. Fortunately his comment didn't cost us anything because he is not in power. Your animosity would be better directed at our current finance minister who embraced Modern Monetary Theory (aka Magic Money Tree) with both arms and has doubled our national debt. MMT isn't in the news these days because I think people have realized it's a very bad theory. She also made a dumb comment during the covid years, something along the lines of "we're going to shoulder the burden of debt so you don't have to, especially with interest rates so low." Did she not think interest rates would ever rise? And now that burden of debt is firmly on all our shoulders.
There has always been constructive debate between liberals and conservatives - our society has benefitted by the bipartisanship necessary for reasonable social development.
Liberals have always tried to ease or modify the strictures under which society functions while conservatives try to preserve them or limit the extent of the modifications.
We are a tolerant society and liberalism has been able to bring about social change without major revolt from the conservative element.
Race relations have improved, gender differences are accepted and we have a predominately secular state.
Our society has also tolerated the objections and activism of those who are chronically dissatisfied with the relative political stasis that has evolved.
Unfortunately, our tolerance has been exploited by the theses activists who seek to promote a forced reformation of society - a revolt to topple capitalism that will bring about equity in governance and in the division of material resources.
These elements are primarily influenced by the philosophy of Carl Marx and they have successfully spread his ideas within Canada’s educational institutes where they have married them with the ideology of post WWI American progressives.
The neo-progressives nurtured in these institutes are indoctrinated with the conceit that humanity can be perfected - that undesirable human foibles can be eliminated by a credo and governance that mandates them out of existence.
The students that attend and graduate believe that they have been anointed with a moral and intellectual superiority that is unquestionable - literally as well as figuratively.
They are inculcated with the notion that their Marxist inspired progressive ideals are the singular path to the formation of a perfect society and that those wishing to diverge from it do so out of ignorance - a testament to their moral and intellectual inferiority.
Questions, contradictions and disagreement with the progressive agenda are considered heretical and met with combative closure.
The neo-progressives have cast out the liberal concepts of social evolution achieved by logic and debate, replacing them with a bent for authoritarian imposition of social reorder.
The conservative penchant for social stability and limitation is dismissed out of hand as being the populism of the great unwashed - hinterland demons who do not know or appreciate what is best for them.
The progressive agenda and those who support it are, to my way of thinking, far greater threats to the freedom and democracy than any others that currently exist.
They are not saving our country from any fascist threat - they are leading us to a communistic totatlitarianism.
Mik Ball, I could be mistaken but your descriptions of ‘progressivism’ seem to mirror the behaviours and cavalier attitudes of a certain former PM. A man whose actions were loathed by Liberals writ large throughout 2006-2015. A PM no Canadian would deem progressive and yet, here we are. Coincidence? I think not.
Two kinds of argument here aren't entirely persuasive to me.
One is the number of people who were eager to volunteer that the main consideration here is security. Trump just got shot, after all. Yes, and: Kamala Harris was just in a room with 14,000 people, and everyone in the world has known that rally was coming for a week. Incidentally, do we also believe the systematic falsification of the itineraries online was for security?
The other disappointing argument is any variation on "Well, the other side does it." See how easy it is to say that? That's why you shouldn't.
And they just cancelled a Taylor Swift concert. And our PMO is lying (for whatever reason they will never reveal). And I hate this timeline.
The PMO did not put out an advisory on Tuesday night, after this post appeared. This morning's advisory correctly specifies that the PM will be at the Royal St. John's Regatta today. It notes the time, which is several hours in the future. This overdue onset of clarity makes it a little harder to sustain the security argument that is so dear to a few people here.
I continue to be utterly baffled by people who argue that the Prime Minister's Office was somehow pursuing security objectives by reaching into its web archive to retroactively add the missing clarity to advisories for events that are already in the past. If that activity didn't constitute lying, I don't understand the word. And if anyone thinks I ever use the word "lying" lightly, they must be new to my writing.
It's also interesting that this government is in the process of bringing in legislation to try and combat misinformation and disinformation, and here they are the biggest spreaders.
I was shocked that you did use the word 'lying' at all. I've read your work for many years, and can't recall you ever being so blunt, when perhaps you could have been.
The PMO, and by extension the PM himself, are lying, and I commend you for pointing it out so clearly in this instance. I'd argue there's been countless other examples.
This PMO and PM seem deathly allergic to personal & professional accountability and critical self-examination. Why anyone else would consider hiring these people given their demonstrable and complete lack of honour is quite baffling.
