Erin O'Toole Under Fire

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
People are happy with him here, I fully expect him to keep his seat. That will be good enough for me. Canada as a whole is unlikely to put the NDP in power federally, that's an awful big step top the left for a country still jockeying over different flavours of center.
What has he done other than support the party line and vote with the liberals ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colpy

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
If you wanted liberal I am sure one is running in your riding , or you can vote for the liberal lite conservative .
Great choice , Liberal liberal , NDP liberal or Conservative liberal .
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,673
239
63
Canada
Copy / Paste

Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau takes a knee to the 'nation' of Quebec

Quebec can unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution, the prime minister says. So who speaks for Canada?

Rex Murphy May 21, 2021

The past few days have been very enlightening. Especially around Quebec’s Bill 96 and the attempt to unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution.

After the bill’s introduction in the Quebec legislature, Prime Minister Trudeau almost breathlessly announced that it was “perfectly legitimate” for one province to alter the Constitution of the entire nation. In particular that Quebec, which did not sign the Constitution Act, is nonetheless endowed with the singular privilege of the power to amend it.

From which I derive a new principle of constitutional law — herewith: that the only province which did not and has not signed the Constitution Act has the right to, unilaterally, amend the Constitution.

And the corollary to that principle is that any and all provinces which have signed that act cannot unilaterally or otherwise amend the Constitution.

There’s a boatload of words to describe this state of affairs. There’s odd, strange, arcane, puzzling, illogical, oxymoronic, mind-numbing, and believe me I could add 20 more and still have a full supply left over.

However none or all of them together captures the strange beauty of hearing the prime minister of Canada publicly endorse the “right” of a province officially offside of the Constitution of Canada, to change that Constitution on its own and unilateral say so.

Neither the Senate, the provinces, nor the House of Commons need be consulted when a great change is to be made in the country’s prime document. It summons the question: Who speaks for Canada?

It calls for another question. Does Mr. Trudeau’s eerie obeisance to the Quebec government’s radical manoeuvre have any connection with political advantage for his party in an election many think may come before the end of summer? Is he “taking a knee” to the Quebec premier for the dividends that will accrue to the Liberal party, in Quebec?

Under this legislation, Quebec will declare French “the only official language of Quebec” and that “Quebecers form a nation.”

So here’s what we are left with if these propositions hold.

Canada consists of nine provinces, three territories and the Nation of Quebec.

Secondly, Canada is officially (and ever so proudly, especially by those in the Liberal camp) a bilingual country. Except in Quebec which will legislate monolingualism in its territory. The rest of the country will continue to follow the laws and practices of bilingualism, which policy was originally introduced and subsequently enforced to placate French-speaking Quebec. French-speaking Quebec, in return, will nullify bilingualism, and go officially unilingual. You may return now, dear Reader, to the parade of adjectives above (and add your own) starting with “odd.”

Other questions, only some of which are rhetorical: Can our good friends in Alberta be granted like privileges and powers? Can Premier Jason Kenney propose, and get support from Mr. Trudeau for an amendment to the Constitution that reads — “Any province vetoing a pipeline from Calgary to Nova Scotia will be stripped of all ‘equalization’ revenues? This amendment will apply equally to all officially bilingual provinces and officially unilingual nations within Confederation.”

Another question attends the matter of bilingualism more generally. Can all the provinces where English is absolutely the main language, follow Quebec’s example and go officially for a “one-language only” — a majority language policy? May they put their own amendments to the Constitution forward, and await easy endorsement that their say-so and their say-so alone is necessary for Constitutional change?

Incidentally, can this new procedure — the premiers propose, the prime minister endorses — be formalized, or is that necessary?

Away from the questions now, though there are so many more.

