Climate skeptic: 'Big Brother watched me'

Canada wouldn’t prosecute us over our views on climate change, would it?

By Tom Harris, writing in the Toronto Sun


This slogan appeared on posters of the Party leader in the dystopian society of George Orwell’s 1984.

It was a constant reminder of omnipresent government surveillance for “thoughtcrime” — independent thinking.

In Orwell’s book, Winston Smith, a Ministry of Truth “history re-writer,” quietly rebelled against this oppression, secretly starting a diary expressing forbidden thoughts.

But government telescreens were everywhere.

Watched constantly, Smith’s every move was monitored.

In 1984, the consequences of being caught were dire; the stress on individuals enormous.

As head of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), I have been feeling a bit like Smith these days.

That’s because the ICSC has been under investigation by Canada’s Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency that “has a legislated mandate to ensure Canadian consumers and businesses prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace.”

Here’s what happened.

In December, 2015 while in Paris attending counter conferences to the United Nations’ climate meetings, I learned the environmental organization Ecojustice had registered a complaint with the Competition Bureau on behalf of six prominent Canadians against ICSC, Friends of Science, and the Heartland Institute.

Ecojustice claimed we presented “climate science misrepresentations” which “promote the denier groups’ own business interest” and “promote the business interests of deep-pocketed individuals and corporations that appear to fund the denier groups.”

Our own core principles — which we state online on our homepage — were presented as evidence against us.

Two of our allies assembled a 37-page response to the attack in which they presented peer-reviewed research in support of our positions.

They suggested I counterattack with this impressive rebuttal.

Others cautioned me to keep my powder dry since the complaint made no sense.

We were simply exercising our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to express our opinions. That is what science is all about, the opinions of experts based on their interpretations of observations.

Further, the complainants had no idea who helps ICSC financially.

With the exception of Order of Canada recipient, the late Dr. Gerry G. Hatch, who openly supported us, the identities of our donors have been confidential since 2008.

Some of our scientists have had death threats for contesting climate alarmism.

We do not want to risk exposing our donors to such abuse.

So, I did nothing, hoping the Competition Bureau would dismiss the complaint as unfounded.

Yet, five months later, it did launch an investigation, referencing a complaint that we make “representations to the public in promotion of a business interest that are false or misleading in a material respect regarding climate change.”

The bureau warned us,

“If the results of an investigation disclose evidence that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, provides the basis for a criminal prosecution, the matter may be referred to the Attorney General of Canada, who determines whether a prosecution should be undertaken.”

Although I asked the bureau where they suspected ICSC may have made false or misleading statements, it refused to say, citing subsection 10(3) of the Competition Act which requires inquiries to be conducted privately.

Aside from a letter in November, 2016 informing me that the investigation was “ongoing”, I heard essentially nothing until the beginning of July, 2017.

I received a letter from the bureau informing me,

“While the Commissioner has discontinued the inquiry, and no further steps are contemplated at this time, be advised that no binding determination has been made respecting the conduct of International Climate Science Coalition. The Commissioner continues to have discretion to investigate and take enforcement action in respect of matters previously inquired into, including where additional information is discovered following the discontinuance of an inquiry.”

The National Observer reported they received an e-mail from a bureau spokesperson concerning this investigation stating, “We invite Canadians who believe they may have additional information to contact the Competition Bureau.”

So, after nearly 14 months, the investigation is “discontinued” but revivable if it receives “additional information.”

Is this the Canada my father and grandfathers defended against tyranny?

Harris is the executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition

120 thoughts on “Climate skeptic: 'Big Brother watched me'

      • Bingo, 1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not “Totalitarianism For Dummies.”
        I consistently think that Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury, and Rand (and Murphy) were all raging optimists.

      • It was a warning against totalitarianism, not socialism. Orwell was a socialist for his entire life. While he saw the tendency to authoritarian impositions amongst his comrades, he nevertheless sought out a non-authoritarian socialist solution to the world’s problems.
        It’s clear if you read the essay the quote is taken from. The “united states of europe” he wanted was a bulwark against Soviet Russia’s hegemony and a means to mitigate the possibility of nuclear war.

