This Canadian Thinks

Behind The Canadian Curtain: Politics, Policies, And Public Disconnect

August 22, 2023 This Canadian Thinks Season 1 Episode 5
This Canadian Thinks
Behind The Canadian Curtain: Politics, Policies, And Public Disconnect
This Canadian Thinks
Help us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.
Starting at $3/month
Support
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Prepare to uncover the hidden realities of Canadian politics, as we expose the controversies and potential corruption within the Canadian government. We're challenging the actions of the current federal Liberal government head-on, revealing questionable dealings, scrutinizing conservative versus liberal approaches to economic growth, and analyzing surprising responses from none other than Justin Trudeau. 

Amid the rising costs of housing and taxes, we question the government's role and their tactics in media control. Unmasking the effect of policies like Bill C-11 on our national identity, we're pulling back the curtain on the influence government wields over media and the narrative it spins. We don't stop there, as we also take a hard look at the federal ban on single use plastics and its implications on environmentally conscious products like the compostable bags offered at Calgary Co-Op, and the confusing treatment meted out to our veterans.

As we tread the rocky terrain of leadership succession within the Liberal Party, we take you on an exploration of the disconnect between government actions and the people's needs. We're pulling no punches when it comes to the alienating effects of the Liberal Party's progressive ideals and how it leaves even the most progressive voters feeling disconnected. So gear up, for an engaging, thought-provoking journey into the world of Canadian politics—an unfiltered, unapologetically in-depth look at the true state of affairs.

(No Guest)

Trampled Under Tyranny
Politically discordant, counter culture clothing for the discerning civil disobedient.

Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.

Support the show
Speaker 1:

Whether we agree or agree to disagree, everybody's got an opinion, and I'm about to give you mine. So sit back, relax, buckle up and try not to get offended. Welcome to This Canadian Thinks. Canadians are not sufficiently angry about the actions of the current federal liberal government on an assortment of egregious fronts. How they maintain support in any fashion at all is actually quite baffling. From contracting bribes, misuse of position, cronyism, manipulation of the bank system to the use of excessive force against their own citizens and a seemingly ever-growing list of other contentious offenses, you'd think that even the most progressive Canadians wouldn't want to be even remotely associated with the Liberal Party at all. The NDP coalition is somehow still intact, although only those privy know why. How the shills in the NDP could continue to support this thinly veiled sham of a government is beyond comprehension. It's a mystery how anyone could still show any support for them whatsoever, short of pure collusion.

Speaker 2:

Today I'm announcing that the Liberal Party has reached an agreement with the new Democratic Party to deliver results for Canadians now. This supply and confidence agreement starts today and will be in place until the end of this parliament in 2025. What this means is that during this uncertain time, the government can function with predictability and stability, present and implement budgets and get things done for Canadians.

Speaker 3:

But why not just continue to prop up the Liberals on most motions, without selling your soul, as it were?

Speaker 4:

According to our position, this is us forcing and pushing in and using our power.

Speaker 1:

According to the Canadian government's own website, the most common types or categories of corruption are supply versus demand corruption, grand versus petty corruption, conventional versus unconventional corruption and public versus private corruption. Misuse of position is a type of public corruption. Misuse of position is the improper use of official time and authority and of information and resources to which an employee has access because of his federal employment, to include misuse of public office for private gain and misuse of non-public information, most, if not all, of which the majority of Liberal Party members have engaged in at one point or another. The WE scandal is just one example of misuse of position. Members of the Liberal Party did almost as well as certain Trudeau family members did during that affair, From paid appearances to fancy trips and everything in between. We'll never truly know the sheer depths of the scandal.

Speaker 5:

A maya culpa from the Prime Minister. Today, Justin Trudeau addressed reporters for the first time since his family's ties to the WE Charity came to light. The charity was awarded a multi-million dollar contract to administer the summer student grants program. Abigail Beeman has more on the apology and the change in tone from Ottawa.

Speaker 3:

Weeks after questions about WE began, the Prime Minister now says he shouldn't have been involved in cabinet conversations about granting WE a nearly billion dollar contract.

Speaker 2:

I made a mistake in not recusing myself immediately from the discussions, given our family's history, and I'm sincerely sorry.

Speaker 3:

His family's history includes three hundred and twelve thousand dollars paid to his mother for speaking events over the past four years, forty thousand for his brother and a fourteen hundred dollar payment for his wife in twenty twelve. Monday afternoon the Finance Minister tweeted an apology for not recusing himself too. His daughter works for the WE organization. The Prime Minister was not clear about whether he knew his family was paid.

Speaker 2:

I knew that my brother and my mother work as professional public speakers and it is not surprising to me that they got paid by WE, but I did not know the details and, as I said, I should have known the details.

Speaker 6:

If he is in fact sorry, that he can demonstrate that to Canadians by not invoking cabinet confidence, appearing and testifying at committee and releasing all documents and the contract itself.

Speaker 1:

SNC Lavellin is a huge company that tends to make most of its money through lucrative government contracts. Accused of bribing officials in other countries on behalf of the Canadian government, SNC was in danger of becoming barred from being able to apply for government contracts in the future. That's when Trudeau began to pressure then-Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in making the problems SNC was facing basically disappear. When she refused, she was sent packing. No level of professed feminism on the part of the Prime Minister could save her at that point. She might as well have had a communicable disease, treated as a pariah as she was at the time.

Speaker 7:

Engineering giant SNC Lavellin is in the middle of a legal fight of its own. Lawyers will be back in a Quebec courtroom tomorrow as a preliminary hearing picks up again into the fraud and corruption charges the company faces. These are the same charges former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was allegedly pressured to drop by the Prime Minister's office, sparking a political firestorm for the Trudeau government. Several senior managers at SNC Lavellin have faced criminal charges. They are no longer with the company, but can the company's tarnished reputation be restored?

Speaker 1:

Why would the government go so far as to attempt to coerce the Justice Minister into absolving SNC Lavellin of any wrongdoing, unless the government had a vested interest in SNC Lavellin being able to continue to operate as they have been discovered to have been doing? Perhaps they benefit from trusts that profit from stock in SNC Lavellin. Perhaps the government even had a hand in directing them in their dealings somehow, or at least agreed to turn a blind eye. We'll never really know, though, because they place their friends in charge of any potential inquiry.

Speaker 8:

Justin Trudeau continued to face questions about a two and a half year old scandal on the campaign trail today.

Speaker 9:

Have you ever personally been contacted by the RCMP about the SNC Lavellin affair?

Speaker 2:

No, I have not.