It is more than provoking, with so much of Canada in the midst of an ill-managed COVID crisis; in the brutal experience of tens of thousands of businesses, now dead or dying; in reckless financial expenditures; with a Parliament that mimics more a neighbourhood takeout than a deliberative assembly — pickup or delivery for all major announcements; with scandals galore from WE to military harassment allegations; with pending internet censorship legislation; is it not more than provoking that this fundamental and core assault on the country’s Constitution is being so complacently received?

With a wave of the prime ministerial hand we see the Constitution itself being made a toy. We see Quebec abandoning a prime characteristic of modern Canadian governmental policy — bilingualism — and the son of the prime minister who brought that policy to life, airily giving it a pass.

We see — or rather will see — a storm of disapproval from every other province that understands what’s at stake. We will see even deeper and angry dissent from the Western provinces which witness, once again as always, Quebec receiving deluxe treatment from the federal government –– while they are being gutted, their main industry hobbled and made a target for shutdown by a green Liberal government.

We have a very careless and frequently clueless federal government, one which on all major files — emphatically on COVID vaccines — is shallow or incompetent. There are mock high-school parliaments with better performance.

Finally, on the Quebec bill itself, it is compliance and electoral cowardice on all sides. The NDP supporting it cannot surprise. Jagmeet Singh has been playing Robin to Mr. Trudeau’s Batman since the election. The Bloc — well, that speaks for itself.

But Erin O’Toole? What are you thinking? First your green plan. And now a quick and supine endorsement of this measure. Have you forgotten your title and position — Leader of the Opposition?

Does any party in this lame Parliament “speak for Canada?”

National Post
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
Copy / Paste

Rex Murphy: Justin Trudeau takes a knee to the 'nation' of Quebec

Quebec can unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution, the prime minister says. So who speaks for Canada?

Rex Murphy May 21, 2021

The past few days have been very enlightening. Especially around Quebec’s Bill 96 and the attempt to unilaterally alter the Canadian Constitution.

After the bill’s introduction in the Quebec legislature, Prime Minister Trudeau almost breathlessly announced that it was “perfectly legitimate” for one province to alter the Constitution of the entire nation. In particular that Quebec, which did not sign the Constitution Act, is nonetheless endowed with the singular privilege of the power to amend it.

From which I derive a new principle of constitutional law — herewith: that the only province which did not and has not signed the Constitution Act has the right to, unilaterally, amend the Constitution.

And the corollary to that principle is that any and all provinces which have signed that act cannot unilaterally or otherwise amend the Constitution.

There’s a boatload of words to describe this state of affairs. There’s odd, strange, arcane, puzzling, illogical, oxymoronic, mind-numbing, and believe me I could add 20 more and still have a full supply left over.

However none or all of them together captures the strange beauty of hearing the prime minister of Canada publicly endorse the “right” of a province officially offside of the Constitution of Canada, to change that Constitution on its own and unilateral say so.

Neither the Senate, the provinces, nor the House of Commons need be consulted when a great change is to be made in the country’s prime document. It summons the question: Who speaks for Canada?

It calls for another question. Does Mr. Trudeau’s eerie obeisance to the Quebec government’s radical manoeuvre have any connection with political advantage for his party in an election many think may come before the end of summer? Is he “taking a knee” to the Quebec premier for the dividends that will accrue to the Liberal party, in Quebec?

Under this legislation, Quebec will declare French “the only official language of Quebec” and that “Quebecers form a nation.”

So here’s what we are left with if these propositions hold.

Canada consists of nine provinces, three territories and the Nation of Quebec.

Secondly, Canada is officially (and ever so proudly, especially by those in the Liberal camp) a bilingual country. Except in Quebec which will legislate monolingualism in its territory. The rest of the country will continue to follow the laws and practices of bilingualism, which policy was originally introduced and subsequently enforced to placate French-speaking Quebec. French-speaking Quebec, in return, will nullify bilingualism, and go officially unilingual. You may return now, dear Reader, to the parade of adjectives above (and add your own) starting with “odd.”

