18 Comments

To make it easier for all Canadians to understand I will put national security into context. If Telford’s testimony could in any way hurt the Liberal Party then it is off limits as the Liberal party equals Canada. Easier now?

Expand full comment
founding

The Liberal Party sees itself as having the same relationship to the Canadian state as the Communist Party of China has to the People's Republic.

Expand full comment

Gerald Butts noted in the 2015 election that "arrogance is the Liberal Party's kryptonite." Something that was apparent after being out of power and condemned to diminishing status as a 3rd or 4th party for a decade seems to have faded from Liberal awareness if it was ever really present. Shortly after the 2015 election, the Liberals were already proclaiming "Canada is back!" as if the nation had been usurped and held captive by illegitimate barbarians for the preceding decade.

I find an interesting parallel between the Liberal lionization of Pierre Trudeau and French celebration of Napoleon. Napoleon is a French hero, initiating many important changes in French society and bringing glory (for a time) to the French nation. Napoleon's reputation outside of France is decidedly rather mixed, with many other nations seeing him more as an authoritarian warlord who brought ruin and suffering to Europe for 20 years. Pierre Trudeau is a hero to the Liberal party, who never forgot the thrill of Trudeaumania in 1968 and celebrate what they see as major accomplishments on the world stage, social programs, and Canadian jurisprudence. Outside of the Liberal party, Trudeau is seen as talented but tremendously arrogant, bringing in some major changes that continue to lead to problems and controversy today.

Even more interesting, both Napoleon and Trudeau have sequels in the regime of Napoleon III and the government of Justin Trudeau. Napoleon III inspired Karl Marx to observe "history repeats itself, first as tragedy then as farce." Napoleon III restored the forms and appearance of imperial France, but created a ramshackle state that failed to address internal problems and collapsed after a rapid defeat in the 1871 Franco-Prussian war. I think the Justin Trudeau government follows a similar course: another round of Trudeaumania in 2015 swept the Liberals to power, but since then the government has been a case of style over substance. Exquisite, agonizing attention to communications but no real accomplishments in terms of policy or programs. Hopefully this government doesn't end with the citizens of Ottawa being forced to eat the animals in the Ottawa zoo.

Expand full comment
founding

Brilliant analogies. I’m old enough to have been able to vote for Trudeau Senior, and would have except Ed Broadbent was my MP, intervened for me on a couple of occasions, and the then-Dippers were not Uber-lefty. My conscience is clear. Junior is just a farcical flake of the highest order. (Singh an order higher.)

Expand full comment
founding

Hi Jen,

I am excited to read your book on the Satanic Panic! I have been fascinated with it since the 80s when my mom and grandma followed televangelists on TBN and TCT Ministries who spread it like Hellfire, and one of my sisters fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I remember watching that channel with my mom and grandma one day, when the preachers interviewed a (barely) former member of Black Sabbath who fed their fears of Satanism in heavy metal. I became even more obsessed with it when I started learning about the West Memphis 3 case over 20 years ago, specifically Mara Leveritt's book "The Devil's Knot", as well as the "Paradise Lost" documentaries. I can't wait to read what you find.

Expand full comment
author

I should probably get on that. JG

Expand full comment

I love talking and reminiscing about the 1980s satanic panic , I was born in 72 so grew up In the thick of it !

Expand full comment

I really enjoy and learn from your writing, but ...

Please don't use the "if my side had done this, your side would have done that" argument. It combines strawman and whataboutery arguments, crops up regularly in reader commentary on newspaper columns, and really doesn't advance anything except demonstrating solidarity with "my side". The latter is usually redundant information.

Expand full comment

After reading this week’s episode of the ongoing Canada is Broken saga, there is little use venting about the direction we are heading as a country. My only useful observation is how this Liberal Government can continue on its path of destruction in a MINORITY PARLIAMENT.

We all know what needs to happen, and the impetus will have to come from the NDP back benches, if only to curry favour with working class people that the NDP has ignored for far too long.

Expand full comment

I have no opinion on the Trudeau Foundation, but for your info, here is what Chantal Hébert had to say about it on March 18 in a column entitled "Justin Trudeau is failing a test of leadership" ...

"A word in closing about Johnston’s association with the Trudeau Foundation, an organization described in many Conservative quarters as a den of Liberal infamy.

The actual raison d’être of the foundation is to fund scholars in a variety of social science fields. As part of its programs, it recruits mentors from all walks of public life.

