Canadian conservative leader casually wrecks reporter's line of attack simply by asking what he means



The Conservative Party of Canada is presently crushing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals in the polls. The Liberal Party's celebration last month of a veteran Waffen-SS Nazi in Parliament likely didn't help.

Facing the the prospect of a dramatic sea change, it appears some within the northern nation's left-leaning state-subsidized media are eager to paint ascendant CPC leader Pierre Poilievre as a Trumpist figure. Poilievre has once again demonstrated that reporters are going to have to up their game if they're to land a punch ahead of the 2025 election.

The Conservative leader spoke last week to Don Urquhart of the Times Chronicle in the Town of Oliver, British Columbia, after first meeting with fruit growers from the area. He discussed some of the ways he'd eliminate bureaucratic red tape and statist obstacles to a better life for Canadians, apple farmers included.

"We're no longer going to accept that this or that gatekeeping bureaucracy stands in the way of obvious common-sense solutions," said Poilievre. "And when people come to me, say, 'Yeah, but this or that clerk or bureaucracy is not going to be happy.' That's life, right? There's going to be a lot of vested interests and bureaucracies that are gonna be very unhappy when I'm prime minister."

At one stage in the interview, the reporter attempted to play on a thematic groove routinely deepened by Canadian state media and Toronto's union paper, saying, "In terms of your sort of strategy, currently, you're obviously taking the populist pathway."

Between chomps from his apple, Poilievre asked, "What does that mean?"

Urquhart laughed nervously, then responded, "Well, appealing to people's more emotional levels, I would guess. I mean, certainly ... you tap very strong ideological language quite frequently."

"Like what?" asked Poilievre, apparently keen not to deal in abstractions.

"The left wing, you know, this and that, right wing. ... That type," said Urquhart.

"I haven't really talked about left or right. I don't really believe in that," said Poilievre.

Urquhart remained committed to conveying the essence of his accusation: "Anyways ... a lot of people would say that you're simply taking a page out of the Donald Trump book."

"Right, like which people would say that?" said the conservative.

"Well, I'm sure a great many Canadians, but ..."

"Like who?" Poilievre said again.

"I don't know who. ... I'm sure there's some out there," said Urquhart. "But anyways, the point of this, the point of this question is, I mean, why should Canadians trust you with their vote given not just the sort of ideological inclination in terms of taking the page out of Donald Trump's book —"

"What are you talking about? What page?" asked Poilievre. "Give me the page."

"In terms of turning things quite dramatically in terms of Trudeau and the left wing and all of this, I mean. You make quite a, you know, it's quite a play that you make on it," continued Urquhart.

Poilievre, finished both with his apple and Urquhart's tortured attempt at calling to mind a parallel to former President Donald Trump, responded, "I don't know what your question is."

The reporter managed to find the right words when later writing up the interview: "When asked why Canadians should trust him with their votes given his demonstrable track record of flip-flopping on key issues and what some consider his use of polarizing ideologically-infused rhetoric suggesting he simply takes pages out of the Donald Trump populist playbook, Poilievre became acerbic."

The leader of the CPC ultimately told Urquhart that Canadians should trust him with their votes because of "common sense. ... We're going to make common sense common in this country. We don't have any common sense in the current government."

"I'm going to cut spending, cut waste so that we can balance the budget and bring down inflation and interest rates. If you want to be able to pay your mortgage again, if you want to be able to afford rent, then you have to vote for [Pierre Poilievre], because I'm the only one with a common-sense plan that will bring back the buying power of your paycheck," added the conservative.

— (@)

A September Ipsos poll showed the Conservatives leading the Liberals 39% to 30%, reported Reuters.60% of Canadians polled want Trudeau to step down.

Angus Reid Institute polling put the Conservatives at 39% and the Liberals at 27% — enough for Poilievre's party to form a majority government come the next election.

Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs, said, "Pierre Poilievre is doing an amazing job of selling himself to Canadians. ... [L]ike there's Poilievre mania. It's really just a desire for change."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Canadian Conservatives elect working-class champion Pierre Poilievre to topple Trudeau



After campaigning to stop the "have-yachts" from continuing to take advantage of the "have-nots," to combat "wokeism," and to counter "Justin-flation," the Alberta-born Pierre Poilievre was elected leader of the Conservative Party of Canada on September 10.

In Canada's equivalent of a primary election, the 43-year-old won in a landslide, taking 70.7% of over 400,000 votes (or 68.15% of the points). The former Liberal premier of Quebec, Jean Charest ⁠— who had aligned himself with the status quo that Poilievre means to disrupt ⁠— came in a distant second with 16.07%.

As leader of the official opposition party, Poilievre will now go toe to toe with the increasingly unpopular Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and potentially replace him in the next federal election.