      • Archer, there you go clearly much of the seeds of the EU were planted by Orwell’s essay. Why else would Jean Monnet an EU founding father say
        “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

      • “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” Churchill 1947
        These are keen and wise words that no one seems to take to heart these days. Basically what Churchill was getting at is that it’s not the form of government that you write down on paper that makes it good or bad -Communism on paper is ‘utopian’ in nature after all- but the people running it.
        Can Democratic, Communist, or Socialist governments be good or bad? Yes to all, as long as you aren’t blindly entrusting people to run it in your best interests or part of the mob that falls into totalitarianism, and that was clearly the theme of 1984. As of today, the Democratic system is the best assurance against the abuse of power from the state.
        It would be interesting to see if Orwell would be a socialist now in today’s much different society. He was obviously privy to the traps that the system could easily fall into that have already started to plague our economy and way of thinking.

      • Socialism is totalitarianism because it confuses needs with rights. For example, to claim that medical care is a right means that the providers of medical care must be subject to the needs of the people through the agency of the state. Providers thus become, in some measure, the slaves of the state. The same will be true for providers of food, or housing, or clothing. Eventually, all human needs will become subject to the arbitration of the state. Such a state is totalitarian, in every sense of the word. Such a state will rob us all of our humanity, first by robbing us of the ability to provide for our own needs, then by robbing us of our hope for own life.

      • “Basically what Churchill was getting at is that it’s not the form of government that you write down on paper that makes it good or bad ”
        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C W Lewis
        One thing missing from interpretations of Orwell is that the totalitarians believe the oppressed should be grateful. They aren’t giggling about what they got away with. Orwell died a miserable bastard because he refused to accept that socialism always leads to totalitarianism.

      • MRW September 26, 2017 at 9:32 pm says;
        “‘Socialism IS totalitarianism.'”
        “No, it’s not. They’re opposite.”

        They are supposed to be opposite, but due to human nature, they end up the same.

      • I’ve read that a benevolent dictatorship may be the best form of government.
        Unfortunately benevolent dictators are as rare as hen’s teeth.

      • To those on the receiving end of government provided free stuff. Socialism does provide them with the freedom of not having to worry where their next meal is coming from.
        The problem is that there are no free lunches. That free stuff has to be provided by someone.
        Everything provided by government has to be first taken from those who made it. Usually by force.

      • “‘Socialism IS totalitarianism.’”
        “No, it’s not. They’re opposite.”
        Actually, it always was totalitarianism – proponents just used the ol’ bait and switch to sell it as the opposite. The mechanics make it impossible for it to be anything else.
        Just like almost any progressive policy almost invariably does the opposite of what it claims to do.

    • They are just showing their true colors, not beeing science? ” In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy”. (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland). No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.”

  1. Canada (and the British) have very squishy free speech guarantees.The UK does not have a constitution, and the Canadian version has rather too many exceptions. Of course, the US has its proponents of “hate speech” rules that do much the same thing.
    There are people out there who act as if Eric Blair wrote an instruction manual.

  2. some bunch of bureaucrats has be to be fired for abuse of power as an example.
    Oh never mind, it’s Trump USA, it’s Tru…deau Canada.

    • The bureaucrats might have feared retribution if they did NOT launch an investigation to get the complainants off their backs. (I interpret the messages sent from them as mere boilerplate.)

  3. Also worth mentioned Trudeau the Prime Minister with the fancy socks has stated he admires China and how they get things done. So that should give an indication the Liberal tone of government in Canada.

  4. Canada has been successfully hijacked by the international liberal movement. It will be difficult to recover until a social policy disaster ensues. There seems to be a death wish infecting the otherwise pragmatic population. Is there a cure or must the fever run it’s course? GK

    • ” …international liberal movement.”
      Why do we keep calling them liberals? They aren’t liberal and haven’t been for quite some time.

      • Steve Borodin got it right with his comment just a few comments above: They are fascist leftists, not liberals. Classic liberalism is suffering death by suffocation under the modern day fascism that appears to be in the process of becoming pandemic.

      • “Alt Left” is a better descriptor. They hate it, so be sure to use it. It seems Canada is trying real hard to catch up with Sweden and Germany … give Trudeau a chance and he will.