Speaker 8:

All sparked by accusations that the Liberal government is covering up key details about the SNC Lavellin affair by not releasing cabinet secrets. This according to excerpts from Jody Wilson-Raybould's new book. At the time of writing, the police assigned to criminally examine the SNC Lavellin matter remain unable to access all relevant information. The ethics commissioner found Trudeau improperly pressured his former Justice Minister to intervene in a fraud trial against the Quebec engineering giant in hopes of securing a deferred prosecution agreement. SNC Lavellin eventually pleaded guilty and was fined $280 million.

Speaker 1:

Imagine if you had the ability to have one of your friends investigate your most scandalous affairs instead of an independent investigator, especially if they stood to benefit from the position, and more so if they had some personal skin in the game. It's the essence of cronyism, a protect your own failsafe that leads to the erosion of accountability complete. After all, the inherent protectionism created by doing so allows for the forgiveness of the most contemptible actions without any meaningful retribution or penalty. It happens far too often in this Liberal circus. Take, for example, Donald Johnson, tasked with the duty of special rapporteur. It wasn't incredulous to believe that he would announce there was no need to have a public inquiry into the attempted Chinese subversion of Canadian elections. It was near already predetermined. The moment the Liberal government trotted out an archaic and little understood role to fill with whomever it would turn out to be, before they even announced who might be eligible to fill it. The mere title is meant to cause confusion and muddy the water. Entire news segments consisted of laboring to properly explain and define what a special rapporteur even was and what the scope of inquiry would be. It was pure political theatre accomplishing nothing, only them further distracting an already attention deficit population. Meanwhile it's on to the next thing on their agenda, likely more disagreeable yet than what they have you currently whipped up in a frenzy over. They'll let you know when it's time to become enraged about the next big thing.

Speaker 4:

Would there have been any value in meeting with Mr Johnson just to hear him out?

Speaker 10:

No, he is Justin Trudeau's ski buddy, his cottage neighbor, his family friend and a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which got $140,000 from Beijing. He has a fake job and he's unable to do it impartially. He needs to simply hand it over and allow a independent public inquiry into Beijing's interference. I sent Johnson a letter said how are you going to investigate foreign interference in the Trudeau Foundation when you were part of the Trudeau Foundation? He hasn't responded. He didn't even respond to my letter on that obvious question. So we need to get this special rapporteur distraction behind us and get on with a real, full, independent public inquiry.

Speaker 1:

See, that's the whole point of the mass media machine to cherry pick the things they choose to amplify in order to get the most traction. Outrage is a very useful tool if you can make it work to your benefit. Thing is, the things you get upset about are the things they provide for you to get upset about. They don't allow you to get upset about anything they haven't already precluded as something tangible for the purpose of an end objective. They censor something just enough to give it the appearance of being suppressed, when in actuality they want you to obsess over it so you won't dig deeper into the reality of the situation. Then they flood the bandwidth with the appropriate level of propaganda to ensure you're fully ensconced in it. The old bait-and-switch, as it were. You can't believe anything anymore. You are fed what they want you to see and hear, assisted by algorithms that are fed information that you yourself willingly, and sometimes unwittingly, provide If they really don't want you to know or see something you won't. They tell you plenty far enough ahead what their plans are. The more unbelievable and fantastic it is, the less you believe it and the easier it is for them to carry on as they intended. You don't have a chance to get angry until it is far, far too late.

Speaker 12:

Hello Mr Poilievre, a number of your own comments and actions have been characterized as dog whistling to the far right. By who? By who. By a number of different, by who, but I think it's been characterized by that way, but are you trying to?

Speaker 10:

I need to clarify. Sorry, I just need to clarify by who.

Speaker 12:

By a number of different experts and a number of different people who work in this, I think it's been established that this is a concern. Are you trying to court the far right vote?

Speaker 10:

Sorry, who are these experts? You say that there are experts who are saying this. Who are they?

Speaker 12:

My question is are you trying to court the far right vote?

Speaker 10:

Sorry, your question seems to be based on a false premise. You can't even tell me who these experts are. It sounds like it's just a CBC smear job.

Speaker 12:

Thank you, but what about the question about whether?

Speaker 10:

The answer is that I have a common sense agenda to axe the carbon tax, bring home powerful paychecks, clear the way to build affordable homes, to put people in housing that they can afford. That is a common sense, mainstream Canadian agenda and I know that Justin Trudeau's supporters are so desperate to distract from that because his political career is falling apart. So we're seeing an attempt here to distract and protect Justin Trudeau from his extremely unpopular carbon taxes and other failing policies, but we won't let him or his or others distract from that reality. So thank you, so you're not going to answer that question.

Speaker 1:

Criminals can't be politicians. Yet politicians seem to be some of the worst criminals, having the appearance of Teflon and being able to operate with impunity, participants in a large, elaborate heist against the population, getting more embroiled in their Moffiasso-style hierarchy until so entrenched that there is no choice but to play along, to stay along. Those with moral character weed themselves out, showing themselves the door, resigning due to their unwillingness to bend or break the rules in such a manner as is expected of them by those so engaged. There is plenty for people to be concerned about, and they should, but most aren't. It certainly doesn't help that the media tends to downplay or avoid mentioning certain relevant details on request of the government. After all, $600 million buys you a lot of loyalty and protection.

Speaker 2:

You sometimes hear about liberal bias in the media these days, how they're constantly letting our government off the hook for no good reason. Frankly, I think that's insulting. It's clear that they let us off the hook for a very good reason, because we paid them $600 million. You don't get stellar headlines like these without greasing the wheels a bit.

Speaker 1:

The government not only subsidizes media outlets, they also craft legislation specifically designed to benefit Canadian media companies over outside providers, forcing all providers in and outside of the country to air a certain amount of Canadian content in order to qualify to be broadcast in Canada. Canadian content defines that the producer of the program must be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and hold full responsibility in overseeing development, creative and financial control and financing. Due to this, almost unbelievably, some Elvis Presley songs are considered Canadian content, while some Brian Adams songs are not. Beyond that, however, is a whole host of complicated considerations and formulas used to decide what and who qualifies and what can or cannot be provided as content to Canadians. It's meant to protect Canadian arts and culture in a country that has long since forgotten who they are and what common ties they have holding them together.

Speaker 17:

When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his country is a post-national state and has no core identity, no one should be surprised when some start asking if Canada is even a country. But the identity crisis facing Canada is not only multifaceted, it's serious. Canada is in the midst of, as one writer put it, a civilizational experiment that's transforming a western nation into a post-western nation, and this revolution is centered around the cult of diversity.

