• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

Can we just forbid him from leaving the country or talking to other leaders?

Ng’s probably just hoping to stay an MP long enough to cash out…she’s taking one for the team as pestilence….haha, autocorrected for petulance 😆 comes spewing out of the Langevin Block corner office…

Atlantic Liberal MPs press Trudeau for rural carbon tax carve-out
MPs say their constituents need more relief from the rising cost of living​

Interesting prospect.


What is Rural?

Not Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, definitely.
Not Calgary, Edmonton or Winnipeg, probably.
Saskatoon, Regina, Ottawa, Halifax. By international standards they probably qualify as rural market towns.

How many Canadians live in Rural Canada?

Rural areas in Canada, often called rural Canada, generally refers to areas in Canada outside of census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, according to Statistics Canada.[1] Rural areas cover approximately 9,197,138 km2 (3,551,035 sq mi) of Canada's land area as of 2015.[2]

Rural Canada is usually defined by low population density, small population size, and distance from major agglomerations.

As of the 2021 census, nearly 6 million people (16% of the total Canadian population) lived in rural areas of Canada.[3] In the 2006 census, the Canadian population living in a rural area was between 19% and 30% of the total population, depending on the definition of "rural" used.[4]

Odds of Trudeau switching from castigating western provinces to punishing the cities by giving tax breaks to all those predominantly rural provinces?
I love the sardonic

'Maybe if we found something new to ban?' Inside the thoughts of an embattled Liberal staffer​

'Perhaps it is only by knowing the evil within themselves that Canadians can truly hope to overcome it. And when they do, we shall be here to welcome them back'
Author of the article:
Tristin Hopper
Published Sep 16, 2023 • Last updated 8 hours ago • 4 minute read

Justin Trudeau’s decisive action against single-use plastics has undoubtedly been an inspiration to Canadian Liberals and some bureaucrats around the world. PHOTO BY JUSTIN TANG/THE CANADIAN PRESS

These have not been good days for the Liberal Party of Canada. Poll numbers are showing the party’s fortunes in utter freefall, and Liberal MPs are openly begging their government to change course before they’re all put out of a job in the next election.

In Dear Diary, the National Post satirically re-imagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. This week, Tristin Hopper takes a journey inside the thoughts of a fictitious Liberal communications staffer.


Although I’m not one to quote Enoch Powell, I think often of his claim that “all political lives end in failure.” And I cannot help but think how so many Canadian prime ministers end their tenure in desperate ignominy. An embittered Pierre Trudeau flipping off protesters from a private train. Stephen Harper’s party green-lighting a “barbaric practices hotline.” Brian Mulroney hounded out of Ottawa by his own party.

Which is why I feel so intensely privileged to be part of the first government in Canadian history in which this is decidedly not the case. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has never wavered from keeping a strong, compassionate hand on the tiller, and Canada’s star has never shone brighter. Just last night, a Belgian delegate at the EU Parliament’s Committee on Environmental Equity told me in a Zoom call that Canada’s decisive action against single-use plastics was an “inspiration.” I bet that never happens to Doug Ford!


I am aware there are challenges. And it is the democratic right of Canadians to look to their leaders for answers. But we cannot expect to be able to guide Canadians through these challenges if we are up against opponents who insist on weaponizing misinformation to their own cynical ends.

The Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre have very transparently adopted a tactic (imported wholesale from the American far-right) of making impossible promises to a low-information electorate. Affordable housing, denying bail to repeat offenders, unrestricted use of gas-powered private vehicles: There may well have been eras when these were all realistic policy, as there have also been eras in which it was legal to own humans as property or fire a civil servant for their sexual orientation.

I would question the obvious dog-whistling of any politician who calls for a return to such barbarism.


Our pitch, as it always has been, is “are you better off now than when we took office?” Critics of this view will naturally point to alleged material deficiencies; diminished buying power, lower productivity, stalled GDP, stagnant employment.

But we know that a nation is so much more than its colourless technical indicators. How does one put a price on equity within the criminal justice system? Is there an economist who can calculate the spiritual benefits of a population that abandons dirty extractive industries and looks ahead to a clean future.

Plus, I need not remind you that Canada once scored second place in the annual Good Healthy Life Index issued by the Geneva-based World Living Association.


While I wouldn’t for a second doubt the commitment of this team to the prosperity and happiness of Canadians, I do occasionally fear that the so-called “Ottawa bubble” may have eroded their understanding of normal life.

Just the other day, the minister of transport asked me what it was like to ride a bus. “Is there a conductor taking the money upfront, or do you pay at the end like a taxi?” The minister of Crown-Indigenous relations asked me if it was the Algonquin or the Haudenosaunee who turn into ravens after they die (I told him it was neither).

And another minister; well, I think he struggles to use elevators. One day when his assistant called in sick, he spent the entire morning in the lobby pretending to check his phone until I eventually offered to walk him to his office. “Ah, the buttons, of course,” I heard him mutter as I pressed the call button.


The Amish have a practice called “rumspringa.” Loosely translated as “run around,” it refers to a period in which Amish adolescents are encouraged to live outside the usual tenets of their faith and embrace the trappings of modernity. You’d think that most teenagers would abandon the strictures of Amish life the second they played a video game or donned a pair of Lululemons. But no: Most rumspringa periods end with the youth’s return and baptism.

