Canada's "independent" Debate Commission shuts out Max Bernier

Right from the getgo, the "progressive" "forces for good" in Canada's chattering classes -- the politicians and the (((controlled media))) -- determined that it would be dangerous to allow Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, to give a voice to the millions of Canucks who are sick, sore and tired of the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

God help anybody who dared to utter a politically incorrect word or even think a politically incorrect thought about things like "refugees", immigration and multiculturalism. The cult of "diversity" reigns supreme in the Great No-longer-white North, and anyone who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom was to be silenced.

When "Mad Max" announced the formation of the People's Party last fall, Elections Canada (a creature of the Canadian government, Just In Trudeau, Prop.) decreed that it wasn't a party, and couldn't be until it had so many thousand members. Done, and quick too! Well, then, they said, you can't be a party until you have fielded candidates in a certain number of elections or by-elections. Done! So, in February, Elections Canada reluctantly allowed that, yes, the PPC was officially a party, and could start giving out tax receipts for donations. End of story? Not quite?

Canada's lamestream media stepped in at this point and made a secret agreement that even if M Bernier was technically the leader of a political party, he wouldn't be treated as such, and would be "deplatformed" -- not given any but the barest minimum opportunity to speak through the mainstream print and broadcast channels.

The CBC (Canadian Broadcorping Castration) is the worst offender to the notion of allowing all voices to be heard. Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party appears regularly on the CBC's political programmes, even though the party has only one seat (hers) in the House of Commons. (Overheard at an Ottawa restaurant: "May? Party of one?") She will be allowed to participate in the televised Leaders' Debates to be held in October, ahead of the federal election, even though her party has only one plank -- close down Canada's oil industry -- in its platform.

Logic would seem to dictate that Max Bernier would also participate, since the People's Party has a seat -- his -- in the House of Commons. And he has lots to talk about. Not just the environment, the economy, and foreign policy, but also refugees, immigration and "diversity", which the media (Hello, Chantal Hébert! Hello Toronto Star! Hello CBC!) keep telling us are non-issues, of no interest to the Canadian people.

If you think "Mad Max" -- who has been described by the (((controlled media))) as a "racist" and (shudder) "populist" (gasp!) -- is going to get a chance to debate those "non-issues" with the other leaders, you are wrong! For the "independent" Leaders' Debate Commission -- like Elections Canada a creature of the Liberal government -- has invited the leaders of five political parties, including the Greens and the Bloc Québecois, to participate in the October debates. But Maxime Bernier, errr, NO!

Why not?! The transparently flimsy excuse the debate organizing group has come up with is that the People's Party has not yet met one of the criteria to participate in the televised debates, namely that the party isn't represented in the House of Commons by an MP who was elected as a member of that party. M Bernier, a former cabinet minister in the government of Steve Harpoon, was re-elected in 2015 as a Conservative, before before leaving the "Conservatives" to start the PPC.

Beyond that, the Commissioner said in a letter to M Bernier, a survey of recent opinion polls, including the CBC News Poll Tracker (!!), led him to conclude that the People's Party would have a difficult time actually getting one of its candidates elected in October's general election. So if the polls already say you're not going to win, why should you speak in the debate? That's the "logic" employed by the Liberals and their media sycophants.

M Bernier told the media that itès not fair to rely on current polling data, given how well populist parties in other Western democracies have fared in recent elections. He said the PPC has an "excellent chance for rapid growth" if Canadians get a chance to hear the party's message.

According to M Bernier, "The PPC represents a unique perspective, and is the only party that offers distinct policy positions on several topics that are at the heart of political debates, including immigration, climate change, freedom of expression, corporate welfare, foreign aid, supply management, and many other topics."

In its report on this story today, the CBC called these "right-wing policy proposals". Perhaps they are afraid that, as M Bernier claims, the PPC's positions on these issues are similar to those of a large minority, or even a majority of Canadians. Said M Bernier, "Canadians have the right to hear views that differ from those of established parties."

From the outrage being voiced on social media, even in the "Comments" section of the CBC's article, it would seem that ordinary Canadians -- those who are not among the elites -- want to hear what "Mad Max" has to say. The Debates Commission is already backing away from the Commissioner's letter, saying that it will give the matter further consideration, and will make a "final decision" on September 16th. Stay tuned.

Further reading: "What's a debate if you don't hear from the opposite side?", by John Ivison (no fan of Max Bernier but a big fan of free speech and fair play), in the National Post, 13/8/19. Quote: "The ruling seems profoundly undemocratic.... Most Canadians, including this one, find many of [the PPC's] policies toxic. But a sizeable minority do not and, as Bernier pointed out, they have a right to hear views that differ from those of more established parties.

And more: "The media blindspot for the People’s Party of Canada", by David Haskell (PPC candidate in Cambridge), in The Post Millennial, 9/8/19.