In his victory speech, the married father of two reiterated his commitment to helping Canadians regain control over their finances, their lives, and their country. "Tonight begins the journey to replace an old government that costs you more and delivers you less with a new government that puts you first," he said.

\u201c"They don't need a government that sneers at them and calls them names. They don't need a government to run their lives. They need a government that can run a passport office,\u201d @PierrePoilievre says in his victory speech. #cdnpoli\u201d
— True North (@True North) 1662866677

He reminded his audience that politicians are duty-bound to serve the electorate, not the other way around.

Maximal freedom, minimal government

Poilievre suggested that Canadians "don't need a government that sneers at them and calls them names," calling to mind the recent memories of both Trudeau smearing the unvaccinated as "extremists who don't believe in science ... misogynists, also often racists" and Liberal party members condemning the Freedom Convoy's constituents as bigots.

"They don't need a government to run their lives," continued Poilievre. "They need a government that can run a passport office."

The Conservative leader plans to:

  • end the importation of oil from "dirty dictators" and ramp up domestic oil and gas production;
  • build more pipelines;
  • ban future federal vaccination mandates;
  • repeal the carbon tax and the so-called "clean fuel standard";
  • reverse the Trudeau government's efforts to regulate major internet platforms along with its "online censorship bill";
  • defund the CBC (Canada's taxpayer-subsidized state media), which costs billions of dollars every year and is watched by less than 4% of Canadians;
  • promote freedom of speech on college campuses by withholding federal funding to those that fail to do so; and
  • cap federal spending at its budgeted amount and force the government to find savings for every new expenditure added.

The Conservative leader has been a fierce critic of the federal Liberals' "unscientific mandates" and the "unacceptable limits on the freedoms of Canadians during the COVID-19 pandemic." He introduced Bill C278 in June, which would prevent the future imposition of vaccine mandates for employment and travel by the federal government.

In addition to supporting the Canadian truckers' Freedom Convoy, which protested the Trudeau government's COVID-19 mandates and travel bans, Poilievre was among the few members of parliament to join Canadian soldier James Topp in the final leg of his successful cross-continental march protesting vaccine requirements.

Consistency and sensitivity

Canadian state media reported that Poilievre has been markedly consistent in his views. At age 20, while at the University of Calgary, he wrote, "The most important guardian of our living standards is freedom." Government's role "is constantly to find ways to remove itself from obstructing such freedoms."

Jean-Christophe Boucher, an associate professor of political science at the university, said that Poilievre, first elected at the age of 24, "was always perceived as somebody enthusiastic, charismatic, willing to fight and willing to engage on the level that was maybe abrasive."

Poilievre's combativeness has regularly been on display in the Canadian House of Commons, particularly as finance critic, in which role he routinely held the Liberal government to task for its spending.

Justin Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre get into heated debate about balancing of the budget youtu.be

Poilievre's sensitivity to the impact of inflationary spending on the working class may be due to his humble beginnings.

Unlike Trudeau, a rich prime minister's son, Poilievre was born to a 16-year-old unwed mother and raised by two prairie schoolteachers.

MacLean's reported that Poilievre grew up in the western province of Alberta, which he had seen "ravaged by Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Program." Then just as now, inflation was a problem, particularly for his working-class family, which had to move when living had become unaffordable. As he grew older, Poilievre noted learning "more about how that happened and why, it left a mark on me."

To tackle the inflation he believes now to be caused in part by Pierre Trudeau's son, Poilievre will work in the Canadian parliament to hold the Liberal party to task.

It may be some time, however, before he can challenge Trudeau in a federal election, on account of the so called confidence-and-supply agreement struck between the socialist NDP party and Trudeau's Liberals. The deal means the NDP will help protect Trudeau from successful votes of no-confidence and therefore a snap election until 2025.

Reception

Although evidently popular with conservative voters, Poilievre has many detractors in academia, in the media, and in Ottawa.

The Conservative leader suggested that "working class people are enthusiastic about my campaign for the same reason that the elite gatekeepers are having a meltdown over it: I will put people back in charge of their lives."

Recently, in the liberal Toronto Star, he was compared to former President Donald Trump and deemed "the most dangerous politician in the country right now."

"Like Trump's MAGA-themed populism," wrote Max Fawcett in Canada's National Observer, "Poilievre's politics are inherently corrosive to the broader project we call society."

The Canadian Union of Public Employees stated after the leadership election, "It's too bad that ... Pierre Poilievre does not hold American citizenship, because he would be right at home as Governor of a state like Alabama."

The well-established Canadian pundit and columnist Rex Murphy contrarily stated, "[Poilievre] could bring an end to our interminably woke-nattering government of virtue-signallers and identity mongers."