Speaker 1:

That's the real teeth behind the Liberals' Bill C-11, the often-named Internet censorship bill. While masquerading as a means by which to level the playing field for Canadian media companies against tech giants like Twitter, google and Meta the former, whom own Facebook and Instagram it's really a means through which the government can better control the overall content that you are able to consume. Of course, almost comically, anyone with a slight understanding of IP masking will realize that it's still possible to circumvent the restrictions. That isn't the point or the crux of the issue. It's the fact that the government is actively engaged in any action restricting the content of outside information. In a free democratic society in the first place, that should be front and center. Canada isn't a free democratic society, however. We're a social democracy, which is the reason we do not have the benefit of free speech and why we have legislation against hate speech and elevated sentencing penalties for hate-based crimes, which is truly Orwellian stuff, really.

Speaker 18:

I think that, allowing for the book being after all a parody, something like 1984 could actually happen. This is the direction the world is going in at the present time In our world, there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement. The sex instinct will be eradicated. We shall abolish the orgasm. There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is a simple one Don't let it happen it depends on you.

Speaker 1:

The media helps push the narrative, even if it's erroneous and even if they know it to be so. Later, when it's proven false, most people don't ever hear the contrary information, they just remember the initial report, like the mass graves alleged to be found using ground-penetrating radar at the sites where residential schools once operated that turned out to be underground rock formations. Instead, the media proclaims the original supposition but whispers the retraction.

Speaker 4:

The distressing development is coming out of the Seashell Nation on the south coast of BC. Its chief says an extensive search has detected 40 potential unmarked graves of children. We have to say we don't know what evidence they have yet of physical remains or that they are children. But this is a developing story and we're working to get more of that information as soon as we can.

Speaker 1:

Meanwhile, the tech corporations simply restrict content to Canadians in the face of the government's legislation, to the disadvantage of the Canadian companies it was meant to protect. In trying to get fair compensation for companies in a free advertising and potentially viral setting, the bill actually forces them to instead purchase advertising from the companies directly, instead of benefiting from the public sharing their content to their following for free, which, extrapolated even further, means the government's own propaganda begins to be seen and shared less, which would actually be to the benefit of Canadians in the end. But I digress.

Speaker 2:

People have questions about whether they've lost their homes, about whether they need to evacuate, about how things are going, and that's where local news is so important, and the work that people are doing to share messages and keep people informed with safe, up-to-date information is unbelievably essential to keeping Canadians safe. That's why and I'm going to make a comment on this it is so inconceivable that a company like Facebook is choosing to put corporate profits ahead of ensuring that local news organizations can get up-to-date information to Canadians and reach them, where Canadians spend a lot of their time online on social media, on Facebook. Facebook made billions of dollars in profits over the past years, including off of Canadians, and we recently passed legislation that says Facebook, if you're going to be sharing news or work done by Canadian journalists or local news, you have to make sure they're compensated for it fairly Well. Instead of making sure that local journalists are fairly paid for keeping Canadians informed on things like wildfires, facebook is blocking news from its sites. In a larger picture, that's bad for democracy, because democracy depends on people being able to trust high-quality journalism of all sorts of different perspectives and points of view. But right now, in an emergency situation where up-to-date local information is more important than ever. Facebook's putting corporate profits ahead of people's safety, ahead of supporting quality local journalism. This is not the time for that. This is the time for Canadians to continue to pull together and be there for each other. It's time for us to expect more from corporations like Facebook that are making billions of dollars off of Canadians.

Speaker 1:

Recently approaching wildfires forced people in the territories to evacuate their homes. The legislation made it so that the news about the wildfires, including location, evacuation zones, crisis centers and other time sensitive and integral information for those affected, was blocked and unable to be accessed by those dependent on social platforms operated by Meta. Ironically, the government began imploring Meta to reverse their decision to block Canadian news outlets from Facebook. It was laughable to watch Juan Pablo Rodriguez, liberal Minister of Transport and previous Minister of Canada Heritage, begging the tech giant to once again allow the free sharing and access to news on Meta's social media platforms for the good of Canadians. The Liberal government could reverse their own position for the good of Canadians just as easily, yet won't. So why should Meta be any different? It only goes to prove that the legislation itself doesn't contain even the slightest spirit of what might be good for the Canadian people. The only issue at hand is in direct relation to liberal legislation that is not only onerous to social media platforms, but detrimental to Canadian citizens as well. They could admit that their policy is the cause of the aggravation and take steps to address the problem. Their position of power blinds them to the needs of the average Canadian and their cocksure attitude that they must be right demands that they force everyone else to admit that they are.

Speaker 14:

Mr Rodriguez, you talked about it in French, but I was wondering if you could just talk a bit more, also about those conversations that are going on with Meta because of all the people who are affected by these wildfires, who are not able to see news about how to get out or about how they're evolving, because of what Meta is doing right now.

Speaker 19:

Well, what I said is that what Meta is doing truly unacceptable, and I warned them during the conversations in the past of the risk of blocking news. We've seen what happened in Australia. I told them this could happen here. They said that it would be different. It is not different. So I'm asking them to go back on their decision and allow people to have access to news and information in Canada.

Speaker 1:

The government would have you believe that they need to be in charge of you. In fact, most progressives think that the government should pretty much do everything and provide everything you need for your basic survival. They are far more content to have someone making decisions on their behalf, and they don't mind paying handsomely for the privilege. Libertarians such as myself feel quite a bit differently. There should be far less government, and we should pay as little as possible for it. The government should be forced to use its royalty from the nation's resources, both natural and manufactured, to invest in and create businesses and cultivate the business market to provide lucrative results for both the public and private shareholders alike. The resulting public profit then used to provide services and critical infrastructure. There should be no need for taxation on personal income whatsoever in that scenario. Instead, they choose to tax your money when you earn it and tax it again every time you spend it, increasing the tax rate as often as possible and then adding taxes to taxes.

