Canadian political leaders debate -- what they REALLY said

We don't like to interrupt the Easter Triduum with worldly affairs, but since the Liberal government of Canuckistan has chosen to schedule the only face-to-face election debates with its opponents for the middle of Holy Week, we must devote today's post to the correction of misinformation, disinformation and false impressions created by the version of the English-language debate broadcast by the lickspittle, bought-and-paid-for "mainstream media".

Dear Canadian readers, what you saw on Thursday evening was not the real verbal exchange between Prime Minister pro tem Mark Carnage, Cuckservative leader Pierre "Pipi" Poilievre, and pinko socialist Sikh leader Jugmeat Singh. The "debate" you saw was generated by AI to make it appear as if Canada's "leaders" have at least the first clue about how to fix the No-longer-great No-longer-white North. Here's a summary of what they really said. 

Dear Canadian voters, the advance polls are open today and (sadly) on Easter Sunday. Get out there and vote for the least of the three evils. [He means Poilievre. Ed.]

Your Singhs today (Canadian election edition)

One week into the campaign -- just four left -- and things are not looking good for the pinko NDP (New Democratic Party, which is neither "new" nor "democratic"). Under the leadership of Jagmeet Singh, it has sunk to single digits in the polls -- right down there with the Green Party, the People's Party of Canada (too bad, Max!) and None of the Above. 

To make matters worse, the Knee-Dippers are already out of money. Changes in election financing law some years back put a stop to the cash flow from union checkoffs, and the blue-collar types who used to vote NDP have left it to the Volvo progressives, who drive Volvos because they don't give their money away.

So Jugmeet Singh and his advisors have had to come up with a new fundraising scheme. Here it is.

Sikh mothers across Canada (especially the many in Brampton ON and Surrey BC) are being used to donate at least one of their daughters for the good of the cause. "One girl more or less, makes no difference. Plenty more where they came from!" 

Note from Ed.: Before you run out to report Walt to the Anti-Racism Police, take note of today's date.

VIDEO: Canuck socialist leader dreams BIG!

Some things are still funny, even in Canuckistan, the wokest country on earth. [Seriously? Woker than Britain or France or the USA? Ed.] The House of Commons, the lower house of the Canadian Parliament, is about to take its annual two-month Christmas vacation [should read "Winter Holiday vacation". Ed.] but there's still time for a little give-and-take during the daily Question Period. 

Here's a clip showing Canuck solons in high spirits [about a quart, I should say. Ed.] listening to the Hon. Jugmeat Singh, leader of the pinko New Democratic Party, trying three times to ask Prime Minister Blackie McBlackface a simple question.  

Dream on, Mr Singh. But don't forget to order your parachute -- a pink one, perhaps -- for after the next election. Maybe instead of aiming to be prime minister of all Canuckistan, you should be looking towards your homeland, Khalistan.They won't laugh at you there... will they? 

Canadian election: Curses! Fooled again!

Ed. here. I'm stitching together a bunch of text messages and e-mails received from Walt at the Canadian Affairs Desk, somewhere north of the World's Longets Open Border. Interspersed with requests for cash and substances were notes on yesterday's federal election in Canuckistan. The messages stopped coming around 0300 EDT, by which time the issue seemed pretty much decided.

Let me set the table (a new buzz-phrase) for readers outside the Great No-longer-white North. Canadians from sea to sea to sea (Canuck politicians' buzz-phrase) today [Monday. Ed.] to elect a new House of Commons and federal government. 338 ridings [electoral districts. Ed.] were up for grabs. Five parties fielded candidates in most of them. Here are pix and profiles of the leaders.



From left to right (in the picture, not politically) you see: Andrew Scheer (Cuckservative), Maxime Bernier (People's Party of Canada, endorsed by yr obdt servant), Jagmeet Singh (NDP = scary socialist party), Just In Trudeau (Gliberal) and Elizabeth May (Green Loony). Not pictured is Yves-François Blanchet, whose Bloc Québécois ran candidates only in Québec (duh!) but wound up with the third-highest number of seats in the new House.