The PMO lied about the SNC Lavalin affair. Unfortunately they haven’t stopped since.
(Anyone remember the 2 billion trees!)
As always, appreciate your reporting. And that you don’t use words carelessly.
Thank you for drawing attention to this, Paul. I really do hate being the guy who says what I’m about to say, but, if the Prime Minister I worked for had done this, the ENTIRE press gallery would be writing about this, and rightly so. We would hear nothing else. For at least a week. And yet, (relative) silence. For the record, I would never have had the balls to try to pull this off.
Sometimes you're stuck being the guy, Andrew. Hope you're well.
A very fair point. Why is the press gallery not writing about this? Why are they giving Trudeau a break that they wouldnt give to other leaders? ( cue the media Chorus: why is Polievre ‘silent’ , not sharing with the public his policies and priorities before the election? Whats he hiding?)
The media and voters shouldn't normalize this behaviour. And this isnt a partisan issue.
Once again, it appears that the Trudeau team dont believe the rules apply to them. They are special. Exceptional. The right Canadian values. Like telling the truth. Really? Dont think so.
MacDougall, the Prime Minister you worked for did far worse. This is trivial by comparison. I guess it's a testament to your competence that he largely got away with it :-)
🎯
This is a fair point. I would also say though that the security of the PM you worked for was just as worrisome. I went to an event where his very nice wife was once and I was appalled at only 3 RCMP for the PM's wife. I have long thought we don't take their security seriously enough.
It's interesting how this government's vision continues to narrow and recede until it now takes in just the shortest range ahead, day by plodding day. No more big-picture thinking -- at this stage, the only goal is getting to and getting through the next election, one low step at a time. All tactics, no strategy, and not even much of a point to it all: What would he even *do* with another term? He's doing nothing with this one.
Morale inside that operation must be nearing rock-bottom. I'd feel bad for them, except morale out here already reached that point awhile back.
I don't think he wants to do anything; I think he just wants to keep the other guys out of office. It's not clear that his presence will help with that.
Let us know what Poliviere’s ‘big-picture thinking’ is all about. At this point, all I’m seeing are 3 word slogans and an army of Twitter bots supporting his recent rally in Northern Ontario.
Teresa, there is certainly room to query PP's thought, positions, etc. but the eminent Mr. Wells has been talking about the JT, and with good reason.
The fact that you are bringing up PP rather than talking about the PM suggests to me - respectfully, I assure you - that you are deflecting from JT's venial sins (as identified by Mr. Wells) as enumerated herein.
Politics are full of venial sins. Both leaders know this. One probably more than the other. You know who I mean.
So ...... you admit that you are deflecting from discussions of JT?
So, I’m curious about whether there’s a case for voting Liberal in the next election that doesn’t invoke Polievre or Trump.
I say this as a Liberal at early middle age: with the exception of 2015, I don't know that we've made a case in any election in my lifetime to vote for us rather than against the other guy, and there was a lot of Harper-bashing in that one too. *Maybe* Chretien in '93.
Here’s a few reasons to vote Liberal that doesn’t invoke Poliviere or Trump:
1. Continued reproductive freedom for women
2. Continued fight against climate change
3. Continued dental care and pharmacare
4. Continued support for important democratic institutions
5. Continued support for gun control
6. Continued support for public health initiatives
7. Continued support for expertise from academic institutions
8. Continued support for battling misinformation and disinformation
9. Continued support for *Canadian* media
10. Continued support for intelligent MPs who don’t take post photos of themselves in a bathtub on social media.
Verbal support, lots of talk. Competent management? Legislation? Not so much. But where are the programs? For example: gun control. In 2019 election Libs announced ban on assault weapons. Since then: no ban. Reproductive freedom: talk. No action. Nothing actually needs to be done ( except get Canadians family doctors). Support for academic institutions? Presume you mean universities. They are funded by provinces. Federal government trying desperately to fix the immigration system they have destroyed: too many foreign student visas for post secondary institutions.
These are not reasons to vote Liberal. Those of us who arent Polievre fans need much more than this to vote Liberal again.
I think some of the context of my arguments has been been lost in the attempted brevity of my points. I will leave it at that.