Speaker 10:

So, Justin, how do you expect people to pay their bills now? You remember you told them that debt had no consequences, that interest rates would be low for long and people could borrow as much as they wanted and there'd be no problem. And now, in the span of a year, interest rates have gone up by four and a half percentage points a 19 times increase in barely a year. Canadians who believed Justin Trudeau enough to take on monster million dollar mortgages in order to afford the inflated homes that they had to buy in formerly affordable communities now don't know how they're going to make their monthly bills. We already see Canadians experiencing $600 and $700 monthly increases in their mortgage payments and, according to the Bank of Canada, over the next three years, a large share of Canadian households will see their mortgage payments go up by 40%. I want you to think of what that means. If you're paying three grand a month, you could see your mortgage payment go up by $1400. That's over $15,000 a year for a family that brings home 80 grand after tax. That vaporizes a quarter, or in some cases even a third, of their entire take home pay, not for mortgage payments, but just for increases in mortgage payments. Now we have, after eight years of Justin Trudeau, the most indebted households in the G7, over $2 trillion of household debt. In other words, household debt is equal to the size of the entire Canadian economy today. Think of what this means mathematically. Every one percentage point increase in interest rates equals 1% of our GDP. A 2% increase, which is more than the average annual growth of our economy. We've had a 4.5% increase in one year. This is on the verge of becoming a crisis and that is an overused term, but I want you to consider this. The people who took out million-dollar mortgages in 2021 and 2022 will be up for renewal after their five years in 2026 and 2027. As these hundreds of billions of dollars of debt collide with the massive increases in interest rates, there will be a severe default crisis. That is according to last week's report from the IMF, which says that Canada is the single most at-risk country for mortgage defaults of any country in the G7. Justin Trudeau, you and you're spending, you're out of control. Debt and taxation are leading us headlong into a full-scale financial crisis.

Speaker 1:

Take the carbon tax, for example. It should be calculated on its own and excluded from the equation when calculating the goods and services tax or GST. Instead, carbon tax is calculated as a subtotal with the initial cost of the item to which it is being applied. After, to calculate the GST, the subtotal including carbon tax is used. This means GST is being applied to the carbon tax and the GST on the carbon tax combined At tax on a tax on a tax. How is that even considered acceptable by anyone, even those in favor of a carbon tax? Go check your gas or power bill and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Speaker 20:

The federal carbon tax hike kicks in Friday. An increase of 25% up to $50 per ton of emissions. Ottawa figures that works out to an extra 2.2 cents per liter of gas, bringing the total carbon tax cost to 11 cents per liter for consumers. Now this is going to hit motorists in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario in the wallet provinces that don't have their own carbon pricing schemes in place.

Speaker 14:

If they do notice it, they won't know for sure whether it's caused by the federal carbon tax or whether it's caused by changes in crude oil prices or wholesale prices or just retail margins.

Speaker 20:

But these types of increases push up the price of other everyday things, from food to household items. The carbon tax as it is now pushes inflation up by just under half a percent. For context, that's out of the 5.7% annual overall inflation rate. In February, ottawa says four out of five Canadians will end up ahead financially because of rebates claimed through federal taxes, but the parliamentary budget watchdog disagrees, saying most people affected by the carbon tax will see an overall negative economic impact. Now what it means for you depends on how much money you make your choices and where you live. The lowest income households in Ontario will see a $150 carbon tax benefit this year, while the highest earners will be out more than $1100. In Alberta, that's $246 back for the lowest income families, while top earners will be out of pocket nearly $2,000. On Tuesday, the federal government announced plans to slash emissions by 40% by 2030 to meet climate goals. But in order to move away from fossil fuels, consumers, already dealing with the highest inflation we've seen in three decades, will have to pay a price.

Speaker 1:

In a slightly different example. When you buy a new vehicle, you pay GST on the full purchase price. When you sell or trade that vehicle back to the dealership and they in turn offer it to the next customer, the next customer pays GST, again on the full used sale price, although obviously less. The issue is the tax has been paid on the initial point of purchase, on the full value of the vehicle. There is no tax required on any subsequent purchase of the same vehicle, or at least there shouldn't be. Next time you go buy a new to you vehicle, tell the salesperson you want the dealership to cover the tax. Chances are they'll give it some serious consideration if it means you will actually make the purchase. It doesn't matter how much of your taxes the government tries to offer you back in rebates. They have your money for a time and then appear gracious in giving a fraction of it back. It's as though they actually believe they can use your money and make better decisions with it than you can, and then bribe you into compliance by giving you some of it back. There is no such thing as a free government benefit. Canadians are paying for it in some way somehow. The progressive manifesto, while daunting and utopian, has actually one of laziness and incompetence. An easy fix, short term, bandaid solution to what is, and always has been, an ongoing tale of increasingly troublesome predicaments, most of which have been created in no short order by the Trudeau liberals themselves as of late. Once created the penancea is often worse than the ailment.

Speaker 10:

The question was that he promised in 2015, and I quote, we will make it easier for Canadians to find an affordable place to call home. When he made that promise, the average monthly payment for a mortgage in Canada was a modest $1400. What is it today?

Speaker 2:

Of course, situations vary across the country, but we have stepped up with housing programs in big cities like Vancouver, toronto, montreal, but we've also stepped up in smaller municipalities and rural areas across the country that need supports in housing. Unlike the previous conservative government that didn't feel the federal government had any role to play in housing, we stepped up in tangible, concrete ways to deliver more housing, to deliver rapid housing, to deliver programs that fought homelessness, that programs that increase the rental stocks. We will continue to be investing to support people, alongside our partners in the provinces and municipalities.

Speaker 10:

He wants to compare with the conservative record. I gave him a chance. I told him when the conservatives left office, the average monthly payment on a new house was $1400. I asked him to tell us what it is today. Either he doesn't know or he's too afraid to admit, but it's gone up to over $3100. That's over a 100% increase. When the Prime Minister took office, a two-bedroom apartment in Canada's 10 biggest cities on average was $1100. How much is it today?

Speaker 2:

Over the past eight years, we've seen significant growth in the economy. We've seen more Canadians getting jobs than ever before. We've seen more Canadians lifted out of poverty than ever before because of the things we did, from the very first initiative, which was lowering taxes for the middle class and raising them on the wealthiest 1% initiatives that conservatives voted against to delivering a Canada child benefit that puts more money in the pockets of families that needed, and stopped sending child benefit checks to millionaires. We've continued to move forward in supporting communities, supporting home builders, supporting homeowners and home buyers. We will continue to be there for Canadians.

Speaker 10:

He would have you believe that Canadians have never had it so good. We'll ask the nine and 10 young people who believe they will never own a home, the 35-year-olds living in their parents' basements because they can't afford the new doubling of the average down payment, mortgage payment or rental costs. And speaking of paychecks, when he took office the average paycheck you only needed 39% of the average paycheck to make monthly payments. On the average house. That number has risen to 62% by every objective measurement. Things are more expensive and Canadians are taking home less. How did he spend so much to achieve so little?

Speaker 2:

Across the country. We've seen record job growth. We've seen record number of Canadians lifted out of poverty. We've seen investments to fight climate change and to put more money in people's pockets. We've continued to move forward in growing the economy. But it is only, Mr Speaker, the Conservative leader, trying to say Canadians have never had it so good, because we know Canadians are struggling and that's why we continue to step up with investments in dental care, investments in low-income rental supports two initiatives that the Conservatives voted against. We will continue to be there to deliver for Canadians while we deliver a better future for everyone.

