The idea of a Highway 401 tunnel is ludicrous. It can’t be built quickly enough. It won’t be big enough. The cost-benefit analysis will show it was a bad idea before it started. From an engineering perspective, how will entries and exits be done? How will it be ventilated? A better solution to congestion is to move commercial vehicles to Highway 407, and spend the money on health care and social services.
Grant Baines, Uxbridge, Ont.
How many billions of dollars would a tunnel cost? How many years would a tunnel take to dig? Is there not a better way to spend the money a tunnel would cost, like housing, hospital staff or education? Would the tunnel even help congestion? What about the people who don’t drive or own a car? Do they want their tax dollars spent on more roads? We need to let Premier Doug Ford know we won’t stand for him wasting our tax dollars.
Barbara Eckert, Etobicoke
I remember the Big Dig, when Boston decided to replace a relatively short section of interstate. The effort took 20 years from planning to completion. The cost ballooned to three times the original estimate, and totalled $8.08 billion ($21 billion with inflation today). Traffic was a disaster for over a decade and, as of my most recent visit this summer, traffic is still a disaster. Meanwhile, the tunnels leak.
John Gavin, Toronto
Ontario should do what most other modern countries with big cities have done and go to high-speed electric rail. Look at Beijing, Tokyo, Paris and London. It would help the entire province, not just the 50 kilometres across the top of Toronto, and it helps to solve our emissions problem at the same time.
Hugh Holland, Huntsville, Ont.
All of the above letters employ both reason and judgement. As such, expect their sentiments to be completely ignored by our current provincial government.
Someone must have left some envelopes upon which he doodled, because Doug F. , without having done any thinking, announced another scheme one fine morning: a tunnel under the 401 highway in Toronto.
While it may not be the giant ferris wheel he once envisaged for Toronto's waterfront, it does seem to be of a piece: fill the electorate with fantastic visions that have no chance of realization, while all the other politicians carp at him about such mundane crises as homelessness, tent encampments, and hospital overloads.
If one were to search very hard, no doubt would could discern the real philosophy underlying this government: better a sweet lie than a bitter truth.
Expect more bread and circuses as we edge closer to the next provincial election.
UPDATE: Brittlestar gives Ford's 'idea' all the respect it deserves:
Having purchased this past summer a used hybrid vehicle that gives me remarkable fuel economy, I am now a very infrequent customer at the gas pump. My greenhouse gas emissions are much less than was the case with my late 17-year-old car, and that pleases me immensely. The fact that I will also come out even farther ahead in my carbon tax rebate is an additionally pleasing benefit.
Yet according to the propaganda promulgated by lil' PP (and, sadly, now echoed by the NDP), that 'tax' is the source of an insupportable burden on the backs of hardworking Canadians. PP, of course, never lets the facts get in the way of demagogic rants.
However, his denunciation
flies in the face of the fact that 90 per cent of the revenue from the fuel levy is rebated to Canadians — the Parliamentary Budget Officer has found that most households, particularly low-income households, receive more from the rebate than they pay in additional costs.
PP trades in people's ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda. Fortunately, not everyone is buying his "alternative facts", as attested to by these letters to the editor:
An open letter signed by hundreds of economists, followed by another written by Nobel prize winners, called carbon pricing the most effective and cheapest way of reducing emissions. Fee and dividend, as in Canada, is also said to be the fairest model. Who is qualified to come up with a better idea? How a carbon fee changes consumer behaviour is quite simple. The “pain” will be felt and the benefit is in the cheaper alternatives and less wasteful use. Our system has a double benefit: the savings and the rebate are greater than the usage of the average middle-income earner. According to the World Bank, 110 countries had either pricing, taxes or emissions trading. All have the same effect. This includes China where coal use has peaked and more coal plants are being closed than opened. Wind and solar are more environmentally friendly and cost-effective than carbon and are scalable. Canada has the best possible scheme but sadly, it has been watered down due to political pressures. It might be more useful to have opinions from informed parties rather than those who admit they do not understand.
John Peate, Peterborough, Ont.
I’m angry that the Liberals can’t communicate the simple concept that we get back as much as we put in to the quite reasonable carbon levy. Our government has (with a major push from the NDP) set in motion the filling of glaring gaps in our health care system (dental care and prescription drugs) and an affordable child care system. I’m puzzled how they’ve now managed to become so unpopular that we might elect a right wing government that could wipe out all that progress. Ironically, the Star recently had a review of Henrik Ibsen’s play “Rosmersholm” in which a character says “elections used to be won by those who spoke with the most sense, not the most volume.” Enough said!