In "What if no-one wins the Canadian election?" (WWW 19/10/19), Walt predicted a close race between Mr Sheer's Tories and Mr Socks Liberals, ending with neither party obtaining a majority of the seats, and possibly leading to a constitutional crisis as to who would have the right to form the government. (For details of how that works... or not... read the post.)

For the record, my prediction, written down in the records of Tony the Barber and other turf accountants was: Liberals 142, Conservatives 132, Bloc Québécois 35, NDP 20, Greens 6, PPC 1 (Max Bernier's own seat in Québec) and 2 Independents. The final standings [as of 0630 today. Ed.] were... drum roll please.........
Liberals 157, Conservatives 121, Bloc 32, NDP 24, Greens 3, Independent 1 and (sadly) PPC 0.

Yes, that means "Mad Max" lost his own seat, and the People's Party will have no representation in the House of Commons. Agent 78 says that's what happens when you tell the truth about what you will do (or not do) if elected. In M Bernier's case, the deal-breaker, in his own riding and throughout la Belle Province, as his proposal to scrap the supply management system for dairy products -- an arcane point for most Canadians but a very sore point for 1000s of QC farmers. Might want to have another think about that one, Max!

The result are, or should be a great disappointment for the Cuckservatives. The anti-Trudeau sentiment was so strong, in most of Canada outside the Toronto and Montreal conurbations [How long have you been waiting to use that word? Ed.] that it took real creative genius not to win. That genius is the Tories' leader, Andrew Scheer, a one-time insurance salesman from Saskatchewan with all the charisma of a bed of kelp. Mr Scheer and his advisors tried to position themselves as centrists, not true conservatives, and wound up looking like "almost-Liberals" or "liberal Republicans" or "progressive Conservatives", an oxymoronical phrase which was actually the party's previous name. "Red Tories" -- who could believe that?

In fact the Conservatives won the popular vote, with 34.5% to the Liberals' 33%. But, as Hellery Clinton will remember, winning the popular vote is not the same as winning the election. [Didn't she say last week that she could "win again" in 2020? Ed.] Canuckistan doesn't have an electoral college, but what counts is not the percentage of the popular vote but how the votes are distributed. The winner is the party that gets the most seats, not the most votes.

After a tight campaign that saw the two leading parties struggle to break out of the pack, the Liberals held on to just enough seats in Atlantic Canada, Québec and Ontario to secure a minority government. Conservative turnout and support was very high across the prairie provinces. In Alberta, they won almost 70% of the popular vote to 14% for the Liberals. In Saskatchewan, the Tories took 65% of the vote to the Liberals' 10%. But alas, those provinces, being sparsely populated, account for only a fraction of the seats allotted to the Toronto, Montréal and Vancouver conurbations. [That's enough conurbations. Ed.]

So it's a minority government for the Liberals then, with Justin Trudeau, the "preening fraud" (as Andrew Coyne called him in the National Post) remaining Prime Minister of Canuckistan for as long as he can avoid pissing off the NDP and the Bloc. Mr Socks had some help, by the way, in the final week of the campaign, when none other than the Prez tweeted his support for M Trudeau. The bromance continues...

but I do wonder what would happen if M Trudeau should, in the interest of better Canada-US relations, declare  his support for Still-President Trump in about a year's time. Wouldn't that be, errr,foreign interference in the affairs of another country?

There's more, but I can't make sense of it... something about shorting the Canadian dollar. I thought beaverbucks were the same size as real money, only more colourful? Anyhoo, Walt will undoubtedly have more to say after he sleeps off his late night. Ed.

Further reading (added 23/10/19): "The preachy, gauzy, meaningless aphorisms don't suffice, Justin Trudeau", by Neil Macdonald, the CBC's token anti-Trudeau guy, 23/10/19.