Speaker 10:

He's trying to talk about everything but the housing questions I asked, and it's easy to understand why. When he took office, housing was affordable. Now it's impossibly expensive. In fact, it's much more expensive than around the rest of the world. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market and Toronto the 10th worst in the world, worse than Manhattan, than Singapore, than London, the countless other places with more people, more money and less land. In fact, the average house price last year in the United States was barely was almost half less than it is here in Canada. Why is housing so much more expensive here than elsewhere in the world? Why?

Speaker 2:

We have continually invested in programs and supports for Canadians that have seen millions of families entering new homes, getting the supports they needed millions of refurbishments, millions of supports right across the country. But it's interesting to contrast the Conservative record on that. In the last election campaign, the Conservative platform promised on housing was to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords. That was their approach on housing. What we contrasted with significant investments in delivering for first-time home buyers, delivering for people facing homelessness, delivering for Canadian families to access better housing.

Speaker 1:

Take, for instance just this past week, Canadians were encouraged to allow migrants and refugees to occupy empty rooms or homes in Airbnb suites. They've since walked out back, but eventually they'll find a way to make it shameful that more people didn't jump on board with the plan you know the inherent racism in Canada, or something to that effect. Then they'll figure some sort of tax to apply to empty spaces as a punishment to encourage you to reconsider. In Los Angeles, California, they are contemplating legislation that would force hotels to provide their unoccupied rooms to the homeless. It's not a far stretch to believe that the government here would be willing to draft similar laws should things continue in the general manner in which they are. While declaring record-breaking immigration targets, which will only further exacerbate Canada's growing housing crisis, the government casually glosses over the overwhelming number of refugees and migrants that are daily entering Canada and circumventing the immigration process entirely. They have been since Trudeau took to Twitter on January 28, 2017, carelessly tweeting;

Speaker 22:

Canada will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength Hashtag welcome to Canada,

Speaker 1:

the day after President Trump put out an executive order banning refugees and visitors from Muslim majority countries Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. It wasn't the war-torn that began to show up, though. It was the dregs and disenfranchised. They were welcomed at Roxham Road by the RCMP, serving the capacity of over-glorified bellhops for the soon-to-be-minted New Canadians, especially if they were part of a marginalized group that fit the current agenda of the progressive crowd. It is these people to whom the empty rooms are intended, not immigrants. Immigrants already have sponsors or have proven their assets as adequate to sustain them for a period of time. They don't need empty hotel rooms. Migrants and refugees do. Meanwhile, the government does nothing to stem the tide of illegal border crossings, at the same time committing to dangerous levels of immigration to help in mitigating a global crisis that is being made worse by their inability to effectively address the very same issues faced here in Canada by Canadian citizens.

Speaker 9:

Did you expect to be sleeping on the street when you? Were no, no, no, I didn't expect that. Najib is seeking asylum in Canada. Everything he owns gathered around this tree. I came with this. This is my luggage. Toronto's shelters are full. More than a third of the 9,000 beds are filled by refugees and asylum seekers. Those who can't get in are sleeping on the street. My friends from Kenya, tanzania. Uganda. Many of us from Nigeria, we are here.

Speaker 1:

Given the boreal forest and Canada's huge expanses of carbon-consuming land, we are actually one of the few low-carbon producing countries in the developed world. Despite what the Canadian government would have you believe, Ever-increasing carbon taxation does nothing to curb the alleged climate crisis, yet they continue to pile it on More tax on top of tax on top of tax. It's unreal. And all in the absence of any tangible solutions.

Speaker 10:

But what most people don't know is that there is a second carbon tax he plans to stack on top of the first one a sneaky tax he calls a fuel standard that will hit home heating gas, our factories and countless other higher costs. So how much, how much and how much will Canadians pay in higher gas and diesel prices because of the second liberal carbon tax? Mr?

Speaker 21:

Speaker, I am glad to hear the Conservative leader actually talking about climate, Because the reality is the biggest challenge our planet faces and the biggest challenge our economy faces is building a clean economy. That is where the jobs are. That is where the jobs will be. We've invested $120 billion in our green industrial plan. It is creating jobs today. It will create jobs in the future. The Conservatives would wreck all of that.

Speaker 10:

The question was about carbon tax Two. We already know what carbon tax One. The Prime Minister has put in place a 14-cent-a-liter tax that will rise to $0.41 a liter. This raises gas, heat and grocery bills. But now they're sneaking in a second carbon tax called the fuel standard. It has no rebate whatsoever but will apply in every province and territory across the country. So she's so proud of her second tax. Why won't you tell us exactly how much it will cost in higher diesel gas and household costs per family?

Speaker 21:

Mr Speaker, the Conservative leader obviously doesn't understand that what every industrial economy needs is a plan to build a clean economy of the future. But I'll tell you who does understand that. An electrician called Jeff, who I met in Mississauga in March and I was there to talk with him about the investments we were going to make in electrifying the Canadian economy. He knows that that means for him jobs. He told me I have the skills to pay the bills and thanks to our plan, those skills will be put to work and Jeff's across the country will pay their bills.

Speaker 1:

Calgary Co-Op spent an enormous amount of money and research to source bags for their customers which would be less impactful to the environment. As a result, they now offer their members bags that have every appearance of a classic plastic bag, but are fully compostable and break down within 30 days. Furthermore, they contain no plastic whatsoever. Despite this, the federal ban on single use plastics ensnared these particular items within its legislation, making them illegal under the new law. This inspired a petition on changeorg for the government to issue an exemption for Co-Op's bags.

Speaker 22:

We're trying to find a solution to the pollution caused by plastic grocery bags and we heard you have a great product that you were using that is not only cost effective but environmentally friendly. Could you

Speaker 1:

They are far more likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater and outlaw any possible solution on the hasty attempt to have plastics disappear entirely, even if it means banning products that have a resemblance to plastic, even if they're not composed of a single particle. It's absurd. At best, they could easily mandate that national grocers switch to the new compostable and environmentally friendly alternatives spearheaded by co-op, and smaller grocers would catch up in time.

Speaker 13:

I started thinking about it. Just as you know somebody who's raised a middle class kid. One year, even though you didn't have the job you have now, even though you didn't get a raise that year the difference between having a job, having a 5% raise or whatever, 3, 5, 7, whatever it happens to be in the face of inflation price of the pump although that's down every day so far, but you know it's like whoa. I feel worse off. But then again I didn't get a check for eight grand from the government. They just, among other things. Does that make any sense to anybody? Or is it just me?