Other questions, only some of which are rhetorical: Can our good friends in Alberta be granted like privileges and powers? Can Premier Jason Kenney propose, and get support from Mr. Trudeau for an amendment to the Constitution that reads — “Any province vetoing a pipeline from Calgary to Nova Scotia will be stripped of all ‘equalization’ revenues? This amendment will apply equally to all officially bilingual provinces and officially unilingual nations within Confederation.”

Another question attends the matter of bilingualism more generally. Can all the provinces where English is absolutely the main language, follow Quebec’s example and go officially for a “one-language only” — a majority language policy? May they put their own amendments to the Constitution forward, and await easy endorsement that their say-so and their say-so alone is necessary for Constitutional change?

Incidentally, can this new procedure — the premiers propose, the prime minister endorses — be formalized, or is that necessary?

Away from the questions now, though there are so many more.

It is more than provoking, with so much of Canada in the midst of an ill-managed COVID crisis; in the brutal experience of tens of thousands of businesses, now dead or dying; in reckless financial expenditures; with a Parliament that mimics more a neighbourhood takeout than a deliberative assembly — pickup or delivery for all major announcements; with scandals galore from WE to military harassment allegations; with pending internet censorship legislation; is it not more than provoking that this fundamental and core assault on the country’s Constitution is being so complacently received?

With a wave of the prime ministerial hand we see the Constitution itself being made a toy. We see Quebec abandoning a prime characteristic of modern Canadian governmental policy — bilingualism — and the son of the prime minister who brought that policy to life, airily giving it a pass.

We see — or rather will see — a storm of disapproval from every other province that understands what’s at stake. We will see even deeper and angry dissent from the Western provinces which witness, once again as always, Quebec receiving deluxe treatment from the federal government –– while they are being gutted, their main industry hobbled and made a target for shutdown by a green Liberal government.

We have a very careless and frequently clueless federal government, one which on all major files — emphatically on COVID vaccines — is shallow or incompetent. There are mock high-school parliaments with better performance.

Finally, on the Quebec bill itself, it is compliance and electoral cowardice on all sides. The NDP supporting it cannot surprise. Jagmeet Singh has been playing Robin to Mr. Trudeau’s Batman since the election. The Bloc — well, that speaks for itself.

But Erin O’Toole? What are you thinking? First your green plan. And now a quick and supine endorsement of this measure. Have you forgotten your title and position — Leader of the Opposition?

Does any party in this lame Parliament “speak for Canada?”

National Post
The answer is no . Western alienation is irrelevant.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
18,086
3,917
113
Twin Moose Creek
Taking the West for granted as usual

'True partner' for Alberta: Conservative leader O'Toole confident in western support


Conservative leader Erin O'Toole says he's confident his party will maintain broad support across Alberta — and possibly turn the only non-Conservative riding in the province blue — if an election is called in short order........More
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
98,433
4,546
113
Moccasin Flats
Where is the whole video? Are they fishing for donations for "legal fees"?


Another "fund raising stunt".

@EzraLevant vows to sue the Conservative Party staffers that assaulted David for simply asking questions from Conservative candidate Melissa Lantsman. Please go to http://SaveMenzies.com to help fight his unjust charges

He'll fight with your money? Fight to be first in the buffet line?
 
Last edited:

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
18,086
3,917
113
Twin Moose Creek
Where is the whole video? Are they fishing for donations for "legal fees"?


Another "fund raising stunt".

@EzraLevant vows to sue the Conservative Party staffers that assaulted David for simply asking questions from Conservative candidate Melissa Lantsman. Please go to http://SaveMenzies.com to help fight his unjust charges

He'll fight with your money? Fight to be first in the buffet line?
The begging for cash is over the top, the news reported ain't so bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: taxslave

no color

Electoral Member
May 20, 2007
333
86
28
1967 World's Fair
The Conservative Party is at odds with itself. Can O’Toole pull it together?