1 reproduction freedom(abortion) conservative aren't going to change anything,to believe different you have fallen for misinformation.that refutes points 1 and 8
4 The whole debacle with foreign interference undermines our democratic institutions
5 we already have very strict gun controls,and yes I believe there are people that shouldn't be allowed to have guns (but not a blanket ban on ownership)
3 and 6 health is a provincial responsibility
10 all MPs do silly things without thinking things thru.not really a reason to vote liberal(or conservative)
A word salad of Liberal talking points isn't going to make me jump up and drink the Liberal Kool-Aid. :-)
I mean, you're right that these ten points don't have "Poilievre" or "Trump" in them, but every single one of them "implies", "The other guys are the barbarians at the gate, and if we don't stay in power, they will do bad things."
Which is absolutely true, but it's not an argument *for* us, just an argument *against* them.
Oh Flanagan. You're here too. I wish I could mute you here as well. Just go away.
Please don't tell other readers to go away.
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Use your words, sunshine. Just don’t tell people to ‘go away’ if you can’t summon up the energy to respond in a respectful way.
The beatings will continue until morale improves!
Mr Trudeau continues to chip away at my optimism for this country. Just face your public sir, and stop sneaking around. Not fair to the press, not fair to the citizens. Much to hide I guess...
With respect to changing the itinerary records ex post facto, I’ve been rereading an old book which contained a similar reference. To whit:
“The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter or as the official phrase had it to rectify… Winston‘s job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones… As soon as all the corrections, which happened to be necessary in any particular number, had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and corrected copy placed on the files in its stead….”
It appears Orwell wrote not a novel but a manual.
Surprised that you seem to be the only one in media squawking about this. Good for you though.
Paul is not paid with taxpayer dollars, courtesy JT and most other media are. Maybe that is why no other media is squawking.
Firstly, thanks for explaining why various media outlets will carry the exact same CP report and photos. It is not their doing. Good to know.
Secondly, chances are the PM is attempting to limit advance notice to potential protestors., and thus better control his narrative. This does come with the negative side effect of restricting access to reputable journalists, such as yourself, and as Pierre Poilievre is learning, best to have those reporting and commenting on your events to be on your side.
Thirdly, jetting here there and everywhere in carbon spewing jets is for me the most baffling. I know Pierre Poilievre is also out there, but he is not subjecting Canadians to a carbon tax. The PM and Minister Guilbeault seem to suggest that Canada can save a burning planet if we pay a carbon tax.
If they are serious about controlling carbon emissions, then they should practice what they preach and limit emissions when and where possible.
Guilbeault still hasn't done his national railway tour of all the provincial capitals...
If he tried, he'd have a devil of a time visiting Fredericton and Charlottetown.
It's concerning that the climate warrior spews more carbon into the atmosphere in a month than most Canadians will in their lifetime, and that he is obviously campaigning on the public dime.
To be fair, the "campaigning on the public dime" argument can be thrown at pretty much any MP. They all are given generous travel allowances, and the line between official business and campaigning has always been awfully fuzzy. I don't think there's really any way to stop that. The issue at hand is a PM who campaigned on being "transparent by default" being anything but open about his daily schedule.
I often see this criticism about his emissions, and I don't fully understand it. Done properly, his job *requires* more travel in a month than most Canadians' jobs will in a lifetime. What would you have him do differently on this front?
I'm saying his carbon emissions in a month are more than our total emissions (gas, home heating, travel etc.) are in a lifetime, not just travel for work. What I would like him to do differently is go to his office and take care of the business of Canada. Do his job. Be the Prime Minister, and quit trying to be a celebrity. He doesn't need to jet all over the country, and world, looking for podiums and microphones. He doesn't need to attend every festival, carnival and Boy Scout troupe graduation in the country.
He was in BC, flew to Ottawa, then a day later flew back to BC to …. Be in a pride parade.
That’s not a critical part of the job. He could have either adjusted his holiday itinerary to stay in BC one more day, or skipped the Vancouver parade. More campaign than governing at this point.
His actions show no willingness to reduce travel to reduce his emissions. He jets back and forth way more than I ever recall other PM’s. On climate he’s lost all credibility.
I think the term is hypocrisy.
Right. Is it not the role of the Governor General to attend various ceremonies on behalf of the country? The PM should be governing. He just does not get it!
I don't have stats - maybe you do - but I feel like every prime minister jets all over the country, and internationally, all the time. Glad to be corrected if I'm wrong - I would actually love to see those numbers. I tend to think in an alternate universe where he chained himself to his desk in Ottawa, those who dislike him would then say, "He's not even attending festivals, carnivals, and Boy Scout troop graduations! What a jerk! Not a man of the people like Pierre!"
I dislike Trudeau. I would be happy to see him stay in Ottawa and make sure his ministers are doing their jobs. And read some CSIS briefings.