Garry Watson, Niagara Falls
Wait a minute! The carbon levy has been under sustained attack from the Tories for two years, but it is not dead yet. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has been spreading lies and misinformation about the levy, and I have yet to hear or read any media questioning his position. It is his main talking point, so is it not time to take the gloves off and press him to explain exactly what he means? Poilievre is on shaky ground because he clearly does not understand why a price on carbon is essential. He cannot refute the arguments in favour of the carbon levy and rebate, as stated by knowledgeable economists and scientists, and he has no clue of what a better, more effective alternative might be.
Teresa Ganna Porter, Newmarket, Ont.
Most people who do not understand the carbon levy, or don’t want to be bothered finding out what it is all about, would rather listen to the other guy at the coffee shop who appears to have read the headline “Axe the Tax” which should read “Axe the Facts.” What does your rebate cover for you? What do you spend it on? Can you balance your budget without it? If you can’t then do not support Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s drive to cancel the levy and rebate. Poilievre is not offering us anything else to fight climate change. And if you are complaining about the gas prices, remember the price of gas always jumps up and down. It isn’t driven solely by carbon pricing.
Beverly Northeast, Goodwood, Ont.
How refreshing to read the truth about carbon taxation in Canada. Studies have shown most Canadians receive more money in rebates than they pay out in carbon tax. How is this not embraced enthusiastically? We get money from the government and feel good about doing our bit for climate change. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pulled the wool over many Canadians’ eyes just to get elected.
Claire Barrey-Junop, Quinte West, Ont.
It has been said that if a lie is repeated enough times, it becomes the truth. It therefore falls to those of us who can think and don't salivate at the sound of the dog whistle to set the record straight.
Outside of Western politicians too afraid to express honest views, I find it hard to believe that there can be much sympathy left in the world for the State of Israel. Seemingly hellbent on expansion, extirpation of the Palestinians (does that sound more polite than genocide?) and the elimination of all who are perceived as hostile to the state, Israel is now engaged in what can only be called state-sponsored terrorism.
While the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank continues apace, the war has been extended to Hezbollah in Lebanon with the explosions of pager and walkie-talkies in Lebanon, killing and maiming both targets and innocent bystanders, including children.
On Tuesday, thousands of pagers used by Hezbollah exploded simultaneously, killing 12 people, including two children, and wounding up to 2,800 others across Lebanon. A day later, 25 people were killed and more than 450 wounded when walkie-talkies exploded in supermarkets, on streets and at funerals, stoking fears that a full-blown war between Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, and Israel could be imminent.
It now appears that this was a long-term, carefully-planned act of terror. It came about after Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah pushed to expand the use of pagers after cellphones were being used to target people.
Even before Mr. Nasrallah decided to expand pager usage, Israel had put into motion a plan to establish a shell company that would pose as an international pager producer.
By all appearances, B.A.C. Consulting was a Hungary-based company that was under contract to produce the devices on behalf of a Taiwanese company, Gold Apollo. In fact, it was part of an Israeli front, according to three intelligence officers briefed on the operation. They said at least two other shell companies were created as well to mask the real identities of the people creating the pagers: Israeli intelligence officers.
On Tuesday, the order was given to activate the pagers.
To set off the explosions, according to three intelligence and defense officials, Israel triggered the pagers to beep and sent a message to them in Arabic that appeared as though it had come from Hezbollah’s senior leadership.
Seconds later, Lebanon was in chaos.
It is the wanton taking of innocent lives that the world must single out for special condemnation.
In Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley, in the village of Saraain, one young girl, Fatima Abdullah, had just come home from her first day of fourth grade when she heard her father’s pager begin to beep, her aunt said. She picked up the device to bring it to him and was holding it when it exploded, killing her. Fatima was 9.
There was also the unspeakable depravity of more explosions through rigged walkie-talkies during, of all things, a funeral procession.
On Wednesday, as thousands gathered in Beirut’s southern suburbs to attend an outdoor funeral for four people killed in the blasts, chaos erupted anew: There was another explosion.
Notably, the U.S., while disavowing any direct knowledge of or hand in the acts of terror, did not condemn the Israeli action. In the twisted and corrupted currents of this world , I guess that can only be considered par for the course.
In typical fashion, the federal Liberals, thanks to the absence of an overall vision, have tried to put their finger in the housing dike. As in the tale of the Dutch boy, their 'solution' will fail.