    • Ontario is trying really hard to show what a social policy disaster looks like. Will the rest of the provinces take note?

    • G. Kamrst –
      The disaster is unfolding as you speak as Trudeau is planning on implementing draconian tax measures this fall. Many people and companies are moving of shore. Like many others with investments in Canada, I am liquidating most of my portfolio given that some of these tax “reforms” are said to be retroactive. The Bank of Canada is also messinfpg exports up with raising interest. Out two western provinces have gone NDP and anti-development especially oil and natural days and an economy disrupting Carbon Tax. BC has lost close to 50 billion dollars in proposed LNG plants in the last few weeks and blocking other pipeline developments
      The flight of capital from these two provinces is huge. And now with the strongly left wing actions of the Federal Government is driving more capital off shore.
      Many folks are liquidating their portfolios like I am and waiting till this insanity goes away in four or five years. I hope. Can you spell impen dingbrecession and safe havens?

      • How about some links?
        The tax measures getting the most flack are designed to prevent professionals from splitting income with family members. Doctors and dentists should not pay less tax than their secretaries.
        One of my younger siblings left business and took a job. All of a sudden, a whole bunch of tax loopholes closed. What a shock!

      • commie, doctors and dentists don’t pay less tax than their secretaries. They may pay at a lower rate, but they don’t pay less.
        Regardless, why shouldn’t legitimate business expenses be deductible?

  5. Are there any countries not ruled by tyranny at this point? I can’t think of any…..
    As far as I can see, the only way out of this is to stop selling fossil fuels immediately. Yes, bad things WILL happen. It’s either that or sit in the pot like a lobster until the boiling water kills us. I guess it’s whether or not you want this fight now in your lifetime or you are leaving it to your children to figure out. It will not resolve itself. There’s too much at a stake and too many people and governments involved.
    (It may be impossible to get oil and gas to go along. In spite of claims to the contrary, oil and gas benefit mightily from climate change propaganda. Renewables yeild tax credits, they need backup. Huge quantities of fossil fuels are used in manufacturing and installing said “renewables”. It’s a win-win for the fossil fuel industries.)

    • Yes, The USA. We just got rid of tyrant Obama by term limits and prevented his choice, an easily coercible Hillary, from assuming his throne. Obama and Putin both no doubt have fat folders full of blackmail material against the Clinton Crime Syndicate and her cronies. When that didn’t play out as Obama planned, he tried to have his crinies create one against Trump by unmasking intel intercepts. They came up dry, so they have had to fabricate one.

    • “whether you want this fight now or you are leaving it to your children.”
      I fight my fights and my children will fight theirs. I cannot predict or fight my children’s fights.

    • Whether the greenies like it or not, oil and gas will be burned in Canada into the foreseeable future. Most of Canada is brutally cold four to five months a year, and people will always need oil and gas to heat their homes. Even if the extra CO2 did cause air temperatures to increase, many Canadians wouldn’t mind -38 F on Christmas morning instead of -40 F.
      If greenies in Canada really want zero CO2 emissions, let them spend a winter in a teepee. And no wood fires, because burning wood produces more CO2 than natural gas or oil, and it destroys forests!

  6. Are you or have you, or any members of your family, or your friends, now or in the past, or intend at some future time to be members of, or associated with, or read literature by, or view images and videos from, the International Climate Denier Organizations, membership that includes but is not limited to Heartland Institute, wattsupwiththat·com, joannenova·com·au, climateofsophistry·com/, notalotofpeopleknowthat·wordpress·com, principia-scientific·org, notrickszone·com etc., etc,

  7. They are going to conduct an inquiry, it’s secret so you have no right to know what the charges are or who your accusers are or even who the commission is talking to you in order to conduct this “inquiry”.
    Your only option is to wait until this secret tribunal is finished to find out the predetermined result.

  8. The inquiry is secret, which means that you have no right to know anything about who they are talking to, or any chance to mount a defense. You just get to wait until they render their decision.
    Truly Orwellian.

  9. Time for a complaint against Ecojustice, a presumably tax free eco-charity which is abusing the regulatory agencies of Canada to suppress free speech and to harm a private Canadian entity in order to further its own ambitions and those of its funders.