Further viewing: "The Rebel's May 3rd interview with Maxime Bernier", WWW 11/5/19.

Senator Duffy found not guilty, but is he "Honourable"?

It took over a year to do it, but a thick coat of whitewash has now been applied to the "Honourable" Michael Dennis Duffy, the Senator from Kanata [Prince Edward Island, according to the judge. Ed.], following his acquittal yesterday on 31 -- count `em, 31! -- charges of claiming expenses as a senator from Prince Edward Island on "travel status" in the national capital region, where he's actually lived for decades; claiming travel expenses as a parliamentarian while gallivanting around the country on personal or partisan business; funneling Senate money through private companies owned by a friend, and thereby avoiding Senate scrutiny in his dispersals; and accepting a bribe to repay his bad expenses once they came to light.

Mr. Justice Charles Vaillancourt astounded millions of Canadians yesterday by calling Senator Puffy an "honest man" whose conduct was "honest and reasonable". In a 308-page ruling which took the judge nearly six hours to read out, he gave the porcine solon as complete and thorough an exoneration as the Ol' Duff could have imagined in his wildest dreams.

Canucks sick of unelected party hacks gorging themselves at the Senate trough can be forgiven for wondering if the Duffy they came to know and despise was the same one Judge Vaillancourt saw in the courtroom, the one he described as a credible, hard-working senator (as former Prime Minister Steve Harper wrote on a photo introduced as an exhibit) who never padded expense claims, never ran away from questions about his residency, and sought the advice of Senate leaders and PM Harpoon himself, who all told him he was doing no wrong.

The judge's characterization of the obese sycophant was, in the words of Agent 17, enough to gag a maggot. The 31 charges were stripped of all credibility and dismissed in a complete (and sometime mocking) deconstruction of an incomplete and inept Crown case. The Senator broke no rules, Judge Vaillancourt said, because there were not rules to be broken. Some of his contracts were "unorthodox" and perhaps some of his travel could raise eyebrows, but the judge could not find Mr. Duffy was evading Senate oversight because there was no oversight in the first place.

If public money was spent foolishly or carelessly or on travel and other benefits of a personal nature, that was OK as long as Mr. Duffy included a bit of "Senate work" -- like fundraising for his party -- on his junkets. Besides, he never received any of the money personally. And, bottom line, Senator Duffy was (and still is) entitled to his entitlements.

Speaking on CBC-TV's "At Issue" panel last night, Chantal Hébert said that just because someone is not a criminal doesn't mean he is an ethical or honourable person. Just so. Having been convicted of exactly nothing, Mr. Duffy is entitled to take his extra-wide seat in the Senate once again, and be called -- or call himself -- "Honourable". But that doesn't mean anyone has to believe he is any of those nice things the judge called him. The honourable thing for him to do would be to retire to his "principal residence" in PEI. But will Mr. Duffy, who has the nerve of a canal horse, give up his place at the trough? Hah!

Note from Ed.: Full credit and a tip of the hat for the cartoon to Malcolm Mayes, whose fine work can be found in the Edmonton Journal.

Canuck pols censor selves, avoid further debate of niqab ban

Yesterday, Walt concluded "Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue" by saying that it would be amazing if the issue of whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear then niqab didn't come up again in the election debate scheduled for that evening. Within 13 seconds of the debate's end, Agent 3 was on the horn to tell me to be amazed because the word was never mentioned.

Perhaps the omission is not such a surprise after all. Walt is not a believer in conspiracy theories -- except when it comes to MH370 -- but can envision a secret pre-debate meeting in which the minions of all three parties prepared 10-foot polls with which not to touch, ever again, the question of whether immigrants should be or can be required to adapt themselves to the customs and values of their new home.

As Chantal Hébert pointed out on "At Issue" -- see video in yesterday's post -- the vast majority of Canadians think the Harper government's proposal that people should show their faces when giving or receiving any public service, including taking the oath of citizenship, is reasonable. But, the powers that be in the editorial boardrooms of Toronto deem the subject politically incorrect.

The English-language Canadian media, and the politicians chasing the large immigrant vote -- particularly in Toronto, which has the largest Muslim population of any North American city -- are so afraid of offending the Muslims, or being accused of stoking the fires of Islamophobia already burning across Canada, that they have colluded to ban any further discussion of the topic. So when the Groan and Wail headlines its lead story "Federal leaders clash over Canadian values, security in lively debate", they overlook -- deliberately -- the one glaring omission.

Not so Walt's favourite Globe and Mail columnist, Margaret Wente. In today's piece, headed "Why the niqab matters, now and in future", she writes:

If there is one issue that strikes a nerve with Canadians, this is it. Public opposition to the niqab is deep, and wide. A recently released Leger poll, commissioned by the government and conducted in March, found that more than four out of five people – 82 per cent – supported the Conservatives’ position that there is no place for niqabs in citizenship court. In Quebec, the figure was 93 per cent.