Because Mr. Trudeau and company are innately averse to interfering in the marketplace, they are going to make it easier for people to take on more debt while at the same time greatly exacerbating our housing crisis.
First-time buyers across Canada and any purchasers of newly built homes will soon be able to stretch their mortgages out an extra five years, the federal government announced Monday — along with other changes builders hope will spur more home construction, but that observers fear could push prices up.
The ability to offer 30-year amortizations for insured mortgages was announced by deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland in Ottawa on Monday, along witha reduction in the down payment required for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.
“It is going to put the dream of home ownership in reach for more young Canadians,” Freeland said Monday.
With Monday’s announcement, a first-time buyer of a resale home who takes out an insured mortgage, which happens when a homebuyer provides less than a 20 per cent as a down payment, could also be offered a 30-year loan repayment instead of a 25-year term. The same would apply for any buyer, first time or not, who buys a newly built home.
Except that the dream will quickly transmute into a nightmare, since housing prices will soar beyond their current record levels.
...the policy changes were also seen by many observers as a spark to demand that could push home prices even higher.
“This is something that’s going to have a direct impact on the buying public as soon as it takes effect,” predicted mortgage broker Mary Sialtsis...
But any kick to an undersupplied market could come with a cost, she said. “Is that going to end up driving up home prices with multiple offers? Sure, there’s a risk of that, because we’re in a chronic housing shortage in the GTA.”
David Hulchanski, a housing policy expert with the University of Toronto, sees the goal of increasing housing supply as important. But he, too, has concerns around price inflation if demand is stoked, as well as the impact of allowing people to take on bigger loans. “In Canada, we’re already putting a lot of our financial effort into the housing sector, whereas it could be more productively used elsewhere,” he said. “It’s putting more people in some greater debt.”
This short-term thinking, typical of the increasingly desperate Liberal government, is not the solution for these times. For that, we have to go back a bit in history, when, between 1941 and 1945, government, through a crown corporation called Wartime Housing Limited, built affordable housing you can read about through the above link.
And this video is instructive:
A direct, interventionist policy that tried to address shortage, the concept of Victory Houses is clearly considered off-limits by today's movers and shakers. They place all of their faith in marketplace 'solutions', which is why the federal government tosses money at provinces and municipalities to give to private builders in the hope they will come to everyone's rescue.
My three-year-old granddaughter has developed a fondness for jigsaw puzzles, usually of the 48-piece variety designated for children. Given my own spatial limitations, I have worked slowly with her on a couple of them, but they don't come easily to me.
Encouraged by her example, I picked up a 300-piece one and have been working away at it, despite my deep suspicion that there are pieces missing from the used one I purchased at a thrift store. My goal is to see if doing jig-saws improves spatial abilities and perhaps even cognitive processes.
One can imagine my dismay while I watched the evening news last night and was subjected to, not once, but twice, an ad from PP's campaign showing him doing a jigsaw of Canada with his toddler. His goal was to put Canada back together since, as he tells us, it is broken:
The subject of PP wearies me, being all too aware of the both subtle and gross manipulation of the citizens that Poilievre delights in. Having read an article this morning about generative AI, I decided to use the tool to create a blog post, the first time (and probably the last) I have ever made such an attempt. I asked it to write on PP's advertising in the style of my blog. The results, as you will see below if you care to read it, aren't bad at all. (Parenthetically, I do pledge to identify any AI-generated material if I ever make a future attempt at this. Otherwise, everything you read in this blog will always be my own thoughts and scribblings.):
Here’s a blog-style post inspired by Lorne’s Politics and its Discontents, which often takes a critical, thoughtful tone in analyzing political discourse:
Pierre Poilievre’s Political Advertising: A Masterclass in Manipulation or Messaging?
If there is one thing that can be said about Pierre Poilievre’s political strategy, it’s that he understands the power of advertising. From social media snippets to slickly produced videos, Poilievre has capitalized on modern media to craft a message that resonates deeply with a certain demographic. But the question remains: Is this messaging reflective of the leadership qualities Canadians deserve, or is it simply a manipulative ploy designed to stoke division?
The Politics of Persona
Poilievre’s ads often feature him as a man of the people—a relatable everyman taking on “elites” who, in his words, are responsible for many of the economic woes Canadians face today. His latest ad campaign sees him strolling through picturesque small towns, sleeves rolled up, declaring that he is here to “bring home” common sense to a country that’s lost its way.