Speaker 1:

That's the progressive way; outlaw and restrict in lieu of practical solutions or long-term planning. It's now or it's never, all or nothing, and now. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. Cars can idle while parked around the block and down the street while waiting to use the drive-thru at the local Tim Hortons, but God forbid. We talk about shutting down the drive-thrus to help reduce emissions. How absolutely unreasonable it would be to expect people to vacate the comfort of their cars to place their order inside the restaurant, as they at one time were accustomed to. I'd be curious to know how much exhaust fumes are generated by drive-thrus in general each year in Canada. We likely won't ever know the answer though, the government like- to- knows are far too worried about the levels of methane produced by cattle than any reasonable ideas that might actually prove beneficial to the protection of the environment. I've got my Tim Hortons, my Tim Hortons. Agree with the Freedom Convoy or not. The fact that the government seized bank accounts without any sort of precursors prior is a devastation to the face of democracy in the Western world, and people are not nearly as mortified as they should be or need to be. Additionally, spying on Canadians' cell phones and tracking their movements, all while encouraging segregation during the pandemic, should be striking all the wrong chords for people. Freezing the assets and money of Canadians without any semblance of due process sets a very dangerous precedent for future governments. No court cases, no investigation, simply a list of names provided to the banking sector from the government, with the results being the immediate seizure of accounts. If they can do this to those protesting in Ottawa, they can do it to you, and they will. The Liberal government had no choice but to reverse its position on the matter the moment it looked like there might be a bank run. As you may or may not know, banks don't have access to enough money to cover all the money they owe to their clients. In fact, not enough money even exists to satisfy the total debt. Should the clients request they all be compensated. When they shuttered all those accounts, people whose accounts were not seized began to worry about their own assets, especially if they may have donated a buck or two to the convoy. They went to their local institutions and they began to withdraw funds at a rate that alarmed the banks enough that they made known to the government that they could not continue to seize accounts on their behalf and the government was going to need to lift the frozen assets immediately, to which the government complied, but by that time it was already too late. The cracks in the system were all too apparent.

Speaker 23:

After weeks of protests, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was taking drastic action to put an end to the Freedom Convoy protests. The time to go home is now Trudeau invoking emergency powers allowing the government to remove cars and trucks, suspend their insurance and even freeze truckers' personal and corporate bank accounts. He says the powers will be limited in scope and that he's not calling in the military.

Speaker 2:

The Emergencies Act will be used to strengthen and support law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country.

Speaker 1:

Meanwhile, Tamara Leach, Chris Barber and Pat King were all imprisoned in the same manner no due process and no trial, held without bail for the incredibly minor infraction of mischief all for disagreeing with the government and having the tenacity to stand up against them in protest. Black Lives Matters protesters murdered people, looted and destroyed buildings and set neighborhoods ablaze. No charges. Those involved were just exercising their right to protest, after all. Freedom Convoy participants held barbecues, fed the homeless, set up bouncy castles and arranged shimmy games for the kids in the area. No one was hurt. Yet the government took some pretty extraordinary steps to shut them down, charging them and incarcerating them, in sharp contrast to the BLM protests. Do you wonder why? It's because the Freedom Convoy was effective. It encouraged similar protests worldwide during a time when world governing bodies were in lockstep with each other. Unlike the BLM protests, it was gaining momentum. More people were joining the Freedom Convoy daily. It was growing at an unprecedented rate every day. As a result, the government simply had no choice but to shut it down. Even the US government was clamoring for the Canadian government to do something to put an end to it as soon as possible. After all, copycat convoys were beginning to gain traction there as well.

Speaker 11:

You'd be forgiven for thinking that this is one big party. But for two weeks now these protesters have laid siege to this city. The state of emergency has now been declared in Ontario to give police more powers to shut down demonstrations, but most insist they're not going anywhere.

Speaker 8:

We can be here as long as it takes we're well supported food-wise, fuel-wise, financially. We're fully supported to be here for as long as it takes for this government to realize that the people are the ones that need to have the power.

Speaker 1:

Rather than engage in dialogue with the convoy protesters and attempt to reach common ground, trudeau chose instead to ignore their request for a meeting and slander them instead. Even though he took a knee in a very public display during the BLM protests and wouldn't miss a Pride event, he simply would not engage in any meaningful fashion with the Freedom Convoy. The government did everything they could to squash the protest instead, in the end resorting to using UN personnel to strong arm them into submission with excessive force, pepper spray, flashbangs and smoke bombs. They trampled senior citizens with horses and shot people with physical disabilities with rubber bullets. They took petrol away and effectively left people without heat in the depths of Canadian winter. They even threatened to have family services remove children from families involved in the Freedom Convoy. They did all this and more. They needed very badly for you to believe that the convoy protesters were the worst, most contemptible members of the population, so you did not want to be seen to identify with them, even if you actually did.

Speaker 15:

Canada's Justin Trudeau has done the impossible. He has turned a fringe anti-vax movement in Canada into a global campaign. Freedom Convoy's are popping up all over the world now in Israel, in Belgium, america, france, australia. There are two takeaways from this movement. Number one it exposes the West's unscientific and arrogant temperament. And number two it exposes the hypocrisy of Western leaders. Let me show you two sets of pictures. One is from Paris, the other is from the US. There was tear gas, there was intimidation, there were clashes. Do you know what was missing? The lectures on morality. Imagine if these pictures were from Baghdad or Cairo or New Delhi. Trudeau would have been rallying on Twitter, Joe Biden would have been lecturing from the White House. But in this case, they are in full agreement. The protests must end. If Canada's blockades are legal, so are India's. If Canada can use the police to restore daily lives, so can India. That is what the West must realize and accept.

Speaker 1:

Now they would have you believe that a digital currency should replace physical money, a series of credits taking the place of an actual physical currency. Can you imagine just for a second what that would look like and the power it would wield to governments to track and control a country's citizens if they could simply freeze your digital credits whenever you disagreed with something they took exception to, or refused to agree to or support something in their agenda? If you disagreed with transgenderism or wearing a mask or what should be taught to children at your local education facilities, for just a few examples, would it be fair to just cut off access to your earnings? I certainly don't think so. The Liberal Party is a sham, and the Canadian people who did support the Liberals are waking up to this realization ever so slowly in some cases. The issue with the Liberals cannot be repaired by simply changing out the leader. The issues run deep, to the very core of the party. Decades of previous Liberal governments, the blueprint for today. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they are saddled with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose actions are equally scandalous to the party of which he is leader.