As the magnificent Chantal Hébert reminded Mr. Coyne on CBC the other night, the niqab debate is anything but trivial – despite what pundits in Toronto think. The debate about accommodation and values will last far beyond this election. It will be among the biggest issues of our future.

I'm torn. I believe that Canada is strong and confident enough to tolerate a few women in face coverings. I also believe that the niqab has no place in Canada, and that women who wear them should be strongly discouraged (but not, under most circumstances, barred) from doing so. Symbols matter. And this one matters more than most.

Footnote: Another debate, in French only, is scheduled for Friday night. The Big Three leaders -- MM Trudeau, Harper and Mulcair -- will be joined by Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc Québécois, who has vowed to legislate a ban on all religious head coverings in the (unlikely) event his party is elected. At the risk of repeating myself [and being wrong two days in a row. Ed.], it will be amazing if the niqab question isn't raised, politically incorrect or not.

UPDATED: VIDEO: Niqab ban becomes hot Canuck election issue

On Thursday night, the leaders of Canada's Big Three political parties (plus the Little Two parties -- the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party) had another in what promises to be an enervating series of debates on issues which Canuck voters may care about -- or not -- come October 19th, the date set for a general election.

This debate, conducted entirely in French and aired on the French-language media with translations on some of the English channels, was supposed to cover the everything from soup (economic issues) to nuts (Canada's so-called foreign policy). Most of the two hours was taken up with MM Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau talking over each other, repeating the same talking points viewers had heard 100 times already, with Ms May and M Duceppe getting in the occasional jab.

There was only one surprise, that being the vehemence of the five minutes spent discussing (?) the question, pushed by M Duceppe (the Bloc Head), of whether Muslim women should be forced to remove the niqab -- the head-covering and facial veil worn by the more devout of them -- before taking an oath of citizenship or receiving or giving other government services.

This may seem like a small point, but it's a hot question in Québec, and only less so in TROC (The Rest Of Canada) because the ultra-PC Canuck media refuse to acknowledge that it's a sore point with non-Muslim Canadians right across the country.

The issue came to the fore earlier this month, when the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the government's rule requiring all women to show their face at citizenship ceremonies. See "Canucks try again to ban wearing niqab at citizenship ceremonies" (WWW 19/6/15). To no-one's surprise, the court found the regulation violated Muslim women's freedom of religion, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms. The ink was barely dry on the judgment before Mr Harpoon's minions announced there would be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

And so the issue was joined in the debate, with Ms May and M Trudeau clearly pandering to the Muslim minority, Mr Mulcair doing the same rather tepidly, and MM Duceppe and Harper vying to see who could out-nigger the other, as George Wallace would have put it.

In the post-debate analysis on CBC's "At Issue" segment of the national news, Andrew Coyne, who writes good columns for the National Post, expressed surprise that the election campaign had become so fixated on something that will have zero impact on nearly every single voter, a point made during the debate itself by the Greens' Ms May.

"It’s ridiculous," he said. "It’s not an issue that is germane to the future of this country. It is a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things." That brought a withering response from one of Walt's favourite Canadian pundits, Chantal Hébert, who writes for the Toronto Star. Normally Ms Hébert is cool and unflappable, but she answered Mr. Coyne's point by telling him that it was not a trivial issue to something like 75% of Canadians outside Québec who supported the idea of a ban on the niqab, according to a recent opinion poll.

We have video of the entire "At Issue" segment (running time 15:13), including clips from the debate itself, with voice-over in English. The heated exchange between Ms Hébert and Mr. Coyne starts at 5:45 and ends at 9:50 -- about a minute less than the time spent on the issue in the debate itself.



As for the polls to which Ms. Hébert refers, Maclean's tell us that one, conducted in March by Forum Research, found that 67% of Canadians oppose the wearing of niqabs during citizenship ceremonies. An Ipsos poll found a whopping 88% support for the government’s stance. A Leger survey, commissioned by the Privy Council Office over the winter but not released until last week, tallied similar results: 82% in favour of the no-niqab policy.

The Big Three leaders will appear in another debate this evening, ostensibly on questions of foreign policy. It will be amazing if the niqab issue doesn't arise, less amazing if MM Mulcair and Trudeau, having read the numbers, find ways to alter their views to be more in line with those of their countrymen/women/persons.

Further reading:
"Niqab debate leading to wider discussion on religious, cultural accommodation": Chantal Hébert in the Toronto Star.
"The niqab: Trivial politics, or election difference-maker?": Michael Friscolanti in Maclean's.

