Discussion:
[OT] Canadian PM in the heart of a major political scandal - could go to jail for 10 years
Add Reply
Rhino
2019-03-01 02:26:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.

This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.

I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.

Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.

You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-01 04:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
Post by Rhino
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.
Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-01 04:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
Yes, it's their job to do this kind of investigation. They've got an
unusual mandate. In 7 of the 10 provinces and all three territories,
they are like the state police in an American state in that they are the
law everywhere that isn't a city big enough to have its own municipal
police force. (Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have provincial level
police forces whole jurisdictions are everywhere that doesn't have
municipal police.)

But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.
Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-01 05:29:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[OT] Canadian PM in the heart of a major political scandal - could go to jail
for 10 years
February 28, 2019 at 9:57:36 PM MST
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
Yes, it's their job to do this kind of investigation. They've got an
unusual mandate. In 7 of the 10 provinces and all three territories,
they are like the state police in an American state in that they are the
law everywhere that isn't a city big enough to have its own municipal
police force. (Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have provincial level
police forces whole jurisdictions are everywhere that doesn't have
municipal police.)
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
Cool, thanks!
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-01 13:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
[OT] Canadian PM in the heart of a major political scandal - could go to jail
for 10 years
February 28, 2019 at 9:57:36 PM MST
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
Yes, it's their job to do this kind of investigation. They've got an
unusual mandate. In 7 of the 10 provinces and all three territories,
they are like the state police in an American state in that they are the
law everywhere that isn't a city big enough to have its own municipal
police force. (Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have provincial level
police forces whole
Oops, that "whole" was supposed to be "whose"....
Post by Rhino
jurisdictions are everywhere that doesn't have
municipal police.)
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
Cool, thanks!
No worries :-)
--
Rhino
anim8rfsk
2019-03-01 14:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
[OT] Canadian PM in the heart of a major political scandal - could go to jail
for 10 years
February 28, 2019 at 9:57:36 PM MST
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
Yes, it's their job to do this kind of investigation. They've got an
unusual mandate. In 7 of the 10 provinces and all three territories,
they are like the state police in an American state in that they are the
law everywhere that isn't a city big enough to have its own municipal
police force. (Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland have provincial level
police forces whole
Oops, that "whole" was supposed to be "whose"....
LOL, I was thinking, damn, those Mounties force whole jurisdictions!
Post by Rhino
Post by Rhino
jurisdictions are everywhere that doesn't have
municipal police.)
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
Cool, thanks!
No worries :-)
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Adam H. Kerman
2019-03-01 13:48:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
. . .
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
I knew some of that. I didn't know that Canadians did intelligence and
counter-intelligence in the same agency.
Post by Rhino
. . .
anim8rfsk
2019-03-01 13:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
. . .
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
I knew some of that. I didn't know that Canadians did intelligence and
counter-intelligence in the same agency.
It evens out.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Rhino
2019-03-01 14:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
. . .
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
I knew some of that. I didn't know that Canadians did intelligence and
counter-intelligence in the same agency.
Post by Rhino
. . .
It is a bit odd to combine both tasks in the same agency. The Brits have
MI-5 and MI-6 while the US has CIA and FBI, to name only the best-known
of the intelligence agencies. Usually, these things are
compartmentalized to improve security by limiting the damage a mole
could do but I guess our government doesn't think that it's a risk?
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-02 14:59:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 13:48:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
But the RCMP also has national mandates to investigate federal crimes.
(Once upon a time, they also had responsibility for intelligence and
counter-intelligence too but that became the responsibility of a newer
agency, CSIS, a few decades ago.)
I knew some of that. I didn't know that Canadians did intelligence and
counter-intelligence in the same agency.
Also signals analysis which in 2019 is much bigger than 50 years ago.
The Horny Goat
2019-03-02 14:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by anim8rfsk
My immediate question is, the RCMP investigates at this level? I thought they
were more 'arrest the thugs in the streets'
When a senior RCMP officer (or recently retired RCMP officer) is
investigating at this level it is usually at the request of a high
ranking politician or bureaucrat looking for a report which can said
to be of unimpeachable integrity.

I would argue that the RCMP has a reputation far better than the US
FBI does in 2019 even though in at least 6 provinces it also (usually
under contract to local governments) provides local policing services.
For instance in metro Vancouver there are 21 separate municipalities 5
or 6 of which have their own police forces (Surrey which is a major
burb of about 600k people is transitioning from RCMP -> local and the
decision to do so was a major campaign issue in last October's
municipal election)

I would be astounded if one of the local RCMP commanders was the one
asked to write the report you're referring to - it would be somebody
based at national RCMP HQ in Ottawa.
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.
Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.
Two things: a LOT of people dislike Levant who is basically Canada's
Ben Shapiro but considered more "out there" than Shapiro.

What >I< am wondering is how this plays out in next October's federal
election since one of the key elements in Trudeau's win on Oct 2015
was his mobilizing the aboriginal vote and Jody W-R's appointment to
what was the first senior cabinet appointment (e.g. Finance, Foreign
Affairs plus 1 or 2 others) of an aboriginal person.

Ironically Trudeau is said to have replaced her due to major
contributors in Quebec complaining Quebec was under-represented in
major cabinet positions....

As for the company at the center of this SNC Lavallin has been getting
away with murder on foreign bidding for years and is frantic not to
get banned from Canadian government bids. The whole point of the
scandal is that Wilson-Reybould was asked to keep them out of court
and she basically said "that's why we have a federal Director of
Prosecutions to make these tough decisions and I see no reason to
overrule him for legal or political considerations"

https://montrealgazette.com/news/politics/snc-lavalin-paid-for-gadhafi-sons-debauchery-while-he-was-in-canada-report/wcm/22da305c-af4e-4e66-97bb-ea4110122f8e