The summer recess is a good time to “ jet all over the country” and “ press the flesh”.. I support JT on this..
Why continue to play checkers, when everyone else is playing chess?
"Absurdly, the itinerary has also been corrected to put Hinton in “Central Alberta” instead of “Northern Alberta.”
That's the funny thing about Alberta. Edmonton's pretty much right in the centre geographically (maybe a little South of it, even), but everyone just uses Edmonton, Red Deer and Calgary's locations as shorthand for Northern/Central/Southern and just extends "Northern" from Edmonton to the NWT. Hinton's about 490km from the Southern border, and 730km from the NWT. Sounds pretty central or
maybe even South Central?
Don't take it personally - or regionally: people say North Bay (which is almost 400 km below the 49th parallel) is in "northern Ontario." We may not be as bad as our southern neighbours, but geography is not necessarily a Canadian strength.
Are you sure North Bay isn't in northern Ontario? It has North right in its name. That's some pretty persuasive evidence.
I heard North Bay is in Ontario’s Near North. True when compared to Timmons, but still way south of Edmonton
I chuckled at that myself. Also, Hinton is west of Edmonton, not north.
What a crescendo with the lake of bullshit metaphor! Love it.
Newspapers are dying and Trudeau while giving tons of money to a few, removes good paying jobs from journalists who have nothing to write about, but copy what everybody else is printing. Freedom of the Press does not exist anymore, another freedom Trudeau is tramping on. No wonder people stay removed from news. I am a news junky and should be able to decide which way I want to go.
Two important starting points: first, Sir, as always - always, I say - sterling work. Second, I must acknowledge that I have always, right from the first time he sought office as an MP been derisory (to be excruciatingly polite) about JT; in fact, I have trouble saying/typing his name without spitting - an unsanitary response for (opinion, to be sure!) an unsanitary individual.
Okay, I also feel that he is deserving of vacation time. Has he had too much vacation? Not enough? I truly don't know, but he is entitled to vacation. I also believe that, strange as it might seem to some folks, that he is entitled to an element of privacy. Not the privacy that one would have seen, oh, fifty years ago when no one reported ANY news about the individual but he is entitled to some privacy.
What he is not entitled to is to feed we the public absolute lies that have no discernable official purpose than political expediency. The fact is that this approach - particularly when it is exposed by someone as distinguished as PW - reflects on him and causes me (well, I gotta be personal but am I not representative?) to simply nod in confirmation of my prior opinion?
So, again, Sir, well done.
It seems to me that with so much of mainstream media firmly on the “public payroll”, there is all the more need for scrutiny of how journalists and their (ostensible) employers are being used [manipulated?], by a self-interested government.
Even though there is undoubtedly an “inside baseball” quality to reporting about such things.
Because, of course, no one who watched the SNC Lavalin affaire unfold, would be surprised that this PM and PMO are disingenuous. Jody Wilson Raybould certainly had no such illusions, which is why she taped her conversations with purported colleagues.
What is significant though, Paul, is that it is YOU that is breaking this interesting story and not the “mainstream media”.
Just like your excellent pieces on the systematic, and obviously intentional limits on access to information - despite solemn promises of “transparency”. And which are about as believable as planting billions of trees.
Because democracy dies in darkness; so keep carrying on in the noble tradition of I.F. Stone (yes I am that old).
For a government that promised to be the most transparent in history, they sure are doing a lousy job.
Paul’s use of the word “lying” leaped out of the page for me. So our PM and his staff are liars and that is acceptable? What have we become and why do we apparently accept such things…. Rhetorical….? Not really.
“…..And a small number of journalists are told, every day, “for information purposes only” — i.e., on the condition that they not tell other journalists or the public — about the public events the PM has scheduled but is lying about.”
The Liberal government is not composed of liberals - it is now controlled by those liberals who have embraced progressivism.
True liberalism is based upon pragmatism, inquiry,
debate and respect for democracy.
It is a philosophy of social evolution that tests accepted norms by subscribing to logic and common sense as well as peaceful revolution.
Progressivism is based on the conceit of moral and intellectual superiority - a belief that society is composed of a superior element that must lead its inferior element.
It is a philosophy that posits that the means justifies the ends and that the progressive agenda is perfect to the point of being indisputable.
There is no need for debate or inquiry - matters are settled and those would dispute or contradict the progressive orthodoxy only confirm their inferiority by doing so.
Principles that predate progressivism are dispensable and cannot be allowed to hinder the reformation that society requires.