But beneath this veneer of populism lies a far more calculated strategy. His ads are not about providing concrete policy solutions; rather, they exploit frustration and uncertainty, carefully designed to channel anger towards convenient scapegoats—whether that be Justin Trudeau, immigrants, or “woke culture.” The buzzwords are meant to incite, not inform, and therein lies the danger.
Simplifying Complex Issues
One hallmark of Poilievre’s advertising is how it simplifies Canada’s most pressing issues, reducing them to soundbites devoid of nuance. Take, for example, his stance on inflation. In his videos, he talks about the rising cost of living as if it were solely the fault of reckless government spending, conveniently ignoring the complex global factors that contribute to economic challenges. By reducing the problem to “bad governance,” Poilievre presents himself as the obvious antidote without ever having to provide a detailed plan.
This is not to say the government is beyond reproach on these matters. Far from it. But Poilievre’s ads trade in the politics of blame rather than the politics of solutions. They are designed to inflame passions, all while presenting himself as the knight in shining armor, ready to rescue Canadians from the very institutions he spent much of his career working within.
The Influence of American-style Politics
One cannot help but notice the creeping influence of American-style political advertising in Poilievre’s campaigns. His use of “freedom” as a rallying cry mirrors the tactics of conservative figures south of the border, particularly those who have been adept at weaponizing fear and frustration for political gain. Much like the Republicans’ framing of the “elites” and the “deep state,” Poilievre casts Trudeau and his government as the out-of-touch villains who stand between the average Canadian and prosperity.
This approach, while effective in securing support from a vocal minority, threatens to further polarize an already divided country. Rather than fostering dialogue or proposing realistic solutions to complex problems, Poilievre’s ads encourage an “us vs. them” mentality that diminishes the quality of political discourse in Canada.
What’s the Endgame?
Ultimately, Poilievre’s advertising is less about policy and more about positioning. His goal is to establish himself as the champion of those who feel left behind by economic and social change. Yet, the lack of substance behind the messaging raises concerns about what a Poilievre-led Canada would actually look like. If his ads are any indication, we should expect more division, more polarization, and less of the thoughtful, evidence-based leadership that Canada desperately needs.
In a time when critical thinking is more important than ever, we should be cautious about political figures who rely on shallow advertising to sway voters. While Poilievre’s message may resonate with those looking for simple answers, it is our duty to demand more from those who seek to lead us.
After all, good governance is not about pointing fingers—it’s about finding real solutions.
This post captures the tone and style of critical analysis, focusing on political behavior and the consequences of polarizing rhetoric, much like Lorne’s own critiques.
“I don’t know what we’re fighting for. Not even a clue. I just want to go home.’’
“Starting a war is very easy. But to finish it — try that.’’
“This whole war is like a stagnant gonorrhea.’’
“They said the only way back to Russia is feet-first.’’
“If I’d known this would happen, I’d be damned if I’d sign up.’’
“Let Russia and the people of the world know what’s going on.’’
The above are a few excerpts from the film Russians at War, the subject of Canadian government efforts at suppression, as I have written about in recent posts. In today's edition of The Star, columnist Rosie DiManno writes:
What it does is humanize Russian soldiers. And that’s not a crime. Because it’s the young men and women who pay the price — in blood, in limbs blown off, in tens of thousands of lives lost — for the folly of one autocrat’s delusions of grandiosity.
Some of these fighters, most of them achingly young, are dead by the end of the two-hour-plus chronicle from Moscow-born, Toronto-educated filmmaker Anastasia Trofimova. From the rear to the frontline to the graveyard.
Despite the pressure exerted by Chrystia Freeland, who likely has not even seen the film, DiManno challenges the government position on it:
“Russians at War’’ is as far from propaganda — for which it stands accused — as any of the journalistic reportage and drone footage that has come out of the Ukrainian battlefield, showing devastated villages and ruined towns, the unforgivable handiwork of Putin’s unprovoked military assault.
“Russians at War’’ is a documentary that cries out to be seen. But now it won’t, not at the Toronto International Film Festival anyway, which on Thursday announced it was pulling — “pausing’’ — the Canada-France co-production, a flip-flop of its position from 24 hours previously, due to “significant threats’’ against festival operations and for public security. Is that all you have to do to bend someone, or some organization, to your will? By threatening to disrupt an event, even though neither TIFF nor cops have revealed the nature of those threats? Toronto police told the Star in a statement that TIFF organizers made the decision to send the film to Coventry “independently’’ and “not based on any recommendations from Toronto Police.’’