Some of gadhafi's expenses were listed as "companion services" - the
linked article is more explicit on what THOSE are! (Sorry Ian!)
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Rhino
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
There have been US counterparts but for sure Jody W-R was expecting
something like Nixon's "Saturday night massacre" and spoke of it
several times.
Adam H. Kerman
2019-03-01 04:38:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
Sure, I'll watch it. What's the URL, please?
Post by Rhino
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.
Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
Rhino
2019-03-01 05:00:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
Some of you non-Canadians have shown an interest in Canadian politics
from time to time so I thought I should mention something you may not
have heard in your media. Our Prime Minister is at the center of a major
political scandal and has demonstrably interfered in - and had various
high-ranking minions interfere in - a legal situation FOR HIS PARTY'S
POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. That happens to be against the law and, if
convicted, he (and any minions) could go to jail for up to 10 years.
This web page summarizes the situation so I won't bother to do so. The
video on this page is lengthy - an hour and 16 minutes - but lays out in
a very clear fashion the testimony of the former Minister of Justice
(who was concurrently the Attorney-General of the country) and why an
immediate RCMP investigation needs to be launched to verify that the
prime minister, the Finance Minister, and several senior officials, as
well as the Clerk of the Privy Council (the senior civil servant: think
Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes, Prime Minister) have indeed violated the
law, not just once but on many occasions.
Sure, I'll watch it. What's the URL, please?
I had meant to put it in the thread-starting post but got busy giving
the background and forgot. Sorry about that!
https://www.therebel.media/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-news-rebel-media-ezra-levant-show-february-27-2019?page=5&utm_campaign=el_trudeau_reckoning&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
I expect Adam Kerman, anim, and BTR1701 will find this especially
interesting if you can fit it into your busy schedules.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I imagine Horny
Goat and David Johnston will keep me honest if I state anything unclearly.
Ezra Levant, who presents the video, is right. I've NEVER seen a
government minister in this country show this much intestinal fortitude
in standing up to her political bosses when she knows they are not
following the letter of the law. I have some serious objections to Jody
Wilson-Raybould, the former Minister of Justice, on other matters but I
have to acknowledge her courage in this instance.
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2019-03-13 05:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
I had meant to put it in the thread-starting post but got busy giving
the background and forgot. Sorry about that!
https://www.therebel.media/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-news-rebel-media-ezra-levant-show-february-27-2019?page=5&utm_campaign=el_trudeau_reckoning&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
I finally took the time to read that and follow the links. Thanks. That
was quite interesting. The developments a few days ago made news in the
United States.
The Horny Goat
2019-03-13 23:12:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 05:59:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
I had meant to put it in the thread-starting post but got busy giving
the background and forgot. Sorry about that!
https://www.therebel.media/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-news-rebel-media-ezra-levant-show-february-27-2019?page=5&utm_campaign=el_trudeau_reckoning&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
I finally took the time to read that and follow the links. Thanks. That
was quite interesting. The developments a few days ago made news in the
United States.
To be fair, TheRebel is considered in Canadian terms to be like
Breitbart but more so. They started moderately right but have gone
much more strongly in the past 15 years than previously and while
non-racialist are very definitely now 'hard right'
Rhino
2019-03-14 02:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 05:59:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
I had meant to put it in the thread-starting post but got busy giving
the background and forgot. Sorry about that!
https://www.therebel.media/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-news-rebel-media-ezra-levant-show-february-27-2019?page=5&utm_campaign=el_trudeau_reckoning&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
I finally took the time to read that and follow the links. Thanks. That
was quite interesting. The developments a few days ago made news in the
United States.
To be fair, TheRebel is considered in Canadian terms to be like
Breitbart but more so. They started moderately right but have gone
much more strongly in the past 15 years than previously and while
non-racialist are very definitely now 'hard right'
TheRebel has only just had its 4th anniversary. I don't know where
you're getting 15 years unless you roll in Ezra Levant's other shows
before he co-founded The Rebel.

As for being 'hard right', I'm not sure how you're defining that term. I
hope you're not playing the CBC's game of demonizing every news outlet
that doesn't love the Liberal Party.

If you're aware of any facts that were mistaken in the piece I cited,
please chime in.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-14 16:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:01:29 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
To be fair, TheRebel is considered in Canadian terms to be like
Breitbart but more so. They started moderately right but have gone
much more strongly in the past 15 years than previously and while
non-racialist are very definitely now 'hard right'
TheRebel has only just had its 4th anniversary. I don't know where
you're getting 15 years unless you roll in Ezra Levant's other shows
before he co-founded The Rebel.
As for being 'hard right', I'm not sure how you're defining that term. I
hope you're not playing the CBC's game of demonizing every news outlet
that doesn't love the Liberal Party.
If you're aware of any facts that were mistaken in the piece I cited,
please chime in.
Uh - Ezra Levant was definitely active for a lot of years before 2015.

Being firmly of the Tory persuasion myself I think you can safely
assume I don't fall in with the CBC's lovefest for the Justinator. The
more the current wave of scandals is breaking I am hopeful for October
2019 (for Americans: the next Canadian federal election).

[As an aside I am NOT a fan of the ranked ballot that elected both
Scheer and Singh (and several provincial party leaders including both
the main ones in BC) as it pretty much ensures the victor gets at most
50-55% of his parties vote and leaves on-going ill will of the sort
Maxime Bernier has ridden. There's a reason the runner-up in Canadian
leadership conventions usually gives a speech calling on the party to
pull together as one and I do think that's missing in conventions
driven by online ranked ballots for leader.]

While I agreed with a lot of Levant's positions 10+ years ago he was
and remains a consummate shit disturber and is prone to melodramatic
gestures to get his point across.

I would NOT consider him "alt right" but someone with strong elements
from both Howard Stern and Ben Shapiro. Not as skilled a debater as
Shapiro (which is after all Shapiro's main schtick!) but very
definitely a skilled performance artist.

Politically he's close to Preston Manning BUT Manning would never be a
fan of how Levant promotes his causes!
Rhino
2019-03-14 18:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:01:29 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
To be fair, TheRebel is considered in Canadian terms to be like
Breitbart but more so. They started moderately right but have gone
much more strongly in the past 15 years than previously and while
non-racialist are very definitely now 'hard right'
TheRebel has only just had its 4th anniversary. I don't know where
you're getting 15 years unless you roll in Ezra Levant's other shows
before he co-founded The Rebel.
As for being 'hard right', I'm not sure how you're defining that term. I
hope you're not playing the CBC's game of demonizing every news outlet
that doesn't love the Liberal Party.
If you're aware of any facts that were mistaken in the piece I cited,
please chime in.
Uh - Ezra Levant was definitely active for a lot of years before 2015.
Being firmly of the Tory persuasion myself I think you can safely
assume I don't fall in with the CBC's lovefest for the Justinator. The
more the current wave of scandals is breaking I am hopeful for October
2019 (for Americans: the next Canadian federal election).
You and me both. I'm hoping the current fiasco pushes the Liberals back
to third party status again, hopefully until they realize that identity
politics and "progressivism" are really bad ideas.
Post by The Horny Goat
[As an aside I am NOT a fan of the ranked ballot that elected both
Scheer and Singh (and several provincial party leaders including both
the main ones in BC) as it pretty much ensures the victor gets at most
50-55% of his parties vote and leaves on-going ill will of the sort
Maxime Bernier has ridden. There's a reason the runner-up in Canadian
leadership conventions usually gives a speech calling on the party to
pull together as one and I do think that's missing in conventions
driven by online ranked ballots for leader.]
I haven't been following the ranked ballot very closely so have no
strong opinions on it. I see no reason why runners-up can't give "pull
together" speeches after the voting has decided a winner though.
Post by The Horny Goat
While I agreed with a lot of Levant's positions 10+ years ago he was
and remains a consummate shit disturber and is prone to melodramatic
gestures to get his point across.
Sure, he can be dramatic. But a little passion is nice to see sometimes.
He's intelligent and articulate and he actually does stories on things
the rest of the media doesn't touch. For instance, The Rebel recently
figured out where $3 million worth of Khadr's money went. Who else in
the media made that effort? I think some of them are now picking up the
story because that got noticed but mostly they all try to pretend The
Rebel doesn't exist or that it is too "extreme".
Post by The Horny Goat
I would NOT consider him "alt right" but someone with strong elements
from both Howard Stern and Ben Shapiro. Not as skilled a debater as
Shapiro (which is after all Shapiro's main schtick!) but very
definitely a skilled performance artist.
Shapiro, certainly hasn't been the "wunderkind" that I had expected
after hearing the hype. I've watched a few videos where he allegedly
"crushed" or "destroyed" some opponents and wasn't terribly impressed.
Post by The Horny Goat
Politically he's close to Preston Manning BUT Manning would never be a
fan of how Levant promotes his causes!
I've been very pleasantly surprised to find the bigger media outlets
starting to do their jobs again in the light of the SNC-Lavalin fiasco.
It's a NICE change from them gushing about the PMs hair, socks, and
selfies. They were like pre-teen girls gushing about Bieber! Even the
FOREIGN media was doing it to some extent. I was sure that $595 million
dollar media slush fund had completely bought their silence.