Murphy argued further: "A whole lot of Canadians, and not just Conservatives, have grown exceedingly irritated, beyond mere, annoyance, at the perpetual smug self-righteousness and cloying preachiness of the ultra-woke 'we always know best' Liberal leadership."

Justin Trudeau's anti-racist program flops after top proponent exposed as an anti-Semite



Earlier this year, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government gave the anti-racism advocacy group Community Media Advocacy Center a sizable taxpayer-funded grant. The money was intended for CMAC to build an anti-racism strategy for Canadian broadcasting. Mid-August revelations about views expressed online by the group's chief consultant, Laith Marouf, indicated that CMAC was not only ill-equipped to combat racism, but unable to contain its own.

Marouf, a Palestinian-Syrian activist, has a history of well-documented anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist comments, particularly on his now-locked Twitter account, for which the bio reads: "Decolonizing the media since 1999."

One of his tweets said: "You know all those loud mouthed bags of human feces, aka the Jewish White Supremacists; when we liberate Palestine and they have to go back to where they come from, they will return to being low voiced bitches of thier [sic] Christian/Secular White Supremacist Masters."

On June 16, he tweeted: "The Palestinian offer of peace to Zionists, is the same offer Saladin gave to Crusaders ... Fight us and you will die. Simple, just, and uncompromising."

In a July 17, 2021 post, Marouf wrote: "Life is too short for shoes with laces, or for entertaining Jewish White Supremacists with anything but a bullet to the head."

Marouf's articulations of hatred online were not limited to Jewish people.

In a posting on July 8, 2022, he attacked French Canadians, writing: "French Frogs are very tasty roasted. Go back to your franco gutter."

Stephen Ellis, Marouf's lawyer, suggested that his client does not harbor "any animus toward the Jewish faith as a collective group," and claimed further that "the tweets reflect a frustration with the reality of Israeli apartheid and a Canadian government which collaborates with it."

Trudeau's Minister of Diversity and Inclusion Ahmed Hussen announced on August 22 that the government contract conferred on CMAC had been suspended.

In an effort to shield the Trudeau government from blame, Hussen suggested CMAC had to answer for having hired Marouf. "We call on CMAC, an organization claiming to fight racism and hate in Canada, to answer how they came to hire Laith Marouf, and how they plan on rectifying the situation given the nature of his antisemitic and xenophobic comments."

Shimon Koffler Fogel, CEO of the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs, lauded the termination of the contract and suggested that it was horrifying that "an individual with a history of making outrageous and hateful statements on social media is a consultant being paid using funds from the Anti-Racism Action Program."

This week, former Liberal MP Michael Levitt castigated the Liberal party for not uniformly "taking a stand against antisemitism ... Jewish MPs shouldn't be left to call this out alone."

Despite their initiatives combatting hatred and discrimination, Trudeau and his government have themselves proved inconsistent.

Numerous photographs emerged of an adult Trudeau dressed in blackface in 2019. In one of the apologies he made (as the release of multiple photos was staggered), Trudeau acknowledged the action was "racist."

\u201cA previously unseen photograph of Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau in blackface makeup and costume has emerged. #cdnpoli \n\nhttps://t.co/KpHpCITyUV\u201d
— True North (@True North) 1632166200

In March, Trudeau's deputy prime minister is alleged to have hoisted a red and black symbol associated with the Ukrainian Insurgent army, a nationalist group active during the Second World War responsible for killing thousands of Jews and approximately 100,000 Poles.

In response to the vandalism and torching of over 68 Christian churches in Canada last summer and amid calls from the executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association to "burn it all down," Trudeau stated: "I understand the anger that's out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic church; it is real and it is fully understandable."

On Wednesday, Canadian political commentator Rex Murphy highlighted the Liberals' inconsistency, particularly Trudeau's. He compared the prime minister's outrage at his deputy prime minister being called a traitor to Trudeau's lack of outrage regarding this incident: "Could it be that in the imperial halls of our present government, the attitude of 'the Jews are used to it' serves as a screen for lassitude toward antisemitism? That a foul word against a cabinet minister calls out the trumpets, but subsidies to an antisemitic “anti-racism” consultant requires no flood of denunciation at all?"

Horowitz: Gov’t watchdog reports internal allegations of political interference in science at NIH/CDC/FDA



"Respondents from CDC and FDA told us they did not report potential political interference in scientific decision-making because they feared retaliation." While these words from a brand-new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report are not earth-shattering to anyone paying attention over the past two years, they are a bombshell coming from a government agency.