Speaker 16:

My name is Brock Blaschek. I'm a retired corporal with the Princess Canadian Infantry out of here in Edmonton, first battalion. I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for seven years. I deployed in Afghanistan back in 2009 until April 3rd, where I was obviously severely wounded by a roadside bomb or InfoFies explosive. As you can see, I've lost my left leg. I have 58% soft tissue loss and 88% nerve damage on my right leg. Back in August 24th 2015,. You made the promise, and I'll quote it here no veteran will be forced to fight their own government for the support and compensation they have earned. Yet you are still currently in a legal battle with veterans regarding equal support and compensation to their peers. As you can tell, we have two sets of two standard of veterans who fought in the same war the ones prior to 2006 and the ones after 2006. There are two standards One on the old pension act and one under this new lump sum or soon to be, lifetime pension option which, by the way, mr Prime Minister, by what you just said here, through my own determination, I've still worked, so technically, by what you said just a little while ago, I don't qualify for. So my question is to you, Mr. Prime Minister, what veterans were you talking about? Because you have ISIL or ISIS members coming into a reintegration program. You did a backdoor deal with Omar Qadar, with not even stepping into the courtroom. So, again, my question is what veterans were you talking about? Was the ones that fought for the freedoms and values that you so proudly boast about? Or was it the ones who fought against? Because, honestly, Mr. Prime Minister, I was prepared to be injured in the line of duty when I joined the military. Nobody forced me to join the military. I was prepared to be killed in action. Where I wasn't prepared for, Mr. Prime Minister, is Canada turning its back on me. So which veteran was it that you were talking about?

Speaker 2:

Thank you, sir. Thank you for your passion and your strength and being here today to share this justifiable frustration and anger with me and with all of us here. Thank you for having the courage to stand here and thank you for listening to my answer. On a couple of elements you brought up. First of all, why are we still fighting against certain veterans groups in court? Because they are asking for more than we are able to give right now. They are asking for more than we. Well, no, Hang on. You're asking.

Speaker 1:

More and more accusations are surfacing regarding what Trudeau did to young girls when they attended a certain school that he is known to have resigned from. His proclivity for teenage girls is already well known. Before the last election, great lengths were undertaken to censor any stories regarding these matters, while working to silence the minor he impregnated when he was a teacher at that very same school. Meanwhile, Trudeau's wife is speculated to have left him over three years ago in a rather public manner that was, as usual, relatively dismissed by the general media as unworthy of coverage. Sophie made an agreement to stay on board without first lady duties, and she's been noticeably absent from the public spotlight ever since. Now, in a strange twist, the Trudeaus have proceeded to announce their separation in a scripted mutual post, while asking for privacy Sophie will continue to go on vacation with the family, even though they are officially separated. Of course, she'll stay on for the tax-funded trips and excursions. Why not? Because it's all the perks and none of the slightest charade that there's anything left of a relationship whatsoever. Sounds like a win-win heavy proposition. In fact, it was within weeks of the announcement of their separation that they departed for a family vacation in an undisclosed location in BC. It should be a pretty easy fake for the Trudeaus. After all, reports from Cuba during one of the family's vacations there in the last few years were that Sophie never left the cabana, preferring to entertain herself alone with a steady supply from the drink cart, while Trudeau himself was busy flirting with the young boys and girls up and down the beach. While no major newspaper reported on it, many Canadians bearing witness were appalled and none too shy about sharing their stories about the estranged couple upon their arrival back home.

Speaker 6:

The Prime Minister and his wife, sophie Gregoire Trudeaus, have released a statement announcing they have made the decision to separate after 18 years of marriage. I'm going to read you the statement that was issued on the Prime Minister's Instagram account; Hello everyone, Sophie and I, would like to share the fact that, after many meaningful and difficult conversations, we have made the decision to separate. As always, we remain a close family with deep love and respect for each other and for everything we have built and will continue to build For the well-being of our children. We ask that you respect our and their privacy.

Speaker 1:

Now they have the audacity to ask for privacy After being happy to publicly embrace any opportunity available for exploitation prior. That's pretty rich really, and just goes to show the vapid reasoning behind their feelings of entitlement. That's simply how out of touch with the working class they really are. Thankfully, we won't have to suffer through any more impromptu spontaneous songs from Sophie at future public appearances at least.

Speaker 24:

I've heard my people busing through the crowd, fellow human beings and friends here today sing. This is not planned. Trust me, I'm going to step up, yes, and I'm going to sing you a song that I wrote for my daughter, ella Grace, at a moment where I was going through a difficult time and where I remind myself of all the hope that there is in one's life and all the hope that there is in love and helping out each other. It's called Smile Back at Me and it goes like this: Some people doubt that angels can fly and some people fight without knowing why. Some people live without seeing the light and some people live, oh, no, no, no, no, but not quite, and I know that good will prevail and I could conquer the world with all the love that I feel. When you smile back at me, when you smile back at me, I see it from the corner of your eye, the day that we will say goodbye, but nothing will take away what's between you and me. When you smile back at me, when you smile back at me, when you smile, when you smile, when you smile, I love you, my child.

Speaker 1:

Pundits are already speculating about Trudeau's resignation. But people need to understand that this is not just a shortfall on behalf of a poor leader, but rather a culmination of the progressive ideologies and actions of a terrible government with an even worse virtue signaling platform. The Liberal Party entire has become such a socialist monolith that even the most progressive Liberal voters must feel alienated by them by now. No doubt the fact that the progressive conservatives have slid so far to the left and that the platforms and forward planning is looking very tempting to those who now feel misaligned with the Liberal Party. A simple change of leadership is not enough to alter their objectives. Years of rebuilding that brand alone is all that remains now for the beleaguered party to endure.

Speaker 25:

But what I started to hear in the background from very senior Liberals, they're trying to make sure that Mr. Trudeau understands that this is his legacy mandate, that he's going to get things like dental care done and perhaps pharma care and health deals with the provinces. In other words, they're trying to start greasing the skids because they know that his time is up. Does he know that Chrystia Freeland again sending signals that she might want to go to NATO? And last time she did that it seemed that whatever explicit or implied deal she thought she had with Trudeau for a succession wasn't there anymore and she was going to leave. So she's one of his most capable ministers I would say the most capable person around his cabinet table and if she leaves after Mark Garneau and after others are already starting to make noises, it's not a good sign for Trudeau's leadership or his future in politics, right?