I am very curious to see if the media will stay on this right through
the election or if the Liberals are going to figure out the right
combination of inducements to persuade them to make it all blow over and
even rehabilitate the Liberals in time for the election. I do NOT want
the Liberals back in power again until they learn some major lessons
about the divisiveness of identity politics and the toxicity of
"progressive" ideology.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-14 21:46:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
ROn Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:18:04 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
I would NOT consider him "alt right" but someone with strong elements
from both Howard Stern and Ben Shapiro. Not as skilled a debater as
Shapiro (which is after all Shapiro's main schtick!) but very
definitely a skilled performance artist.
Shapiro, certainly hasn't been the "wunderkind" that I had expected
after hearing the hype. I've watched a few videos where he allegedly
"crushed" or "destroyed" some opponents and wasn't terribly impressed.
There are a couple of Youtube videos out there that analyse his
debating style in detail that are well worth your time.
Rhino
2019-03-15 02:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
ROn Thu, 14 Mar 2019 14:18:04 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
I would NOT consider him "alt right" but someone with strong elements
from both Howard Stern and Ben Shapiro. Not as skilled a debater as
Shapiro (which is after all Shapiro's main schtick!) but very
definitely a skilled performance artist.
Shapiro, certainly hasn't been the "wunderkind" that I had expected
after hearing the hype. I've watched a few videos where he allegedly
"crushed" or "destroyed" some opponents and wasn't terribly impressed.
There are a couple of Youtube videos out there that analyse his
debating style in detail that are well worth your time.
Any particular ones you could recommend?
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-15 06:34:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:51:27 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Shapiro, certainly hasn't been the "wunderkind" that I had expected
after hearing the hype. I've watched a few videos where he allegedly
"crushed" or "destroyed" some opponents and wasn't terribly impressed.
There are a couple of Youtube videos out there that analyse his
debating style in detail that are well worth your time.
Any particular ones you could recommend?
I kind of like this one:

Rhino
2019-03-15 11:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:51:27 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Shapiro, certainly hasn't been the "wunderkind" that I had expected
after hearing the hype. I've watched a few videos where he allegedly
"crushed" or "destroyed" some opponents and wasn't terribly impressed.
There are a couple of Youtube videos out there that analyse his
debating style in detail that are well worth your time.
Any particular ones you could recommend?
http://youtu.be/JY5t6iUzajk
Thank you for that. I hadn't seen any proper analyses of his style, just
videos that claimed to show him "destroy" someone or another. Every time
I watch one of those - involving anyone, not just Shapiro - the claim
always seems seriously overblown.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-15 15:26:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 07:37:20 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Any particular ones you could recommend?
http://youtu.be/JY5t6iUzajk
Thank you for that. I hadn't seen any proper analyses of his style, just
videos that claimed to show him "destroy" someone or another. Every time
I watch one of those - involving anyone, not just Shapiro - the claim
always seems seriously overblown.
I find him entertaining but not especially applicable to me at my age.
Rhino
2019-03-15 16:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 07:37:20 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Any particular ones you could recommend?
http://youtu.be/JY5t6iUzajk
Thank you for that. I hadn't seen any proper analyses of his style, just
videos that claimed to show him "destroy" someone or another. Every time
I watch one of those - involving anyone, not just Shapiro - the claim
always seems seriously overblown.
I find him entertaining but not especially applicable to me at my age.
I should find a similar video on Ted Cruz. He was apparently a debate
champ for years in high school and university. I don't truly know a lot
about him but I respect what little I know. I once sat through an hour
long ad-libbed speech in Congress where he didn't utter a single um, or
er and was envious as hell. I'd love to learn how to do that. I'm okay
in writing but having to speak that clearly is beyond me. I also respect
his grasp on history.

He once cracked a joke that impressed me. He was referring to some kind
of ideological disagreement between two senators (I think) and said it
was like watching an argument between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
I doubt one in a thousand of the people who heard that had any idea who
the Mensheviks even were but Cruz obviously did and since I did too, it
struck a chord with me :-)

I still wonder how the present would look if Cruz had become the
Republican nominee instead of Trump. Could he have won the general
election? And if he did, what kind of President would he be? Of course
he's still young and can think about running again somewhere down the
road so maybe we'll still find out. I'm sure the Democrats would still
be miserable that Hillary didn't get in but maybe they wouldn't be quite
as hysterical as they have been with Trump.
--
Rhino
Rhino
2019-03-14 01:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
I had meant to put it in the thread-starting post but got busy giving
the background and forgot. Sorry about that!
https://www.therebel.media/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-scandal-news-rebel-media-ezra-levant-show-february-27-2019?page=5&utm_campaign=el_trudeau_reckoning&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
I finally took the time to read that and follow the links. Thanks. That
was quite interesting. The developments a few days ago made news in the
United States.
Good on you for taking the time to delve into another country's
politics. The politics in your own country is already a lot to keep up
with! :-)
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-01 05:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 21:26:16 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
Given the lady at the center of the affair has said that she doesn't
believe the behaviour is criminal but on the other hand quite
unethical it is doubtful Justin's going to jail for 10 years - but for
sure it could badly hurt his chances in October's election.

On the other hand this is the sort of scandal that is HUGE for people
that didn't vote for Trudeau last time while not nearly as big a deal
for those that did.

And no question, SNC is perceived in Quebec as being a QUEBEC company
(the headquarters are in Montreal but as usual in $billion companies
have offices coast to coast - for instance they built the Vancouver
subway and have a maintenance contract on it so obviously there are 'a
few' employees in Vancouver).

And on top of the political fallout the news that SNC spent $30000+
on hookers for Col. Ghaddafi's son (recorded on SNC's books as
'companion payments'!) isn't helping much.