Indeed, there seems little basis for the official interdiction of the film:
Freeland’s office, in response to questions I sent, said “the government’s position is not about whether (the) film should have been made or whether people should watch it. Canadian public money should not be used to support the production or screening of media that attempts to whitewash Russia’s war crimes.’’
The question not answered: Has Freeland actually seen the film? The same query put to other prominent “Russians at War’’ bashers — Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada, the consul general in Toronto, Canadian senators, MPs and MPPs. None of whom responded to my emails and phone calls by deadline.
It has been said that the first casualty of war is truth, something the film tries to combat:
Truth is something we should all aspire to, a daunting challenge in these days of social media, misinformation, and government messaging. The alternative, groupthink, is a willing suspension of critical-thinking, hardly a good fit for a healthy, thriving democracy.
The other day I posted about what I saw as a worrying trend - the removal of MPP Sarah Jama from Elle's online article featuring influential women. Jama's 'sin' was to be an advocate for Palestinians during Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Threats were made, and she was thus edited out. Apparently, to question the narrative that Israel can do no wrong is unacceptable.
In the same post, I wrote about TVO's decision not to screen the documentary Russia at War. This followed Chrystia Freeland's denunciation of the film, even though it is highly unlikely that she has seen it. All she knows is that anything that perhaps humanizes the 'enemy' must not be allowed to be seen.
The Toronto International Film Festival says it’s pausing upcoming screenings of the controversial documentary “Russians at War” due to “significant threats” to festival operations and public safety.
The film about Russian soldiers’ disillusionment at the front lines of the war in Ukraine was set to have its North American premiere at TIFF on Friday, with additional screenings on Saturday and Sunday.
“This is an unprecedented move for TIFF,” the festival said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
“As a cultural institution, we support civil discourse about and through films, including differences of opinion, and we fully support peaceful assembly. However, we have received reports indicating potential activity in the coming days that pose significant risk; given the severity of these concerns, we cannot proceed as planned.”
One cannot help but wonder whether TIFF perceives the real threat as having come from Freeland:
Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland also denounced the use of public money to help fund and screen “Russians at War,” which received $340,000 through the Canada Media Fund and was produced in association with Ontario’s public broadcaster TVO.
In the anodyne, weaselly language typical of politicians, TIFF apparently wants to have it both ways.
TIFF has said that the documentary is “in no way” Russian propaganda as it stood by its decision to include it in this year’s programming.
“We believe this film has earned a place in our festival’s lineup, and we are committed to screening it when it is safe to do so,” festival organizers said Thursday.
This is what we have come to, in a nation that purports to hold freedom of expression as one of its highest values. The caveat to that value should be obvious to us: that freedom ends when it offends someone else, or offers an alternative view to the official 'story.'
Those of you who may regularly read this blog likely know that I have always been a big supporter of mainstream media. Despite their limitations, they have always been, to me, a source of credible information due to the heavy fact-checking that journalistic ethics demand.
Now, however, we seem to be moving beyond fact-checking to self-censorship, and that should worry us all.
The first recent incident involved the online edition of Elle, which edited out a prominent and controversial Hamilton MPP.
A Canadian fashion magazine says it removed Hamilton politician Sarah Jama from a story on influential women after the publication’s editorial team received threats.
Jama, the Hamilton Centre MPP who has established herself as an advocate for marginalized groups, was featured in the September issue of ELLE Canada alongside seven other women “paving the way for those behind them,” the article reads.
ELLE publisher Sophie Banford said in an email that they opted to to remove Jama from the article, originally published Aug. 19, after members of its editorial team “were targeted with threats.”
“The decision was not made lightly,” she said. “The safety and well-being of our journalists are our top priorities, and it is within this context that we made the decision to remove the content in question.”
A Sept. 2 disclaimer at the top of the online version indicates the original story “represents the opinions of a political personality but does not reflect the opinions of the publishers” or the magazine’s parent company.”
“Following a number of concerning messages posted online and received by our magazine, the publisher chose to edit the original version of the article in order to protect everyone’s safety,” the disclaimer reads.
I don't think you need me to tell you why this is a very dangerous move.
Along the same lines comes a TVO disavowal of a documentary currently at TIFF about Russians fighting in Ukraine. Despite the fact that it is not propaganda in any way, it has invited scorn from the federal government:
Speaking from the Liberals’ caucus retreat, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland told reporters Tuesday that both diplomats and the Ukrainian-Canadian community have expressed “grave concerns” about the film “Russians at War” — concerns which she shares.
“We as a country have to be very, very clear that there can be no moral equivalency in our understanding of this conflict,” she said. “It’s not right for Canadian public money to be supporting the screening and production of a film like this.”