For 18 months starting in 2011, I was one of them. Before taking on that role, I did check the roster of past mentors to ensure I was not being invited to join a Liberal cult of the Trudeau personality.

It was the name of Ray Speaker, a former Alberta MP and founding Reform party member, that tipped the balance in favour of my acceptance.

As it happened, my term overlapped with that of former Reform MP Chuck Strahl. We quickly established that neither of us were part of the late prime minister’s otherwise large fan club.

In that, we were not alone.

Among the few sessions I attended, one that featured former NDP leader Ed Broadbent and former Liberal minister Pierre Pettigrew chipping away at Pierre Trudeau’s pedestal as a national unifying figure comes rather fondly to mind.

It has been suggested in some conservative quarters that anyone associated with a foundation that bore Harper’s name would have been disqualified for the role Johnston has taken on this week.

Since Harper is still very much alive, that conclusion is, at best, premature.

But for the record, given a foundation operating on the same terms, I for one would accept a mentorship along the same lines in an organization named after either Harper or Brian Mulroney."

Expand full comment
founding

Thanks for that. Good context.

Expand full comment

Sigh. Ms Telford and Mr Trudeau played us, played Parliament and played journalists. Your column noted as much. Thank you, again. (it is embarrassing, though--for all of us).

While I'm here, I would like to add that I really enjoyed the column published last week by Mitch Heimpel. I think his analysis (of the problems that have come with our grafting of presidential approaches to politics onto a parliamentary system, such as we are supposed to have) was spot on.

More of that, please.

Expand full comment

I like how you guys feign confusion about Raffy Boudjikanian's story over the weekend. You and I both know the motivation behind that story is to feed the narrative on social media amongst Liberal partisans that the whole foreign interference and Trudeau Foundation issue is entirely due to racist reporters and CSIS agents unfairly targeting people of color and not any actual wrongdoing. Which also raises the fun issue of the woke left most times considering Asians to basically be uber-white (because of their high levels of educational/academic achievement), but of color when convenient for their narrative.

And for the record, I despise PP, get most of my news from CBC, and don't want to see it defunded. I'm open to reform, and am getting pretty sick of how torqued some of their coverage has been on any number of issues recently. But as you guys commented on when Tait opened her big mouth awhile back, they just can't seem to help but paint a target on their own backsides.

Expand full comment
Apr 18, 2023·edited Apr 18, 2023

It just keeps getting worse. Is there anything, anywhere that justifies JT reaming leader of the Liberal Party? Telford's testimony was beautifully described as "150 minutes of my life I can't back", nd was utterly pointless.....as is the performance of the group running this country...the PMO. Clearly, Katie is paralysed with fatigue of running the puppet strings for so long, but it's becoming a punchline.

I recall you speaking of Canada being "risk averse" a while back. Now our idiot PMO can't even come up with a "business case" for our LNG despite 2 huge countries asking for it. We're not risk averse; we're paralysed. We're doing nothing about anything.

Then, I look at the other leadership choices and all I want to do is barf. Pension at 31 Crypto-Pete has yet to offer up anything on anything he might actually do. I guess that's just keeping us in suspense while they trot him out to fling around idiotic soundbites that just make his leadership look suspect.

The Trudeau Foundation should never have come into being, but now must be closed down for good.

I thought Mitch Heimpel's article this week was brilliant.

As a country, I can only conclude that without a complete change in leadership of all federal parties, we're well and truly fucked. Or maybe things are already so bad that it doesn't matter who is in charge. It sure looks like Canada has reached rock bottom and started to dig.

Expand full comment

All the Libs had to do was say yes to selling LNG and turn the private sector loose and let them build and figure it out. Easy Peasy

Expand full comment
founding

" ... it's bizarre, evasive, and pointless to avoid getting into the weeks about what the journalists got wrong, and what they got right."

Could that be a typo? Asking for a friend ...

Expand full comment
author

Should read "weeds." Thanks.

Expand full comment
founding

You wrote ...

"Are we actually allowing our government to hide far too much under the guise of reflexive secrecy because we've expanded the concept of 'national security' to include concepts like 'national interest'?"

But wasn't it originally gonna be " ... we've expanded the concept of 'national security' to include concepts like 'national embarrassment'?"

Maybe my memory is wrong ... but I prefer the latter.

Expand full comment