Bottom line is the Quebec Liberal party hopes to gain 10+ seats at the
expense of the NDP in October and the loss by the NDP of their former
leader's seat in a Montreal by-election has demonstrated that Quebec
sees this scandal as an attack on Quebec while the rest of the country
sees this as a corruption scandal.
Rhino
2019-03-01 13:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 21:26:16 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
You have no idea how it saddens me that her principled stubbornness is
as remarkable as it apparently is. (The idealistic part of me thinks
this is how the system should work every day and that it should be front
page news when it DOESN'T work that way. Instead, we have the reverse.)
Or maybe such principled behaviour is actually routine and this is one
of the rare cases where it became visible; I'd like it if that were true
but I'm skeptical.
Given the lady at the center of the affair has said that she doesn't
believe the behaviour is criminal but on the other hand quite
unethical it is doubtful Justin's going to jail for 10 years - but for
sure it could badly hurt his chances in October's election.
If you watch the video, Ezra Levant, who is a lawyer by training even if
he doesn't practice, points out that it 1s a violation of Criminal Code
139(2) to do exactly what Trudeau, et. al were doing. That's the
provision that has the 10 year maximum sentence.
Post by The Horny Goat
On the other hand this is the sort of scandal that is HUGE for people
that didn't vote for Trudeau last time while not nearly as big a deal
for those that did.
And no question, SNC is perceived in Quebec as being a QUEBEC company
(the headquarters are in Montreal but as usual in $billion companies
have offices coast to coast - for instance they built the Vancouver
subway and have a maintenance contract on it so obviously there are 'a
few' employees in Vancouver).
And on top of the political fallout the news that SNC spent $30000+
on hookers for Col. Ghaddafi's son (recorded on SNC's books as
'companion payments'!) isn't helping much.
Bottom line is the Quebec Liberal party hopes to gain 10+ seats at the
expense of the NDP in October and the loss by the NDP of their former
leader's seat in a Montreal by-election has demonstrated that Quebec
sees this scandal as an attack on Quebec while the rest of the country
sees this as a corruption scandal.
According to a news item I saw yesterday, Quebec is almost perfectly
split - 49% vs. 51% - on the SNC-Lavalin matter. The ONLY part of the
country that is still predominantly Liberal is the Maritimes which has
100% of its seats in the House in Liberal hands.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-02 15:05:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:57:41 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Bottom line is the Quebec Liberal party hopes to gain 10+ seats at the
expense of the NDP in October and the loss by the NDP of their former
leader's seat in a Montreal by-election has demonstrated that Quebec
sees this scandal as an attack on Quebec while the rest of the country
sees this as a corruption scandal.
According to a news item I saw yesterday, Quebec is almost perfectly
split - 49% vs. 51% - on the SNC-Lavalin matter. The ONLY part of the
country that is still predominantly Liberal is the Maritimes which has
100% of its seats in the House in Liberal hands.
Yes that was 2015.

Obviously working to change that situation is a primary objective of
the other parties in election strategy planning for October 2019.
Meanwhile the NDP has had a major collapse in Quebec and the Libs are
hoping to take as many as possible of the 16 seats the NDP got there
last time. It has been a long time since the Libs got 73 of 74 Quebec
seats.

For what it's worth NS + NB + PEI + NF have a combined population less
than either BC or AB and far less than Ontario or Quebec.
Rhino
2019-03-14 02:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 08:57:41 -0500, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Bottom line is the Quebec Liberal party hopes to gain 10+ seats at the
expense of the NDP in October and the loss by the NDP of their former
leader's seat in a Montreal by-election has demonstrated that Quebec
sees this scandal as an attack on Quebec while the rest of the country
sees this as a corruption scandal.
According to a news item I saw yesterday, Quebec is almost perfectly
split - 49% vs. 51% - on the SNC-Lavalin matter. The ONLY part of the
country that is still predominantly Liberal is the Maritimes which has
100% of its seats in the House in Liberal hands.
Yes that was 2015.
Obviously working to change that situation is a primary objective of
the other parties in election strategy planning for October 2019.
Meanwhile the NDP has had a major collapse in Quebec and the Libs are
hoping to take as many as possible of the 16 seats the NDP got there
last time. It has been a long time since the Libs got 73 of 74 Quebec
seats.
The NDP almost swept Quebec in 2011 and it was the first time they'd had
more than a single seat in the province. I think Quebec had had enough
of the Liberals AND the Conservatives in 2011 and voted for the NDP en
masse for the first time. They elected a bunch of MPs that weren't even
credible candidates, like university students that had never had a job
and had been aspiring to caddy at the local golf club when they suddenly
found themselves MPs. The idea that the NDP was going to hold most of
those seats was unlikely at best.

You're right that the Liberals haven't been popular there in a long
time. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the campaign
in Quebec and who they vote for on election day.
Post by The Horny Goat
For what it's worth NS + NB + PEI + NF have a combined population less
than either BC or AB and far less than Ontario or Quebec.
An important point for anyone who imagines the provinces are remote
equal in population. Canadians know better but most Americans have no
idea of the relative populations.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-14 16:21:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:08:18 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
The NDP almost swept Quebec in 2011 and it was the first time they'd had
more than a single seat in the province. I think Quebec had had enough
of the Liberals AND the Conservatives in 2011 and voted for the NDP en
masse for the first time. They elected a bunch of MPs that weren't even
credible candidates, like university students that had never had a job
and had been aspiring to caddy at the local golf club when they suddenly
found themselves MPs. The idea that the NDP was going to hold most of
those seats was unlikely at best.
Actually the NDP had one individual seats in QC before 2011 but for
sure they were really a 'player' before 2011.

Bottom line is Quebec voters have ALWAYS voted Quebec first and to
hell with the rest of the country. And I mean that literally.

Unreconstructed southerners in the US have always despised northerners
but when push comes to shove (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc) have always
pulled together when there's a legitimate national interest. Not so
Quebec - as the ongoing Churchill Falls fiasco over 5 decades and
their view of Energy East proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
Rhino
2019-03-14 16:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 22:08:18 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
The NDP almost swept Quebec in 2011 and it was the first time they'd had
more than a single seat in the province. I think Quebec had had enough
of the Liberals AND the Conservatives in 2011 and voted for the NDP en
masse for the first time. They elected a bunch of MPs that weren't even
credible candidates, like university students that had never had a job
and had been aspiring to caddy at the local golf club when they suddenly
found themselves MPs. The idea that the NDP was going to hold most of
those seats was unlikely at best.
Actually the NDP had one individual seats in QC before 2011 but for
sure they were really a 'player' before 2011.
I think you meant to include a 'not' in that sentence :-)

Also, the first sentence in the quoted paragraph acknowledged previous
NDP seats in Quebec. :-) (I still remember when the NDP won their first
seat ever in Quebec.)
Post by The Horny Goat
Bottom line is Quebec voters have ALWAYS voted Quebec first and to
hell with the rest of the country. And I mean that literally.
The idea of the NDP having the majority of the seats in the province was
unthinkable until it actually happened. But I never imagined it would
last. It was a protest vote and wasn't going to sustain itself
indefinitely unless they REALLY pleased Quebeckers.
Post by The Horny Goat
Unreconstructed southerners in the US have always despised northerners
but when push comes to shove (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc) have always
pulled together when there's a legitimate national interest. Not so
Quebec - as the ongoing Churchill Falls fiasco over 5 decades and
their view of Energy East proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
There's no doubt that Quebec is always a difficult national issue and
probably always will be.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-14 21:45:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:58:18 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Actually the NDP had one individual seats in QC before 2011 but for
sure they were really a 'player' before 2011.
I think you meant to include a 'not' in that sentence :-)
You are correct - the 2011 is probably the ONLY election where they
were a major factor in Quebec - far less so in 2015.