Freedom and democracy are stumbling blocks that simply hinder the progressive plans for the perfection of society as well as humanity.
Lies must be told - small potatoes in the rhyme of the great progressive ambition.
As a progressive, I think certain elements of your description of progressivism pretty much define all political partisans (I don't dispute that that encompasses my approach too). You want to tell me right-wingers don't also think certain matters are settled, or that their views are morally superior, or that the ends justify the means? I promise you, by these three metrics, the average conservative feels as strongly as I do about where a trans person is allowed to poop, and in roughly the same way ("It's settled, I'm right, I'm better than you, and my guys might not be perfect, but at least they're smart and decent enough to know you are what gender you're born as!")
But, I mean, I don't know when's the last time a Liberal government was classically liberal in the sense that you describe. I don't know what's conservative about telling people to buy cryptocurrency. I don't know what's particularly "new" about a sixty-year-old political party. The party Stephen Harper led circa the early '00s was no more of an "alliance" than any other party is an "alliance". Elizabeth May is white, not green. Parties have names. I don't think this is the gotcha you think it is.
Personally I think cryptocurrency is a Ponzi scheme, and is definitely uninvestable, so I don't know why Mr. Poilievre mentioned it. He is a pretty smart guy though so it would be interesting to find out what his thought process was. If he did invest in it two years ago, and sold when it recently hit $72,000 he would have made a tidy profit. Fortunately his comment didn't cost us anything because he is not in power. Your animosity would be better directed at our current finance minister who embraced Modern Monetary Theory (aka Magic Money Tree) with both arms and has doubled our national debt. MMT isn't in the news these days because I think people have realized it's a very bad theory. She also made a dumb comment during the covid years, something along the lines of "we're going to shoulder the burden of debt so you don't have to, especially with interest rates so low." Did she not think interest rates would ever rise? And now that burden of debt is firmly on all our shoulders.
No animosity meant in my comment - I was just saying that party names don't always perfectly reflect the views of the party.
That said, I don't much care about monetary theory as compared with:
* calling trans women "biological males"
* Tweeting after the assassination attempt on Trump, "I'm also happy the shooter is dead"
* bringing coffee and donuts to the kinds of people who wanted to overthrow our government and replace the prime minister with Queen Romana Didulo
There has always been constructive debate between liberals and conservatives - our society has benefitted by the bipartisanship necessary for reasonable social development.
Liberals have always tried to ease or modify the strictures under which society functions while conservatives try to preserve them or limit the extent of the modifications.
We are a tolerant society and liberalism has been able to bring about social change without major revolt from the conservative element.
Race relations have improved, gender differences are accepted and we have a predominately secular state.
Our society has also tolerated the objections and activism of those who are chronically dissatisfied with the relative political stasis that has evolved.
Unfortunately, our tolerance has been exploited by the theses activists who seek to promote a forced reformation of society - a revolt to topple capitalism that will bring about equity in governance and in the division of material resources.
These elements are primarily influenced by the philosophy of Carl Marx and they have successfully spread his ideas within Canada’s educational institutes where they have married them with the ideology of post WWI American progressives.
The neo-progressives nurtured in these institutes are indoctrinated with the conceit that humanity can be perfected - that undesirable human foibles can be eliminated by a credo and governance that mandates them out of existence.
The students that attend and graduate believe that they have been anointed with a moral and intellectual superiority that is unquestionable - literally as well as figuratively.
They are inculcated with the notion that their Marxist inspired progressive ideals are the singular path to the formation of a perfect society and that those wishing to diverge from it do so out of ignorance - a testament to their moral and intellectual inferiority.
Questions, contradictions and disagreement with the progressive agenda are considered heretical and met with combative closure.
The neo-progressives have cast out the liberal concepts of social evolution achieved by logic and debate, replacing them with a bent for authoritarian imposition of social reorder.
The conservative penchant for social stability and limitation is dismissed out of hand as being the populism of the great unwashed - hinterland demons who do not know or appreciate what is best for them.
The progressive agenda and those who support it are, to my way of thinking, far greater threats to the freedom and democracy than any others that currently exist.
They are not saving our country from any fascist threat - they are leading us to a communistic totatlitarianism.
Mik Ball, I could be mistaken but your descriptions of ‘progressivism’ seem to mirror the behaviours and cavalier attitudes of a certain former PM. A man whose actions were loathed by Liberals writ large throughout 2006-2015. A PM no Canadian would deem progressive and yet, here we are. Coincidence? I think not.
Interesting food for thought … thanks.