What is Jagmeet Singh saying?

Jagmeet Singh is fighting his first general election as leader of Canada's Not-so-new Democratic Party. The socialists (for that's what they are) are struggling to hold onto third place in the polls, facing a serious challenge [seriously? Ed.] from the loonier left Green Party.

Mr Singh was in Toronto this morning, where he promised to put a cap on the amount telecoms could charge long-suffering Canucks for cellphone and internet service. Not that it matters, because the NDP has two chances of forming the next government -- slim and none. Anyhoo, following his speech, the turbanned tribune fielded some questions from the press. Adrian Wyld, of Canadian Press, snapped this photo.

Said photo appeared with the story on the CTV News website, around lunchtime (EDT). It also appeared on the CBC News website, where it remained for about 40 seconds before being taken down and replaced with a stock shot. Maybe the picture has a hidden meaning that Walt didn't get? What does that emoticon mean anyway? Answers on the back of a postage stamp, please, to the usual address.

Sikh soldiers from Canada ready to liberate Punjab?

There was much tightening of sphincters across the Indian state of Punjab, and much soiling of shorts in New Delhi and Ottawa yesterday, when this photo, taken on Sunday, appeared on the Net.

WTF? Where was this? Who are those guys?! What was going on? The answer to the second question is that they were parading down Lakeshore Boulevard in Toronto -- the city that thinks it's world-class. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces (for that's why they are) are not (as some thought) Jagmeet Singh's personal bodyguards, nor are they (as rumoured) members of an elite squad of Indo-Canadians departing for a mission to liberate "Khalistan", aka the Punjab, homeland to Canada's million or so Sikhs.

They are Sikhs though, as is their ultimate commander, the Canadian Minister of Defence, Harjit Sajjan. Mr Sajjan claimed today that he did not authorized the appearance of this squad in the annual Khalsa Day parade, in which Sikhs anticipate the, errr, liberation of Khalistan. Mr Sajjan says (now) that there was nothing wrong with these turbaned heroes being in the parade, but that their commander should have ordered "No assault rifles!" Or "at least not 'at the ready' as if you're on combat patrol! That comes later..."

Both the commander who authorized the marching contingent to carry rifles (against government policy) and whoever told them how to carry the rifles (just plain stupid) definitely have some `splainin' to do! A spokesthingy for the CAF said the army's top commander in Ontario is following up with the unit and has issued additional orders prohibiting the carrying of weapons at similar events.

She could not, however, say whether a formal investigation or disciplinary action had been launched. Chances of that happening when those involved, including the Honourable Mr Sajjan, are Sikhs? Slim and none. Hey, there's an election coming in less than six months!

VIDEO: PPC's Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson and NDP's Sikh leader in heated debate on immigration and "racism"

Last week Walt posted a video of one of the all-candidates debates in Burnaby South, an electoral district outside of Vancouver which will be one of the first tests of Maxime Bernier's new People's Party of Canada. The PPC's candidate there is Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, a staunch pro-lifer and Canada-firster. She is in tough against Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the socialist New Democratic Party, who is taking his last best shot at finally getting a seat in the House of Commons. Last week's video got more hits than any other post so far this month.

Today we have video from the last of those debates, in which the hot topic was immigration. (That's likely to be the No. 1 issue in the general election due in October.) Ms Tyler Thompson called for increased border security and strict controls on immigration, including stringent vetting of would-be immigrants to ensure that there won't be a repeat of the Marrissa Shen tragedy, reported last September on WWW. Predictably, Mr Singh and his supporters in the crowd called Ms Tyler Thompson a racist and tried to shout her down. Watch what happened next. Running time: 11:29.

VIDEO: People's Party candidate kills at Burnaby South debate

This is a follow-up to our quiz last Tuesday in which you were invited to spot the People's Party of Canada candidate in a pic of the six candidates contesting the by-election in the Canadian electoral district of Burnaby South. The PPC candidate is Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, who looks like a winner to me!