Personally I thought Mulcair a better party leader than Leighton but
Leighton (like JFK) had the "good fortune" of "dying at a good time"
and I have no doubt he would not be so well regarded had he still been
with us to this day.
Post by Rhino
Also, the first sentence in the quoted paragraph acknowledged previous
NDP seats in Quebec. :-) (I still remember when the NDP won their first
seat ever in Quebec.)
For what it's worth Montreal ALSO elected the one and only Communist
MP in Canadian history but that was the 1940s.
Post by Rhino
The idea of the NDP having the majority of the seats in the province was
unthinkable until it actually happened. But I never imagined it would
last. It was a protest vote and wasn't going to sustain itself
indefinitely unless they REALLY pleased Quebeckers.
Total agreement on each of the three points you make.
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Unreconstructed southerners in the US have always despised northerners
but when push comes to shove (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc) have always
pulled together when there's a legitimate national interest. Not so
Quebec - as the ongoing Churchill Falls fiasco over 5 decades and
their view of Energy East proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
There's no doubt that Quebec is always a difficult national issue and
probably always will be.
Most likely true but it does do terrible things to the body politic
and most "Anglos" know it. On the other hand, Canada without the
geographical land mass is non-sustainable as well so a no win
situation.
Rhino
2019-03-15 02:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 12:58:18 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Actually the NDP had one individual seats in QC before 2011 but for
sure they were really a 'player' before 2011.
I think you meant to include a 'not' in that sentence :-)
You are correct - the 2011 is probably the ONLY election where they
were a major factor in Quebec - far less so in 2015.
They took (or held) 16 seats in 2015, which was way down from the 59 in
2011.
Post by The Horny Goat
Personally I thought Mulcair a better party leader than Leighton but
Leighton (like JFK) had the "good fortune" of "dying at a good time"
and I have no doubt he would not be so well regarded had he still been
with us to this day.
I only needed one exposure to Layton to despise the man. This was back
in the early 90s when he was running for mayor of Toronto. He started
promising stuff - lots of stuff - just to pander to the handicapped
people in the audience. (They had, in fact, sponsored the debate.) He
was promising to make every inch of city property wheelchair accessible,
including the entire subway system. Handicapped people who might be
employable by the city if it weren't for their disability would all be
supplied with assistants (presumably PAID assistants) to help them do
the things they couldn't do due to their disability - like reaching into
overhead shelves at their desks. None of his opponents even had the
balls to ask him what that would cost or how it would be paid for. I
thought it was cruel for him to make these vastly unrealistic promises
to people, at least if they were naive enough to believe him, because
they would have inevitably been disappointed. He might as well have
promised to cure their physical ailments - not fund research into their
diseases, which might have been realistic but actually cure them.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Also, the first sentence in the quoted paragraph acknowledged previous
NDP seats in Quebec. :-) (I still remember when the NDP won their first
seat ever in Quebec.)
For what it's worth Montreal ALSO elected the one and only Communist
MP in Canadian history but that was the 1940s.
Fred Rose. That was back in the days when Montreal was the clear and
undisputed economic heart of Canada. Rose was not just elected to
Parliament (in 1943), he was re-elected (in 1945). Then he spent nearly
5 years in prison after being convicted of espionage as a result of the
commission that investigated the information provided by Igor Gouzenko,
the Soviet cipher clerk that defected to Canada in 1945.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
The idea of the NDP having the majority of the seats in the province was
unthinkable until it actually happened. But I never imagined it would
last. It was a protest vote and wasn't going to sustain itself
indefinitely unless they REALLY pleased Quebeckers.
Total agreement on each of the three points you make.
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Unreconstructed southerners in the US have always despised northerners
but when push comes to shove (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 etc) have always
pulled together when there's a legitimate national interest. Not so
Quebec - as the ongoing Churchill Falls fiasco over 5 decades and
their view of Energy East proves beyond any reasonable doubt.
There's no doubt that Quebec is always a difficult national issue and
probably always will be.
Most likely true but it does do terrible things to the body politic
and most "Anglos" know it. On the other hand, Canada without the
geographical land mass is non-sustainable as well so a no win
situation.
I remember someone floating the idea (back in the 70s) that if Quebec
gave up all of its territory south of the St. Lawrence to Canada and
made the rest of Quebec into a sovereign country, Canada might still be
a sustainable country since there would be a physical corridor to the
Maritimes (at least NB, NS and PE but obviously not Labrador or
Newfoundland). There's a certain logic to that but I'm really not
confident that Quebec would accept any such arrangement.
Aside from that, I'm at a loss to think of anything reasonable we could
do to end Quebec separatism.

I used to work with some Quebeckers and, although we rarely discussed
politics, I remember one peer assuring me that separatists would NEVER
leave Canada if push came to shove, presumably because they value the
Canadian dollar and passport far too much. That and the many polls that
said true separatists never accounted for more than 25% of the Quebec
voters was a comfort. Then the 1995 referendum happened and the
Federalists won by less than 1%! That did a lot to undermine my
confidence that Quebec would never leave. Separatist fever died down a
lot after that referendum but we all know it could - and probably will -
flare up again down the road. It's anyone's guess if it will go all the
way to separation the next time.