  10. They can take enforcement action without letting you even know the charge, let alone defend yourself? Surely there is some constitutional defence?
    On the bright side, the Alarmists failed!

  11. Poor Canada, our very favored neighbor. (We’ll forget that part about the irate Canadians burning down the White House, or that other part about Canada now requiring all US visitors to declare whether they have knives that can be opened with one hand. ) We luv u guys. Moose, Mounties, dozens of autonomous indigenous nations and all that.
    But the “complainant always has the upper hand” business? THAT is Orwellian. Means I, or you, or the complete âhss next door can register a complaint first then have the long-arm of the Law harass you endlessly. (Contrarily of course, you COULD be the first to complain about Ye Ol’ âhss the neighbor, and get the arm-of-Law to do your bidding. But think of what either implies…)
    I tend to think that honorable people really ought to get cleared of “suspicion of malicious intent” very rapidly. Its like that nameless US Supreme Court justice said, “It seems we can’t actually define porn, but I know it when I see it.”. Same for Big Brother’s chicanery. Get the complaint aired. Make rebuttals in court. Has a justice think about whether the complaint is vacuous or not. If it is, then toss it out. END OF PROBLEM.

    • It seems we can’t actually define porn, but I know it when I see it.”
      Paraphrase of concurringing opinion of Justice Potter Stewart in Jacabellis v Ohio

  12. “representations to the public in promotion of a business interest that are false or misleading in a material respect regarding climate change.”
    ask them to define “climate change”.
    depending upon which authority you cite, the term may or may not include natural variability. which means the term is ambiguous, and as such pretty much any statement about climate change is both true and false at the same time.

  13. climate change is both true and false at the same time
    climate change (authority A) = climate change (authority B)
    climate change (authority A) = natural variability + human change
    climate change (authority B) = human change
    natural variability + human change = human change
    human change human change CO2 for natural variability 0.
    thus if natural variability 0, then human change human change

  14. proof:
    climate change (authority A) = climate change (authority B)
    climate change (authority A) = natural variability + human change
    climate change (authority B) = human change
    natural variability + human change = human change
    human change != human change CO2 for natural variability != 0.
    thus if natural variability != 0, then human change != human change
    since: human change = human change and human change != human change
    climate change must be both true and false at the same time.

    • Your equation 4 is false.
      natural variability + human change = total change
      total change != human change
      Unless natural variability << human change and total change ~ human change

  15. This nonsense cuts both ways.
    File a class action counter complaint with the Competition Bureau, one widely endorsed by associates of ICSC, of Friends of Science, etc.The complaint should target Ecojustice and big money connections that have vested interests in silencing public dialogue and competition that are adverse to their interests – to James Hogan of desmogblog and the Suzuki foundation, to the Climate Accountability Institute, and so forth.

    … modern society would collapse into anarchy within days without Fossil Fuels. Thus, it appears that Ecojustice is presenting false and misleading information that puts society at risk. Maybe someone should complain. Perhaps to the Canada Revenue Agency which has granted Ecojustice the status of being a federally registered charity on the basis of providing a ‘net public benefit.’ [3] For this status, charities are required to provide fair and balanced information. We don’t think they are doing that – especially in regard to the NEB- National Energy Board. [4] It is hard to see what the alleged ‘benefit’ of Ecojustice’ actions are when Canada’s economic strength is being damaged, investors are being scared off and hundreds of thousands of workers are jobless, thanks to pipeline “Blockadia” – driven by Ecojustice and groups like them.
    Yes, it is Freakojustice that is misleading the public.

  17. I read it as , they got nothing but don’t want to admit they should never have started down this road in the first place . Saving face exercise by unthinking and unfeeling bureaucratic body full of people who are so unless that otherwise could not get a job teaching rubber ducks to float .

  18. Tom Harris,
    Are you by chance the same Tom Harris who used to write science articles for the San Jose Mercury News?

  19. But if you are of the AGW religion you can publish lies any time.
    How many time has the Arctic been forecast to be ice free before this year. David barber said it would be ice free in 2008.
    At a conference in Winnipeg in December 2016 a researcher at the U of Manitoba said Hudson bay would be ice free in the WINTER in 5 to 10 years. This was in the Winnipeg Free Press. When will he be investigated?