The film's director begs to differ:
In response to the backlash, the film’s Russian-Canadian director, Anastasia Trofimova, asserted in a written statement that the film is not propaganda, and that it was filmed without the permission of the Russian government.
“I want to be clear that this Canada-France co-production is an antiwar film made at great risk to all involved, myself especially,” she said.
“I unequivocally believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unjustified, illegal and acknowledge the validity of the International Criminal Court investigation of war crimes in Ukraine.”
In a move at least as cowardly as the one by Elle, TVO acted quickly to comply with Freeland's 'directive.'
“TVO’s Board of Directors has decided to respect the feedback we have received, and TVO will no longer be supporting or airing “Russians at War,” according to a press release posted to the public broadcaster’s website on Tuesday.
“TVO will be reviewing the process by which this project was funded and our brand leveraged.”
Pierre Trudeau famously said, "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation. Equally, it has no place in the minds, judgement and sensibilities of Canada.
P.S. I didn't write about last night's debate, but allow me to say that I was very, very satisfied with Kamala Harris's performance and went to bed content for a change.
The seeming public consensus is that the end times beckon for Justin Trudeau and his party. Althia Raj writes:
The Liberal party has the support of about just one in five Canadians, and more than eight out of 10 Canadians say it’s time for a change, according to Abacus Data. Polls suggest the Tories are headed for a massive majority government.
On doorsteps and in meetings across the country, Liberal MPs report a crescendo of dislike for the prime minister. “They disliked him in 2019, they hated him in 2021, and now they despise him,” one MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the Star.
“I do not have a meeting or a conversation with a business, a constituent, a stakeholder, a non-profit where Justin Trudeau really supersedes the conversation,” said Wayne Long, the outgoing Liberal MP for Saint John—Rothesay. “When people are telling me consistently that, ‘You know, your party’s done some great work, Wayne, but the prime minister needs to move on.’
While I don't really understand the personal animus that so many express for Trudeau, I do understand their disaffection. It is one I have felt for some time, not because of the prime minister's style of leadership, but because he so quickly fell into perpetuating the party's tradition of arrogance.
There was, as I have written before, his early betrayal of his promise of electoral reform. While the proposal itself was modest, a form of ranked ballot that was easy to understand and might have encouraged more voter participation, it became a step too far once the party had regained power under the FPTP system. Canada's 'natural governing party' had regained its rightful place, and all was once again well in the Liberal world.
Scandals ensued, too numerous to recount here, each chipping away at the "sunny ways" the earlier Trudeau had promised. Perhaps the biggest one was the SNC Lavalin debacle, which I wrote about in 2019. Here is an excerpt:
The latest allegation is that Trudeau tried to influence former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal prosecution for bribery of Libyan officials in order to secure business contracts.
And so, an old pattern re-emerges. Coupled with Trudeau's stout defence and dismissal of allegations regarding his good friend and fundraiser Stephen Bronfman over what was revealed about offshore accounts in the Panama Papers, as well as the CRA foot-dragging in going after the big corporate cheats who operate such accounts, one can justifiably wonder whose interests the Prime Minister really is protecting.
But perhaps the biggest fault of this government I can cite is its absence of a coherent vision. I am aware that many may disagree with such an assessment, but saying that you want a more fair and equitable society is far easier than working steadily toward one. Some may counter with such nascent programs as dentalcare and pharmacare, but despite what Mr. Trudeau may assert, they were not Liberal initiatives as much as they were forced upon the party thanks to the leverage that Mr. Singh and the NDP exerted upon them. Parenthetically, that leverage has earned Mr. Singh no credit, the media narrative being it was a mistake to enter into the supply and confidence agreement, a view with which I heartily disagree.
The Liberals, were they who they claim to be, could have done much more, in a much more methodical fashion, had they possessed real vision as opposed to a propensity for expedience that achieved little. One case in point would be the housing crisis that confronts us. Instead of empowering the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to get back into the home-building business, as they did post-WW11, Trudeau was content to throw money at the provinces to give to private builders to achieve decidedly uneven results. However, as I have said before, Mr. Trudeau worships at the altar of private enterprise, the result being that many, many more people cannot ever hope to own a house.
I could go on, but allow me to end by noting that my dismay with the Liberals does not mean, as it does for so many others, a vote for that repository of bilious, belligerent rhetoric, PP. When voters go to the polls at the next election, they should ask themselves whether or not their perceived cure for their disaffection is worse than the disease itself.