The sad thing is that the ROC (Rest of Canada) is unlikely to care a
whole lot because they're so sick of Quebec's unease with being in this
country, even if their departure means the end of our country.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-15 06:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:50:46 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
You are correct - the 2011 is probably the ONLY election where they
were a major factor in Quebec - far less so in 2015.
They took (or held) 16 seats in 2015, which was way down from the 59 in
2011.
With all due respect 'far less so' is appropriate when a party goes
from 59 -> 16 seats :)
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Personally I thought Mulcair a better party leader than Leighton but
Leighton (like JFK) had the "good fortune" of "dying at a good time"
and I have no doubt he would not be so well regarded had he still been
with us to this day.
I only needed one exposure to Layton to despise the man. This was back
in the early 90s when he was running for mayor of Toronto. He started
promising stuff - lots of stuff - just to pander to the handicapped
people in the audience. (They had, in fact, sponsored the debate.) He
was promising to make every inch of city property wheelchair accessible,
including the entire subway system. Handicapped people who might be
employable by the city if it weren't for their disability would all be
supplied with assistants (presumably PAID assistants) to help them do
the things they couldn't do due to their disability - like reaching into
overhead shelves at their desks. None of his opponents even had the
balls to ask him what that would cost or how it would be paid for. I
thought it was cruel for him to make these vastly unrealistic promises
to people, at least if they were naive enough to believe him, because
they would have inevitably been disappointed. He might as well have
promised to cure their physical ailments - not fund research into their
diseases, which might have been realistic but actually cure them.
I assume you know his wife ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Toronto.
While I would not expect her policies to be a carbon copy one would
expect them to be close.
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Also, the first sentence in the quoted paragraph acknowledged previous
NDP seats in Quebec. :-) (I still remember when the NDP won their first
seat ever in Quebec.)
For what it's worth Montreal ALSO elected the one and only Communist
MP in Canadian history but that was the 1940s.
Fred Rose. That was back in the days when Montreal was the clear and
undisputed economic heart of Canada. Rose was not just elected to
Parliament (in 1943), he was re-elected (in 1945). Then he spent nearly
5 years in prison after being convicted of espionage as a result of the
commission that investigated the information provided by Igor Gouzenko,
the Soviet cipher clerk that defected to Canada in 1945.
Well that ended in the 1920s - by the end of WW2 Montreal was a shadow
of it's former self economically and I would argue that
psychologically at least Quebec never recovered.
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
The idea of the NDP having the majority of the seats in the province was
unthinkable until it actually happened. But I never imagined it would
last. It was a protest vote and wasn't going to sustain itself
indefinitely unless they REALLY pleased Quebeckers.
Most likely true but it does do terrible things to the body politic
and most "Anglos" know it. On the other hand, Canada without the
geographical land mass is non-sustainable as well so a no win
situation.
I remember someone floating the idea (back in the 70s) that if Quebec
gave up all of its territory south of the St. Lawrence to Canada and
made the rest of Quebec into a sovereign country, Canada might still be
a sustainable country since there would be a physical corridor to the
Maritimes (at least NB, NS and PE but obviously not Labrador or
Newfoundland). There's a certain logic to that but I'm really not
confident that Quebec would accept any such arrangement.
Aside from that, I'm at a loss to think of anything reasonable we could
do to end Quebec separatism.
I don't see any separatist leader yielding an inch of Quebec and
staying in power.
Post by Rhino
I used to work with some Quebeckers and, although we rarely discussed
politics, I remember one peer assuring me that separatists would NEVER
leave Canada if push came to shove, presumably because they value the
Canadian dollar and passport far too much. That and the many polls that
said true separatists never accounted for more than 25% of the Quebec
voters was a comfort. Then the 1995 referendum happened and the
Federalists won by less than 1%! That did a lot to undermine my
confidence that Quebec would never leave. Separatist fever died down a
lot after that referendum but we all know it could - and probably will -
flare up again down the road. It's anyone's guess if it will go all the
way to separation the next time.
I think the federal Liberals still have a lot to answer for for 1995.
That was much too close for comfort.
Post by Rhino
The sad thing is that the ROC (Rest of Canada) is unlikely to care a
whole lot because they're so sick of Quebec's unease with being in this
country, even if their departure means the end of our country.
The fact that the federal "equalization payment" scheme takes a net $
12-13 billion a year (about 2/3 of that from Alberta which is in
deficit) and gives it to Quebec which is in surplus while Quebec
continues to refuse the Energy East pipeline project (which I think
longterm is FAR FAR FAR more important to Canada than the pipeline to
the west coast) is an obscenity that one wonders how Justin shows his
face in public without shame.

Where DO they think the $8 billion subsidy comes f rom?