  20. The action against the ICSC would appear to be in contradiction of the Canadian charter of Rights , incorporated into a constitutional document , largely as the result of an initiative by a Pierre Trudeau:
    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (French: La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), in Canada often simply the Charter, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter guarantees certain political rights to Canadian citizens and civil rights of everyone in Canada from the policies and actions of all areas and levels of the government. It is designed to unify Canadians around a set of principles that embody those rights. The Charter was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II of Canada on April 17, 1982, along with the rest of the Act.”
    Has the young Trudeau repealed that Act . I am not sure that he can do that without Crown agreement.
    There is along list of Rights and Freedoms in the original Charter and the right to a free trial and the presumption of innocence is among them .
    If a similar situation had arisen in, say, Pinochet’s Chile ( and it probably did ) just imagine the protests from the Liberal Left .

  21. Piddle on them. The first time this sort of issue comes properly and fully before a Court in Oz, Canada or UK, the CACA crowd’s phoney science will be destroyed in cross-examination by very capable QCs. The US Courts could probably do it too – Mann v Ball/Steyn has worked out well so far for Mann hasn’t it…?

  22. I look forward to seeing some interesting court cases soon where can see a nice discussion as to whether it is scientifically correct to add radiative fluxes from 2 sources and derive a sink temperature from the SB equation AND a nice court room discussion as to which experiments in the entire history of mankind show that you can transfer energy from a cool object to a hotter one via radiation and thus make the hotter one warmer.
    These are pretty fundamental to the arguments for and against the science of AGW and it is simple basic science things like this that we need to get aired in a courtroom. It’s going to be priceless!!
    Of course the lists of fundamental errors, misconceptions, faulty logic, etc are very long so I think these cases could take years before there is a verdict. Counter claims should always be made as well as there is a very good chance masses of money can be extracted from the AGW pseudoscientists and their supporters once we win.

  23. “Further, the complainants had no idea who helps ICSC financially”
    Well, who does?
    It would present yourselves in a more favourable light if you were open and honest about that.
    One of the charges laid against skeptics – and a barrier to acceptance of their viewpoint – is that fossil fuel business interests fund them.
    show that’s not the case (or defend that funding).
    (I’d very much like to know who funds the GWPF… their mysterious funding is a major source of my distrust of the information they put out)

    • You must be very stupid not to be able to discover that in short order.
      Who funds your childish postings by the way?

    • The reasons why the donor list is kept private were given in the article and are eminently justifiable.
      Even if the list was 100% open, the trolls will still strain some gnats in order to find an obscure connection to an oil company somewhere in the list and from that declare this proves they are funded by oil companies.
      Look what they did to Dr. Soon.
      The group that funded him got a one time grant that amounted to about 1% of the organizations budget for that year.
      The donation was years before Dr. Soon was hired.
      The donation was a grant for a project that had nothing to do with climate and wasn’t even for the group Dr. Soon worked for.
      Nonetheless the usual bad actors declared that Dr. Soon had to be ignored because he was funded by big oil.

    • No Griff, the reason you distrust their information because it doesn’t support your religious beliefs.
      You apply the same standard no matter who’s putting out the information.

    • Griff, you prove convincingly that you are a warmist bigot,because you go the easy low IQ way of promoting funding smears. YOU that same raging hypocrite who ignores GOVERNMENT funding of warmist scientists,along with giant super computers and other pricey tools,who have been caught red handed on data manipulations and peer review collusion.
      From the post:
      “Although I asked the bureau where they suspected ICSC may have made false or misleading statements, it refused to say, citing subsection 10(3) of the Competition Act which requires inquiries to be conducted privately.”
      Tom Harris,never found out,since they dropped the 14 month long investigation. They never answered a simple reasonable request,that couldn’t have damaged the obvious witch hunt investigation. 14 months!!!
      The complaint was filed,
      “Ecojustice claimed we presented “climate science misrepresentations” which “promote the denier groups’ own business interest” and “promote the business interests of deep-pocketed individuals and corporations that appear to fund the denier groups.”
      After FOURTEEN months,the complaint/investigation was dropped. They had plenty of time to find out,but there was NOTHING in the end.
      THINK Griff,think!
      Can’t you see that it was a “witch hunt’?