Speaker 1:

Should Trudeau choose to resign, who would take his place anyway? The party favorite would, of course, be Chrystia Freeland. There may be other leadership hopefuls, but Freeland is the one that appears to be being groomed for the position. After all, she's the one doing most of the heavy lifting while Trudeau attends the never-ending pride parades. Chrystia Freeland is a woman whose best intellectual moments have been scripted by others, whose book Plutoc rats: The Rise Of The New Global Super-Rich And The Fall Of Everyone Else, outlined the hollowing out of the middle class to establish a have and have-not society where the rich are responsible to take care of the poor and disadvantaged. It's that ideology that is said to have been the reason that Trudeau convinced Freeland to give up her career as a journalist to join the Liberal Party. If you believe that Trudeau actually ever read a book on anything of that topic in the first place. More likely Katie Telford had a hand in it and presented Freeland to the party as a suitable candidate. That's far more believable. At least, I mean, it likely didn't have nearly as much to do with her family's ties to Ukrainian Nazis or her activism against Soviet Russia in her youth and young adulthood, for example. Bottom line, however, is the fact that, outside of her current position, Freeland has had less political experience than even Trudeau had prior to his election. A running theme in recent Canadian leadership the results of her book Subject Matter on Canadians echoes through the middle class and those working hard to join it, as they face a higher cost of living than ever before, however. Costs that make it almost impossible for average Canadians to make ends meet. All while billions and billions in foreign aid is siphoned off to places like Ukraine or Africa and issues such as homelessness and poverty are still unresolved problems here at home. It's hard to see how the government in Canada even remotely serves the Canadian people. They are more aligned with worldwide organizations, potential global governments and policies that make considerations for people who live in entirely different parts of the planet than they are with their own people. The level of contempt they appear to have for Canadians is on display every day. Their policies, agendas and legislation speaks to it at every turn.

Speaker 21:

Of course. Look, I think I want to start by really recognizing that I am a very privileged person. For sure, Like other elected federal leaders, I am paid a really significant salary and I know that that puts me in a really, really privileged position. And I really recognize that it is not people like me, people who have my really good fortune, who are struggling the most in Canada today. The people who are struggling in Canada today with today's high prices aren't people like me. They're not federally elected politicians. They are people across the country who earn a low income, who really do find that today's high prices mean they have to make difficult choices about what food to buy, about whether to buy groceries or pull together the money to pay the rent. So I 100% recognize that.

Speaker 1:

Meanwhile, migrants sleep on Canadian streets and the government attempts to goad Canadians into opening their spare rooms and vacant rentals to them to mean to remedy the situation. It's absurd. Would they have the homeless Canadians offer up their box or shopping cart to them as well? Don't fall for it. Remember, you did not create this mess. The Liberal government did, and it should be up to them to clean it up, not us. The Liberal Party of Canada has become a corrupted, self-righteous shadow of its former self. Their virtue signaling policies have failed at near every turn. Their only defensive move would seem to be in manipulating the media into supporting their narrative and to silence any opposition by any means necessary through censorship and legislation, when that doesn't work. Like little children having a comeuppance in the playground, they resort to name-calling and mudflinging instead of level-headed, responsible decision-making or meaningful dialogue. Is that really what you would consider effective and meaningful government? Do they really represent you and what you believe? Is this the face of Canada you would like to present to the world stage? Probably not. Enough is enough. If you ever supported the Liberal Party in the past or are foolish enough to still do so, it's time to let them go. Like an unwelcome bedfellow, it's time that they were on their way. Their interests lie in far-off lands ruled by global dignitaries that are appointed by association, so disgusted by their fellow Canadians that they speak in condescending tones at every turn, admonishing them for their unwillingness to shed their national or regional identity for a foreign legion.

Speaker 12:

This is unrelated, but this past weekend I was camping with my family and there was a vehicle that was part of our neighbors, basically and it had a bumper sticker on it with your name and an expletive which I had to explain to my children. Given that you're trying to do something that has rarely been achieved in Canada in history a fourth mandate have you considered the possibility that you have become a liability?

Speaker 2:

Ever since the pandemic in particular, we've seen an increase in polarization and frustration and anxiety and mental health pressures on a whole lot of people right across the country. Nobody has been unaffected by that, and part of the challenge we have politically is that we are seeing deeper polarizations. But don't write off Canadians just because they choose to wave a nasty flag. Don't write off a neighbor who chooses to put a bumper sticker that, unfortunately, you then have to explain to your kids. People are hurting out there and what we've seen every single time there's been an emergency or a challenge this summer is neighbors stepping up to help each other. This is who Canadians are. We are a big, optimistic, diverse country with a diverse range of political views, and it's one of our strengths. Another one of our strengths is how we pull together when times are tough. That's what we did during the pandemic. That's what we do when we work together to invest in early childhood education. That's what we do when we work with municipalities and provinces to build more housing. That's what we do when we invest in our future altogether. And politics is never going to be a game of unanimous support. It's about a whole bunch of thoughtful, good people coming together to try and figure out the best way forward. And, yes, there are people who are hurting and there are people who are lashing out and we need to be there to reassure them that they're going to be able to succeed, that their kids and their communities are going to be able to succeed, even though the world is changing in very scary ways. So I'm not giving up on anyone. I'm going to continue working hard every day to build that future that we all know Canada can have. We are the best country in the world. Let's keep making it better.

Speaker 1:

Is it unreasonable to believe that our politicians should be putting Canada, and, with it, Canadians, first? Is it so unconscionable that they might concern themselves with addressing the issues faced by Canadians in Canada instead of those in other jurisdictions? Instead of funneling billions to Ukraine, maybe the government could use that money to create more affordable housing, lower grocery, home heating and electrical costs or lower intuitions, increase the efficacy of care in the Canadian health system. The list goes on. Why are Canadians always an afterthought to Canadian politicians? It's as though Canadians are simply the coin purse and the government is the pickpocket, robbing us blind, all the while telling us how terribly blind we actually are and how badly we need their help, if ever we wish to see again. If they would just stop taking more than we have to give, we could likely find our way clear to see again on our own. If we don't need the government to lord over our affairs and given the terrible job they typically do of it, we shouldn't want them to. If you have any topics you'd like This Canadian Thinks to cover, or ideas for guests that might be interested in appearing in future episodes, be sure to let us know we are also actively seeking sponsors and advertisers who might be a good fit with our program. If you'd like to partner with us, we'd be happy to hear from you as well. Thanks so much, once again, for listening to this podcast. We hope you'll be back for many more episodes to come. Until next time, keep your mind open and don't forget to think. www. trampledundertyranny. com

Canadian Government Corruption and Controversies
Canadian Government's Control and Media Censorship
Rising Costs of Housing and Taxes
Federal Ban on Single Use Plastics Versus Co-Op Bags
Discrepancy in Support for Veterans
Leadership and Potential Succession
Government's Disconnect With Canadian People

Podcasts we love