Over 50000 jobs in the oil patch have been lost in the last two years
without any counter-measures by the feds while the federal government
is willing to subvert the rule of law because 9000 in Quebec are
claimed to be at risk? Again - actual jobs lost vs. potential losses.
Rhino
2019-03-15 12:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 22:50:46 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
You are correct - the 2011 is probably the ONLY election where they
were a major factor in Quebec - far less so in 2015.
They took (or held) 16 seats in 2015, which was way down from the 59 in
2011.
With all due respect 'far less so' is appropriate when a party goes
from 59 -> 16 seats :)
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Personally I thought Mulcair a better party leader than Leighton but
Leighton (like JFK) had the "good fortune" of "dying at a good time"
and I have no doubt he would not be so well regarded had he still been
with us to this day.
I only needed one exposure to Layton to despise the man. This was back
in the early 90s when he was running for mayor of Toronto. He started
promising stuff - lots of stuff - just to pander to the handicapped
people in the audience. (They had, in fact, sponsored the debate.) He
was promising to make every inch of city property wheelchair accessible,
including the entire subway system. Handicapped people who might be
employable by the city if it weren't for their disability would all be
supplied with assistants (presumably PAID assistants) to help them do
the things they couldn't do due to their disability - like reaching into
overhead shelves at their desks. None of his opponents even had the
balls to ask him what that would cost or how it would be paid for. I
thought it was cruel for him to make these vastly unrealistic promises
to people, at least if they were naive enough to believe him, because
they would have inevitably been disappointed. He might as well have
promised to cure their physical ailments - not fund research into their
diseases, which might have been realistic but actually cure them.
I assume you know his wife ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Toronto.
While I would not expect her policies to be a carbon copy one would
expect them to be close.
Agreed. I think she figured she was going to get in simply because she
was his widow and all the people that thought they loved her husband
would vote for her on that basis. I was not disappointed to see her
defeated.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Also, the first sentence in the quoted paragraph acknowledged previous
NDP seats in Quebec. :-) (I still remember when the NDP won their first
seat ever in Quebec.)
For what it's worth Montreal ALSO elected the one and only Communist
MP in Canadian history but that was the 1940s.
Fred Rose. That was back in the days when Montreal was the clear and
undisputed economic heart of Canada. Rose was not just elected to
Parliament (in 1943), he was re-elected (in 1945). Then he spent nearly
5 years in prison after being convicted of espionage as a result of the
commission that investigated the information provided by Igor Gouzenko,
the Soviet cipher clerk that defected to Canada in 1945.
Well that ended in the 1920s - by the end of WW2 Montreal was a shadow
of it's former self economically and I would argue that
psychologically at least Quebec never recovered.
The 1920s seems premature to me as a point at which Montreal was in a
major state of decline. I would put that point much later. I don't think
Toronto was truly seen as having eclipsed Montreal until the early 60s.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
The idea of the NDP having the majority of the seats in the province was
unthinkable until it actually happened. But I never imagined it would
last. It was a protest vote and wasn't going to sustain itself
indefinitely unless they REALLY pleased Quebeckers.
Most likely true but it does do terrible things to the body politic
and most "Anglos" know it. On the other hand, Canada without the
geographical land mass is non-sustainable as well so a no win
situation.
I remember someone floating the idea (back in the 70s) that if Quebec
gave up all of its territory south of the St. Lawrence to Canada and
made the rest of Quebec into a sovereign country, Canada might still be
a sustainable country since there would be a physical corridor to the
Maritimes (at least NB, NS and PE but obviously not Labrador or
Newfoundland). There's a certain logic to that but I'm really not
confident that Quebec would accept any such arrangement.
Aside from that, I'm at a loss to think of anything reasonable we could
do to end Quebec separatism.
I don't see any separatist leader yielding an inch of Quebec and
staying in power.
It would surely be a VERY hard sell. I don't know where separatism is
strongest either. Perhaps the South Shore people are the most determined
separatists in Quebec's regions. Or the least. That would certainly
affect the political "math". Looking at the history, Quebec shouldn't be
all that rigid about shedding a piece of itself: it's done so several
times in the past. Look at the Louisiana Purchase, which took far larger
tracts of New France and sold them to the US. They also gave up the huge
area which became Ontario. And Labrador to wheedle Newfoundland into
joining the country.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
I used to work with some Quebeckers and, although we rarely discussed
politics, I remember one peer assuring me that separatists would NEVER
leave Canada if push came to shove, presumably because they value the
Canadian dollar and passport far too much. That and the many polls that
said true separatists never accounted for more than 25% of the Quebec
voters was a comfort. Then the 1995 referendum happened and the
Federalists won by less than 1%! That did a lot to undermine my
confidence that Quebec would never leave. Separatist fever died down a
lot after that referendum but we all know it could - and probably will -
flare up again down the road. It's anyone's guess if it will go all the
way to separation the next time.
I think the federal Liberals still have a lot to answer for for 1995.
That was much too close for comfort.
I still remember watching the vote counts come in. The first place they
reported - Anticosti Island - was 70% in favour of separation and I
thought we'd lost Quebec! But eventually the tide turned and federalism
won by a whisker. I really wasn't sure the count would end the way it
did though....
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
The sad thing is that the ROC (Rest of Canada) is unlikely to care a
whole lot because they're so sick of Quebec's unease with being in this
country, even if their departure means the end of our country.
The fact that the federal "equalization payment" scheme takes a net $
12-13 billion a year (about 2/3 of that from Alberta which is in
deficit) and gives it to Quebec which is in surplus while Quebec
continues to refuse the Energy East pipeline project (which I think
longterm is FAR FAR FAR more important to Canada than the pipeline to
the west coast) is an obscenity that one wonders how Justin shows his
face in public without shame.
Where DO they think the $8 billion subsidy comes f rom?
Over 50000 jobs in the oil patch have been lost in the last two years
without any counter-measures by the feds while the federal government
is willing to subvert the rule of law because 9000 in Quebec are
claimed to be at risk? Again - actual jobs lost vs. potential losses.
I agree. The equalization formulas in this country need some serious
revisiting. Provinces that are in surplus shouldn't be getting payments,
they should be making transfer payments.

In all honesty, I know almost nothing about how transfer payments are
calculated in this country. I never heard a teacher talk about it, even
during university Poli Sci classes, nor in a lifetime of consuming the
national media.

Maybe the whole equalization idea needs to be abandoned entirely to
incentivize each province to build its own wealth generation capability.
Look at how Newfoundland, the perennial "have not", has turned into a
"have" province against all expectations and how Ontario did the
opposite under the gross mismanagement of the provincial Liberals in the
past 15 years.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-15 15:33:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:03:06 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Well that ended in the 1920s - by the end of WW2 Montreal was a shadow
of it's former self economically and I would argue that
psychologically at least Quebec never recovered.
The 1920s seems premature to me as a point at which Montreal was in a
major state of decline. I would put that point much later. I don't think
Toronto was truly seen as having eclipsed Montreal until the early 60s.
What REALLY put the nail in the coffin was postwar immigration
primarily to Toronto - primarily German, Italian and Polish. This wave
pretty much revitalized the construction and steel industries (which
were located more in Hamilton than Toronto but the main users were the
auto industry in Oshawa and Oakville). This immigration wave largely
ignored Montreal and vaulted Toronto past Montreal.

I said late 20s as the Depression hit Quebec particularly hard and the
response was turning inwards with little population growth at the time
during which time whatever little immigration there was was going
anywhere but Quebec

But for sure there has always been the mentality even now that Quebec
was equal to the rest of Canada and that simply hasn't been the case
for 100+ years.
Rhino
2019-03-15 16:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:03:06 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Well that ended in the 1920s - by the end of WW2 Montreal was a shadow
of it's former self economically and I would argue that
psychologically at least Quebec never recovered.
The 1920s seems premature to me as a point at which Montreal was in a
major state of decline. I would put that point much later. I don't think
Toronto was truly seen as having eclipsed Montreal until the early 60s.
What REALLY put the nail in the coffin was postwar immigration
primarily to Toronto - primarily German, Italian and Polish. This wave
pretty much revitalized the construction and steel industries (which
were located more in Hamilton than Toronto but the main users were the
auto industry in Oshawa and Oakville). This immigration wave largely
ignored Montreal and vaulted Toronto past Montreal.
I said late 20s as the Depression hit Quebec particularly hard and the
response was turning inwards with little population growth at the time
during > which time whatever little immigration there was was going
anywhere but Quebec
Quebec has endured lots of hard economic times. There are a lot of
people descended from the Quebecois in New England; I've met some. They
came to New England for work during very lean years in economic
downturns even before the Great Depression, like the 1890s. They're
almost completed assimilated into the US now, of course. Most of them
don't speak French and don't even say their own names the way a
francophone would. (I spoke to one woman named Pelletier who pronounced
it "Pell-tear".)
Post by The Horny Goat
But for sure there has always been the mentality even now that Quebec
was equal to the rest of Canada and that simply hasn't been the case
for 100+ years.
In hindsight, I wonder if it might have been better for the Brits to
have made more efforts to de-emphasize French and push English, perhaps
to the point of forbidding education in French, in the decades following
the Seven Years War. I imagine they had the impulse to do that but held
off for pragmatic reasons that seemed wiser at the time. They may have
been right too. But maybe Quebec would be better integrated now if they
had.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-16 02:24:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:16:04 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
people descended from the Quebecois in New England; I've met some. They
came to New England for work during very lean years in economic
downturns even before the Great Depression, like the 1890s. They're
almost completed assimilated into the US now, of course. Most of them
don't speak French and don't even say their own names the way a
francophone would. (I spoke to one woman named Pelletier who pronounced
it "Pell-tear".)
Will never forget my first weekend in Winnipeg years ago when I
pronounced the main street of Winnipeg the French way (port'ahj)
instead of (Port-Age) the way the locals do. "You're not from around
here are you?" - didn't make me feel any less miserable in the January
-35 weather - it was the first winter of my life not spent in either
BC or California.....
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
But for sure there has always been the mentality even now that Quebec
was equal to the rest of Canada and that simply hasn't been the case
for 100+ years.
In hindsight, I wonder if it might have been better for the Brits to
have made more efforts to de-emphasize French and push English, perhaps
to the point of forbidding education in French, in the decades following
the Seven Years War. I imagine they had the impulse to do that but held
off for pragmatic reasons that seemed wiser at the time. They may have
been right too. But maybe Quebec would be better integrated now if they
had.
Lord Durham is alive and well!! (Anybody not knowing about Lord Durham
and his famous report is welcome to Google "Lord Durham's report" and
read any of the top 3 hits (The Canadian encyclopedia, CBC.ca and
wikipedia) for a pretty good survey.