Today we have a video, posted to YouTube by a convert to the PPC, in which Ms Tyler Thompson debates the others on the topic "Can Canada survive Facebook?" -- the role on the issues of free speech and the censorship of politically incorrect opinions in the lamestream media. You'll enjoy seeing her eviscerate the pinko NDP candidate -- Jagmeet Singh, the one who the media say is going to win -- and the others. Listen to what this woman has to say. How could you not vote for her?!



The by-election will be held on February 25th. Walt isn't taking bets, because it's pretty hard for the candidate of a brand new party to win on the first go-round, but I'll sure be watching!

Quiz: Spot the People's Party of Canada candidate

Today Walt has a little quiz for you, related to a by-election to be held in the British Columbia riding of Burnaby South. [Explain, please! Ed.] Under the rules of the Canadian House of Commons, if a seat becomes vacant, a special election, called a "by-election" must be held after a time so the people of that riding (= district) won't lack a Member to draw a large salary for misrepresenting them. On February 25th, the people of Burnaby South -- a suburb of Vancouver -- get a chance to replace an NDP (= socialist) Member who quit to find a better job.

What makes this one interesting is the New Democratic Party standard-bearer this time is none other than Jagmeet Singh! [Who?! Ed.] Mr Singh is the poster boy for tribal politics and bloc voting, having marshalled a gang of Sikh people to elect him leader of the NDP, way back in 2017. Unfortunately for him and his party, Mr Singh didn't have a seat in the House of Commons, having quit his job as deputy leader of the NDP in the Ontario legislature to find a better job.

Not being an MP, Mr Singh couldn't participate in the deliberations of the Commons, or do very much else except stand at the door and look hopeful. With the NDP at its lowest ebb in the polls (not to mention fundraising) in decades, he was given an ultimatum by the remaining members -- all three of them -- that he'd better get himself elected right sharpish, so threw his turban in the Burnaby ring.

Mr Singh may have expected that the ruling Liberals would show him the courtesy of not putting up a candidate to oppose him, particularly since the pundits say the pinkos would fare worse, in the October general election, with Mr Singh at the helm than they would with ABS (Anyone But Singh). Alas, it was not to be.

The Liberals nominated a nice Chinese-Canadian lady, who made the mistake of speaking honestly and directly about the ethnicity issue, telling her copatriots that they should vote her because she's one of them and Mr Singh is, errr, a Sikh. As Walt reported in "Most Canadians think Islam, Sikhism bad for their society" (WWW 17/11/17), most Canadians think... [We get it. Ed.]

For telling the truth, the Liberal candidate was forced by her own party (Just In Trudeau, Prop.) to step down. However, the local Liberals showed a bit of backbone and nominated another Chinese-Canadian, one of the three gentleman shown in this picture, taken a couple of days ago just before an all-candidates debate.

That would be Richard Lee, the one in the grey sweater. The debate moderator, at the far left, is explaining the ground rules to Mr Lee and all the other Burnaby South candidates, including Jagmeet Singh -- the one wearing the turban and the most expensive suit. [I thought all socialists dressed in tweed jackets and corduroy pants. Ed.] So now you know who two of the candidates are. Of the remaining four, two are independents, one is a Conservative, and one represents Maxime Bernier's new People's Party of Canada. Today's quiz: Which one is the PPC candidate?

If you guessed it's the only woman in the crowd, you're right... and so is she! She's Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson, who has a pretty good shot at making a race of it, given that Canada's Conservatives are just a hair to the right of the libtards. Jay Shin, the Conservative, is on the right only in the picture. The independents, left to right, are Terry Grimwood and Valentine Wu.

Ed. has told me that we don't have any prize for this one, other than the satisfaction, if you're a supporter of the PPC [and if you aren't, why not?! Ed.] of knowing that you instinctively chose the kind of candidate you'd be right to vote for!