The GAO just released a report on political interference in scientific decisions, based on interviews with employees of the four HHS agencies most responsible for the coronavirus response. The findings were derived from personal interviews as well as tips offered to a confidential hotline set up for the investigation. The investigators’ conclusion, which they conveyed in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate judiciary committees and committees overseeing HHS, was that these agencies “do not have procedures that define political interference in scientific decision-making or describe how it should be reported and addressed.”

The four agencies subject to the GAO investigation were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR).

The GAO investigators revealed to Congress that "a few respondents from CDC and FDA stated they felt that the potential political interference they observed resulted in the alteration or suppression of scientific findings." What were the consequences? "Some of these respondents believed that this potential political interference may have resulted in the politically motivated alteration of public health guidance or delayed publication of COVID-19-related scientific findings."

Oh, so you mean political science, cronyism, and fear of retaliation explain why dangerous novel vaccines and therapeutics got immediate approval as standard of care (and even used for mandates) despite sketchy data and no established safety profile, while dozens of promising already-FDA-approved off-label drugs were ignored or denigrated – all for politics? Yeah, no kidding.

The reason this is so earth-shattering is not that pay-for-play is new to government agencies, such as the EPA or the DOD, for example, where outside cronies use politics and money to corrupt good public policy all the time. It’s that our very lives, liberty, and bodily integrity have now been pegged to the whims of “science.” Thus, the agencies tasked with studying that science are not only run by political science, but have zero procedures in place to root out the inevitable political control of that science, which results in nothing short of life-and-death decisions.

Moreover, these agencies suffer from a particular moral hazard in the sense that the very corporations most likely to corrupt the science and poison the bodies of the people pay the bills and salaries of these agencies. Prior to 1992, the FDA was prohibited from accepting fees from drug companies. Following the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allowed it to collect fees, “user fees have played an important role in expediting the drug approval process,” according to the FDA’s website. How “important” is this role? By 2017, Big Pharma paid 75% of the FDA’s drug review budget. Much of the agency’s funding comes from the “nonprofit” CDC Foundation authorized in that 1992 bill, which is funded by companies like Pfizer and Merck. Science magazine reported in 2018 that nearly half the doctors and scientists on the FDA’s various advisory committees received funding from Big Pharma companies to get their drugs approved.

Private emails released via FOIA revealed several months ago that the CDC Foundation worked with Facebook, Merck, the WHO, and other pharma entities on an “Alliance for Advancing Health Online” initiative to control the narrative. So whether it’s issues of off-label early treatments, vaccine safety and efficacy, science about asymptomatic transmission, or the threat of COVID to children, every morsel of information put out by the HHS agencies is influenced and controlled by pharma and Big Tech to steer a specific outcome that will always benefit Big Pharma.

Gee, is it any wonder why the FDA has just approved a failed and toxic drug like remdesivir even for babies and toddlers as standard of care for $3,000, while refusing to offer even tacit approval for existing, fully approved drugs like fluvoxamine, budesonide, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin? They didn’t even complete the study on remdesivir for babies, and it won’t be finished until next year! In fact, even this week, the FDA continued to horse around with the Nobel Prize-winning ivermectin, while approving Merck’s true horse drug Molnupiravir, which is so dangerous that even the media has attacked it.

Hold your horses, y'all. Ivermectin may be trending, but it still isn't authorized or approved to treat COVID-19.https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19\u00a0\u2026
— U.S. FDA (@U.S. FDA) 1650979144

Oh, and now HHS can work with the DHS’ new “Disinformation Governing Board” to enforce Big Pharma fascism on behalf of their benefactors.

This is not your grandfather’s bureaucratic pay-for-play scheme. This affects the lives and bodies of hundreds of millions of people. There used to be a limit to how much they were willing to bend life science for political science and greed. Now, there is no limit.

There’s a reason why the pharma fascists and the biomedical tyrants need this degree of control, collusion, subsidization, and censorship to succeed in their plot. At a recent Canadian parliamentary committee hearing, the president of Astra Zeneca Canada could not answer why the company vigorously lobbied governments for complete exemption from all liability.

"Indemnification clauses" protect manufacturers of #vaccines from liability. Today at the Foreign Affairs Committee the President of @AstraZenecaCA could not answer basic questions about why indemnification clauses were asked for and how they apply. #cdnpoli #COVID19pic.twitter.com/VO0xIi3a6i
— Garnett Genuis (@Garnett Genuis) 1650914059

I think we know the answer. They can’t afford accountability and liability, and they can get away with ensuring they will never be held responsible. The only immunity the shots convey is for the manufacturers. Who is going to hold them responsible? Can you name the number of Republicans running for office this year on the promise to alter the powers of HHS and its relationship with Big Pharma? You won’t need more than one hand to count the names.