The main reason they didn't is that they didn't was that they didn't
want Henry Wadsworth Longfellow or someone of his stature writing a
second Evangeline story! (Evangeline is the story of one of the
deportations from English formerly French Canada following one of the
Anglo French wars that took place over nearly 100 years before the
final conquest of Quebec City in 1759)
Rhino
2019-03-16 15:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:16:04 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
people descended from the Quebecois in New England; I've met some. They
came to New England for work during very lean years in economic
downturns even before the Great Depression, like the 1890s. They're
almost completed assimilated into the US now, of course. Most of them
don't speak French and don't even say their own names the way a
francophone would. (I spoke to one woman named Pelletier who pronounced
it "Pell-tear".)
Will never forget my first weekend in Winnipeg years ago when I
pronounced the main street of Winnipeg the French way (port'ahj)
instead of (Port-Age) the way the locals do. "You're not from around
here are you?" - didn't make me feel any less miserable in the January
-35 weather - it was the first winter of my life not spent in either
BC or California.....
I can only imagine, having lived in southern Ontario all my life. We're
probably the second mildest part of Canada in winter after south-coastal
BC, and it's almost never -35 here. We don't get things as mild as the
Vancouver area though so the shock of -35 must have been ever worse for
you.

There's a guy at one of my IT meetups that emigrated from Johannesburg -
where it is hardly ever outside of the 60-80F range - just short of a
year ago. I was talking to him at the meetup this past week and was
pleasantly surprised to find that he and his family seemed to be
enduring their first Canadian winter quite well. I would have thought
he'd be really discouraged and starting to think very seriously about
Australia or New Zealand instead to be in a more familiar climate but
that doesn't seem to be the case.
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
But for sure there has always been the mentality even now that Quebec
was equal to the rest of Canada and that simply hasn't been the case
for 100+ years.
In hindsight, I wonder if it might have been better for the Brits to
have made more efforts to de-emphasize French and push English, perhaps
to the point of forbidding education in French, in the decades following
the Seven Years War. I imagine they had the impulse to do that but held
off for pragmatic reasons that seemed wiser at the time. They may have
been right too. But maybe Quebec would be better integrated now if they
had.
Lord Durham is alive and well!! (Anybody not knowing about Lord Durham
and his famous report is welcome to Google "Lord Durham's report" and
read any of the top 3 hits (The Canadian encyclopedia, CBC.ca and
wikipedia) for a pretty good survey.
The main reason they didn't is that they didn't was that they didn't
want Henry Wadsworth Longfellow or someone of his stature writing a
second Evangeline story! (Evangeline is the story of one of the
deportations from English formerly French Canada following one of the
Anglo French wars that took place over nearly 100 years before the
final conquest of Quebec City in 1759)
The Expulsion of the Acadians. (Well, most of them anyway. They still
exist and seem to have a vibrant culture in New Brunswick (and enclaves
of Nova Scotia and PEI) to this day.) Good ol' Lord Durham....

I'm afraid you're mistaken in your recollection of the timing of the
Expulsion. That happened concurrently with the Seven Years War, the same
war that saw Quebec fall to the English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians

Oh, hold on, you're saying that Durham's report was nearly a century
after the expulsion, aren't you? In that case, you are much less
incorrect :-)
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2019-03-16 21:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 11:41:07 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Will never forget my first weekend in Winnipeg years ago when I
pronounced the main street of Winnipeg the French way (port'ahj)
instead of (Port-Age) the way the locals do. "You're not from around
here are you?" - didn't make me feel any less miserable in the January
-35 weather - it was the first winter of my life not spent in either
BC or California.....
I can only imagine, having lived in southern Ontario all my life. We're
probably the second mildest part of Canada in winter after south-coastal
BC, and it's almost never -35 here. We don't get things as mild as the
Vancouver area though so the shock of -35 must have been ever worse for
you.
My mother was ready to send me a ticket home to Vancouver after she
heard "adjusted for wind chill -90" ... my other memory of my first
week in Winnipeg was walking down to Portage & Main (about 3 blocks),
seeing absolutely nobody on the streets about 1/2 hour after sunset
(remember it was -35 and blowing through the towers of Portage and
Main!) .... and nobody told me about the network of underground
walkways until 4 days later! uh....

(30 years later I hear it's a much broader area of downtown covered by
these which is highly un-surprising)
Post by Rhino
There's a guy at one of my IT meetups that emigrated from Johannesburg -
where it is hardly ever outside of the 60-80F range - just short of a
year ago. I was talking to him at the meetup this past week and was
pleasantly surprised to find that he and his family seemed to be
enduring their first Canadian winter quite well. I would have thought
he'd be really discouraged and starting to think very seriously about
Australia or New Zealand instead to be in a more familiar climate but
that doesn't seem to be the case.
I have a South African employee also from the Transvaal who has
commented on Canadian winters but she's in Vancouver which in winter
is a very far cry from Winnipeg or even Toronto.
Post by Rhino
The Expulsion of the Acadians. (Well, most of them anyway. They still
exist and seem to have a vibrant culture in New Brunswick (and enclaves
of Nova Scotia and PEI) to this day.) Good ol' Lord Durham....
I'm afraid you're mistaken in your recollection of the timing of the
Expulsion. That happened concurrently with the Seven Years War, the same
war that saw Quebec fall to the English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
Oh, hold on, you're saying that Durham's report was nearly a century
after the expulsion, aren't you? In that case, you are much less
incorrect :-)
The expulsions were roughly 1750s-60s, Durham's report was 1839.

An abridged version can be found at
https://www.iorg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Lord-Durham%E2%80%99s-Report-abridged-with-more-context-.pdf

Sorry to bore all those Murrcans here but this report is considered
roughly as important in Canadian history as say the Federalist Papers
are to you folks.

RichA
2019-03-14 01:08:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Yes, rather than quasi-questionable but not strictly illegal things done by Trump, this was clearly a violation of the law and yet nothing will happen to Turdeau and the leftist media will soft-peddle the whole thing.
Loading...