    • Have you apologises for maliciously slandering Dr. Crockford yet, Skanky?
      Don’t you think you should?
      As to funds this, that or the other organisation that you are paid to impugn, would it make any difference to inform you – including chapter and verse – of precisely who is was?
      It has never stopped you lying about Dr. Soon, and you have been told on numerous occasions the truth of the matter, but you still continue to slander him.
      But then, that’s what you paid to do isn’t it, lie?
      As a matter of interest, I wonder what your employers would make of your wide spread notoriety…

    • Griff, the people I know (including me) are VERY touchy about the privacy of their charitable donations. It’s between me, God, and Canada Revenue Agency (the equivalent of the US’s IRS), and no one else. Any organization the disclosed my donations to it would quickly have one less donor.

    • One of the charges laid against skeptics – and a barrier to acceptance of their viewpoint – is that fossil fuel business interests fund them. show that’s not the case (or defend that funding).

      Heavy accusation there Griff, but in the free civilised democracies the burden on proof is on you.
      To get you going French President Emmanuel Macron has deemed max USD $1.7 million lump sum enough to buy a US climate scientist. No reason to think he pulled it out of his hat without checking.

      their mysterious funding is a major source of my distrust of the information they put out

      A former KBG agent shares your sentiments. Are fractions of degrees in the average outside air temperature is really worth slipping down this slope in your opinion? If yes, please note it goes both ways and CACA will eventually hit the fan.

  24. I knew climate panic had degenerated into derangement 10 years ago when the mayor of Minneapolis worried aloud on the Weather Channel that spring would come too soon. Minneapolis and most of Canada were a mile deep in ice until 18,000 years ago when the current round of warming began.
    As it is, people have been moving from both places to Southern California for 150 years because it’s warmer there. How sick and ludicrous can climate hypochondria get?

  25. The investigation must have cost money.
    Can you FOI how much and from which budget it came from?
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Had “Hellary” been “elected” instead of President Trump you and I would have counted the days until the U.S. Supreme Court would with first restricting free speech until it was completely eliminated !
    That guy (Thing?) should have His (It?) forehead shaved just in case there is a few “numbers” stamped there as a way to”Identify” just exactly what “It” (He?) is !!!
    And “We” the American People “almost” did the same by electing “Hellary” !!!
    Point being the “LEFT” is just using Climate/Global/Change/Warming to “stamp” out FREE SPEECH period, and if that doesn’t work they will “find” something else, AND [ EVERY ] TIME YOU/ME/WE/US GO TO THE VOTING POLLS YOU/ME/WE/US EITHER VOTE TO STOP THAT “CRAP”, ORRRRRRRR, WE VOTE IT INTO [ “LAW” ] and then We live with the results (Which = Consequences)… ? ! ? !!!
    THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF “INSANITY” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    And then later the same people come to blogs like this and complain about it… ?
    These truly are the last days where/when evil is good and good is evil !

  27. Why can’t this same tactic be used against Ecojustice? Or for that matter, Greenpeace and many others. They have indeed proclaimed false advertisements in order to get donations. Polar bears anyone? All of that was false advertising.
    If all it takes is a complaint by citizens…

    • You can file the charges, but the government bureaucrats who run the thing would never actually investigate fellow travelers.

  28. The Liberals in Canada (Trudeau ) attack small business yet encourage Chinese to bring their laundered money and 15% tax payers in to take over Vancouver real-estate and drive the families that pay 40% tax out . Trudeau is a commie lover just like his silver spoon old man .
    Go out to UBC and you couldn’t tell the difference whether you were in Beijing . White kids need not apply .

  29. Never underestimate two things about Canadian leftists: their desire to use government power to force you to change and their complete inability to follow through on any project due to incompetence, stupidity and laziness.

  30. From birth lefty and amusing, civilised writer Christopher Hitchens’ autobiography shows how ‘revolutions’ on behalf of the people merely replace one set of tyrants with another.

Comments are closed.