I had some high expectations from Mr. O'Toole early on, he spoke of issues that in any other context would have branded him as a "leftie", racial and economic inequality, and environmental responsibility. But his efforts to attract more voters from the center have divided his own party internally, with the social conservative segment openly speaking mutiny. This could be fatal for the CPC, if O'Toole can't be seen as able to control his own party, who is going to want to give him the keys to the country ?
Yup. O’Toole is going down. As a lifelong social conservative, I cannot in good conscience vote for a liberal wearing a conservative hat.

The only real hope to save the party is to somehow try and get Harper back as leader. Otherwise, social conservatives will either:
1. Vote for Maxine Bernier
2. Sit out the election

So unless something major happens between now and the election (ie new Conservative Leader), my vote will be going to Maxime Bernier.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,793
2,646
113
Olympus Mons
The tool is nothing but liberal lite. Like liberals he is only interested in power, not doing what is right for the country.
It's not just Liberals. As I've mentioned in here elsewhere more than once, it's the inevitability of party politics. The parties' interests lay solely in power; gaining it, maintaining it and re-attaining it when it's lost. The voter is nothing more than the vehicle that hands them the power. Only to be ignored entirely until the next election. Unless of course you're a party crony, a big money lobbyist or belong to a "preferred" special interest group.
 

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
3,624
1,355
113
Edmonton
It's not just Liberals. As I've mentioned in here elsewhere more than once, it's the inevitability of party politics. The parties' interests lay solely in power; gaining it, maintaining it and re-attaining it when it's lost. The voter is nothing more than the vehicle that hands them the power. Only to be ignored entirely until the next election. Unless of course you're a party crony, a big money lobbyist or belong to a "preferred" special interest group.
Isn't that the truth. I'm growing quite frustrated with the failure of our leadership to do anything that makes any sense. Their heads are so far up their you-know-whats that stupid stuff is being done when important stuff is being ignored. We're in serious trouble & don't even know it yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
Isn't that the truth. I'm growing quite frustrated with the failure of our leadership to do anything that makes any sense. Their heads are so far up their you-know-whats that stupid stuff is being done when important stuff is being ignored. We're in serious trouble & don't even know it yet.
How can people know , they get their news from t.v. And newspaper . You know where that leads .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,512
284
83
Penticton, BC
I agree with most of the above posts. The disconnect between elected officials and those who elect them is systemic, it infects both the major parties thoroughly. I have often thought that having enough independent MPs to amount to a swing vote would go a long way to keeping the two majors a bit more focused on real issues instead of the power game, but that's just not a realistic hope in the short term. I think the NDP could fill that roll for now. I don't think they're ready for power but they could go a long way to keeping a minority government in check. I don't think either the Libs or the Cons can be trusted with a majority just now.

I'm hearing hints that the PM will be visiting Rideau Hall this weekend, writ in hand.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
Well why aren’t they ? They have the balance of power as it stands .
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,512
284
83
Penticton, BC
Well why aren’t they ? They have the balance of power as it stands .
Well obviously they haven't seen anything worth taking a stand on yet. It's obvious to me, as it is likely obvious to them, that the whining coming out of the CPC is just electioneering, which falls in line with comments earlier in this thread that all they want is to wrestle power from the hands of the Liberals. If they want to do that they should try something new, like coming forth with policy suggestions that actually do something. I downloaded a copy of their "Policy Declaration" released this spring and it was seventy-some pages of vagueness and hints at "same old". They really need to come out of the past if they want new voters, otherwise people will just hold their noses and vote Liberal. Again.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Dixie Cup

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
Are you one of those guys that believes in never ending deficits robbing the population of their labor ?
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
21,800
2,821
113
B.C.
How much resistance did the NDP put up to the Liberal spending spree ? Run away inflation eating the ever increasing value of the dollar , stealing seniors nest eggs . Yup they are the working mans party all right .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dixie Cup