Poll: Most Canadians think Islam, Sikhism bad for their society

Just heard from Agent 3 for the second time this week. In the third week of October (he writes) he responded to a poll conducted by the respected (and politically neutral) Angus Reid organization. Since the subject was "social issues", Agent 3 responded with alacrity (and very quickly too), but, since he figured the poll was being taken on behalf of Canada's Liberal government, he didn't expect to see the results published.

Surprise! The poll of nearly 2000 Canucks was conducted in partnership with Faith in Canada 150, powered by Cardus, a think tank. It's a non-denominational initiative "designed to engage Canadians and their institutions in a rich and robust conversation on faith in our common life." They took the poll, it seems, to see what impact their efforts to Draw All Faiths Together (DAFT) have had, and released the results earlier this week... even though the results were disappointing to those who believe people of all "faith communities" should get in a big circle and sing "Kumbaya".

The survey found that Canadians are divided over whether religious diversity is healthy for the country, and consider Islam, in particular, to be a negative force. 26% of respondents said increasing religious diversity is a good thing, while 23% said it is bad. (Agent 3 didn't say which group he fell into, but we can guess, can't we.) 44% said diversity brings a mix of good and bad, and the remaining 7% were unsure or, being Canadian, too polite to say how they really feel.

Questions about respondents' views on particular religious groups revealed strong anti-Islam sentiment. 46% of those polled said Islam is damaging Canada, while only 13% per cent said it is beneficial. 20% either did not know or care to say (see above), while 21% said the "Religion of Peace" has no real impact. The pollsters said the results are in keeping with "a well-documented pattern. Namely, if Islam is involved, a significant segment of Canadians will react negatively."

Catholicism, Protestantism, evangelical Christianity and Judaism all had overall positive ratings. The only other religion with an overall negative score was Sikhism, with 22% calling it damaging and 13%. Bad news for Jagmeet Singh, the new leader of Canada's socialistic New Democrats, who makes a big point of being a practising Sikh, wearing his very tall orange turban as a kind of visual punctuation mark.

Angus Reid, the founder and president of the eponymous institute, said he found it "disheartening that Canadians are not more committed to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." Only a slight majority — 55% — of respondents said freedom of religion makes Canada a better country, while 14% said the freedom makes Canada worse and 21% thought it has no impact. Mr Reid told an interviewer, "I think the low number of Canadians who celebrate the fact that we have religious freedom is very troubling and really speaks to the forces of secularization that are at work in Canadian society."

Mr Reid sees in the results a "potential for intolerance" towards believers, especially adherents of minority religions. Asked whether various groups' influence was growing or shrinking in Canada, respondents identified Islam, Sikhism and Hinduism as growing. Canada's more established religious groups were all seen to have a shrinking influence.

Ray Pennings, executive vice-president of Cardus, said he thinks "what we're talking about is a public narrative." He found significance in the finding that the two groups seen negatively are also those with visible religious symbols such as the hijab and turban. (The poll was taken in the same week that the Québec National Assembly passed Bill 62, which restricts the wearing of religious headgear when providing or receiving public services.) "Is it a discomfort with the particulars of their faith," Mr Pennings asked, "or is it a discomfort with the fact that they’re different than us?"

The pollsters asked about that -- about "cases where religious practice intersects with the public sphere". There was solid opposition to the niqab, a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the entire face except the eyes. 49% of respondents said a woman in a niqab should be prohibited from visiting a government office and 29% said she should be discouraged but tolerated. Only 22% said the woman should be welcomed.

As is frequently seen on questions of religion, opinion in Québec was strongest on many of the questions. Fully 55% of Quebec respondents said Islam is damaging, and it was the only region where more people considered Judaism damaging (22%) than saw it as beneficial (11%). Québécois were most opposed to the niqab, with 68% saying it should be banned in government offices, which is the gist of Bill 62. They were also the most likely (31% vs 23% nationally) to identify increasing religious diversity as a bad thing.