UPDATE (30/9/15) from Ed.: We're still catching up from Walt's absence over the weekend. Turns out that the afternoon before the debate referred to above, the Harper government released a poll, kept secret until now, showing strong support for banning the niqab at citizen ceremonies. Click here to read the report on CBC News.  

Advice for Iggy

Norman Spector used to be one of Brian Mulroney's most trusted advisors. Now that he has retired from the public service and become disillusioned with the Tories, he sings a different tune.

But his apparent dislike of "Call Me Steve" Harper doesn't mean that he's crazy about the alternative. He seems to share Walt's opinion that the Liberals under Michael Ignatieff aren't going anywhere unless and until they show some leadership and enunciate a policy or two that the average Canadian can support.

In this, he is saying what many others, including pundit Chantal Hébert, have been saying all summer. Here's a message for the Iggster from Hébert, as translated by Spector in his column in today's Globe and Mail.

Liberals would be wise to look past all the negative news they find in the media these days, and to focus on some good advice that appears from time to time. One such case is Chantal Hébert’s column in Le Devoir today, which is substantially different from the one that is published in the Toronto Star, and I think explains why the Liberals find themselves locked into their negative approach:

Ignatieff doesn’t have a Quebec problem. He has a content problem, which explains why he has problems not just in Québec, but also in Ontario and in B.C.….

It’s all the more risky to bet on the leader’s personality to win an election because one can be a brilliant intellectual, which he is, and not have any talent as a political leader. What distinguishes good leaders from those who chose the wrong career, in the end, is instinct. And this is a quality that improves over time. …

The admiration of his inner circle is an obstacle that gets in the way of critical judgement of his performance. In this regard, a worrisome scene I observed with my own eyes was his entourage being moved to tears by his (forgettable) speech at the end of the Vancouver convention, last spring.

On the other hand, they have a simplistic appreciation of Stephen Harper, which does not correspond to his remarkable track record of gaining ground in every election and, in government, not creating waves that would lead to a Liberal sweep. The result of their myopia is a huge gap in their rhetoric which resonates only with the converted.

Surrounded by advisers who overestimate his qualities and underestimate those of Harper, Ignatieff won’t go much farther if he doesn’t figure it out very soon. And it will not suffice for him to remove the little Québec stone in his shoe to regain his momentum.

Hmm. Wise words. But is Iggy listening?

Tax revolt...against whom?

Ontario political pundits are having difficulty reading the entrails of the St. Paul's by-election and recent opinion polls. It was hoped by new Tory leader Timmeh Hudak, and feared by Liberal backroomers that pissed-off voters would trounce the new and very liberal Liberal candidate.

Instead he won in a walk, in a by-election in which only about 25% of eligible voters bothered to come out. Neither the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax nor the scandals at e-Health or the Ontario Lottery Corporation seemed to exercise them much.

For those who have been asleep, the HST is being put into place by Ontario's Liberal government at the behest of "Call me Steve" Harper's federal Tories, to take effect next summer. The McGuinty Liberals, having resisted harmonization for years, say that we need it now because of the recession. So will it be dismantled when the recession is over? Don't hold your breath!

What they're saying down at Tim's is that it doesn't matter, because we're already paying 13%in taxes -- 8% to the province and 5% to the feds. What they don't seem to realize is that many ordinary, everyday things are presently exempt from the provincial sales tax. When the HST goes into effect, you'll see an immediate 8% increase in the cost of a haircut, a newspaper and your daily double-double!

Doesn't anyone care about this? In other countries they'd be out marching in the streets. The only marching we see in Ontario is during multicultural festivals!

Here's a twist! It's just possible that the voters may be smart enough to place the blame for the HST squarely where it should like -- with the Tories!

A poll in today's online Toronto Star asks "Will the introduction of a harmonized sales tax be a key issue for you in the next federal election?" As I write, the tally is "Yes" 63%, "No" 36%. Harper has been a study in silence, leaving McGuinty to take the flak for this blatant tax grab, but perhaps we hosers won't be taken in, after all.

Footnote: Chantal Hébert has an excellent column in today's Toronto Star making this same point. And we didn't even discuss it before sitting down at our respective keyboards!

Wearing it

Walt's not going to say "I told you so" just yet. My prediction was that "Call me Steve" Harper would still be in office at the end of the year. So surviving one vote this coming Friday leaves us with a couple of months yet to go.

The comic figure in this week's episode is Jack Layton, leader of the Few Democrats, pictured at left.

Having made sport of the Liberals for not joining his party in voting against the Harper government 79 times, Comrade Jack has now decided that on Friday his party will, er, vote with the government. It is rumoured that Jack is headed for Payless Shoes to see if they have any size 14DDD flip-flops!

Chantal Hébert has an excellent column in today's Toronto Star. I quote only the first sentence: In hindsight, Jack Layton would have been well advised to fall on his sword over the summer and ask the NDP to start looking for a successor.