And so it is with this brief and ultimately disappointing spectacle of Canadians turning their face from the Liberal Party. Who are we to say that they shouldn’t occasionally be allowed to flirt with the forces of oppression, colonialism and planetary defilement? Perhaps it is only by knowing the evil within themselves that Canadians can truly hope to overcome it. And when they do, we shall be here to welcome them back and correct their mistakes.

John Manley calls for Trudeau to step down.

Former senior Liberal calls for Trudeau to resign, citing 'Seinfeld rule'​

John Manley said by the time of the next expected federal election, Trudeau will have been in power for 10 years. 'You want a renewal after 10 seasons? The odds are against it'

Author of the article:
Tristin Hopper
Published Sep 19, 2023 • Last updated 16 hours ago • 3 minute read

Speaking to Bloomberg, Manley noted that by the time of Canada’s next expected general election in 2025, Trudeau will be on his “10th season” — something he noted is about on par with most of his predecessors.

“Stephen Harper; nine seasons. Before him, Jean Chretien; 10 seasons. Before him, Brian Mulroney; nine seasons,” said Manley, who now works as an advisor to the law firm Bennett Jones.

“You want a renewal after 10 seasons? The odds are against it,” he said, adding that “change is force of nature in politics” and all that can be done against it is to “batten down the hatches.”

The platform is interesting too. Bloomberg is tightly associated with the woke political culture that was on display in Montreal over the weekend. In the past Hilary and Barack have attended, even if only virtually.

Manley’s “Seinfeld rule” is not the first time that Seinfeld has been used to explain a Canadian political phenomenon. When Canadian electoral campaigns lack any obvious contentious issues, analysts will often refer to them as “Seinfeld elections” as a reference to the famous claim by Seinfeld’s creators that it was a “show about nothing.”
Canada is unravelling. Culture wars are making the country stupid, poor and fractured — and according to Angus Reid, these fractures have produced five distinct groups.

Last week, the Angus Reid Institute released a study on the bubbling, sometimes boiling, political conflicts in Canada. The study characterized five culture war factions that comprise the country: the “zealous activists,” the “quiet accommodators,” the “conflicted middle,” the “frustrated skeptics” and the “defiant objectors.” They make up the political ecosystem, which is why they are perhaps best recast as members of the animal kingdom.

Wolves, sheep, ostriches, leopards and lions.

And Ivison's going after PSPC.

In 2011, Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax was chosen as the winner of a tender to build a new fleet of warships. Among the requirements was the stipulation that the winning yard had to have the capability to build the ships without further taxpayer contributions.

Since then, delays have piled upon cost overruns, to the point where the delivery of the first ship has been deferred by a decade and the original purchase price of $26 billion has risen to around $84.5 billion, according to estimates by the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Insult was added to injury last month when the government said it will invest a further $463 million into the Irving yard to “improve its efficiency,” even if Ottawa refused to say exactly how this money might accelerate delivery.

The department running the show is, you guessed it, PSPC.
Even ‘blowier-away’ than the issue was this commentary quote, from none other than “Yes I was ADM(Mat) back in the day when I personally signed the F-35 JSF MOU to spend $100s of millions of Canadian taxpayers money…without really *committing to actually buy that plane: Allan Williams.”

Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence, said there is no reason to pay that high a percentage up-front. “There is no justification to spend taxpayers’ money before taxpayers have received delivery of the products they paid for. It’s open to abuse if payment is not tied to delivery.”


It is to weep…
Last edited:
Not having seen the bids, not knowing whether options have been exercised... makes it hard to assess. Maybe the successful bidder was materially lower in cost to the GoC by offering such terms based on progress instead of firm fixed price on delivery.

On the one hand, people are told to innovate and try different ways of doing things; on the other hand, if they do, they get attacked by well past their prime bow tie afficianados.
Not having seen the bids, not knowing whether options have been exercised... makes it hard to assess. Maybe the successful bidder was materially lower in cost to the GoC by offering such terms based on progress instead of firm fixed price on delivery.

On the one hand, people are told to innovate and try different ways of doing things; on the other hand, if they do, they get attacked by well past their prime bow tie afficianados.

I don't know about your contracts but almost universally, over 40 years of buying and selling mechanical hardware commercially, the standard terms are:

30% on signing.
60% when ready to ship.
10% when delivered and found to operate as per the agreed contract.
Warranty period then commences.
Because every government decision (including procurement) has to be seen as a perfect decision, forever, regardless of how much money they later have to throw at it; and large contractors know this. No government, $ million into a procurement, is going to come to the decision that they chose poorly, cancel, eat the loss and go to Plan B. The opposition, the media and quite frankly, most of us, would have a field day. In many cases, is is public knowledge that the need for the new 'thing' is great because the current 'thing' is obsolete, and often, there is no Plan B, and the contractor knows it.

Layer onto that the fact that governments are particularly lousy at entering into contracts.

Many years ago, the government of Ontario decided to contract out winter road maintenance. Some of the companies that won the contracts (the province was broken up into regions) simply couldn't deliver. Minimum levels of service were seen as the ceiling, not the floor, which is the nature of performance contracts. Roads were a mess and the travelling public was pissed. In one particular egregious area, rather than cancel the contract, the government's response was to buy the company more equipment and simply give it to them.
Last edited:
Yup, sure is. Sad too... I really had hope for JT when I initially voted for his party over Harper.