Hey Democrats: Can You Say Your Next Nominee?

In two words, Jon Ossoff.

Liaison.

Incroyable, mais vrai. More of that PP ballot-box poison:

Those numbers trended in the opposite direction for the Conservative leader [Pierre Poilièvre], who saw his favourability rating fall 2% to 37%, with his disapproval rating increasing three percentage points to 50%.

CPC: The Question On Every Conservative's Mind.

What would he do?

The Honourable Wayne Long

Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)

Represents the riding of Saint John—Kennebecasis

Page details

Date modified:

2026-01-09

Page details

Carney: It's A National Trend.

From: Léger

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:e7b3e6bb-7ec0-4ef4-9e38-7ee98097d42f

PP: More Of The Same...

From: Opinions & Ratings.

Does Mark Carney Have Higher Public Approval Than Pierre Poilievre?

Pierre Poilievre Approval Rating 2026 Polls  

Pierre Poilievre vs Mark Carney Approval Comparison  

Mark Carney currently holds a relatively stable public standing with approval ranging between 50% and 56% according to recent polling aggregates. His disapproval remains contained in the 30% to 40% range, indicating a broadly favorable but not unchallenged public perception. This places him in a net positive position across most demographic and regional breakdowns, with support appearing consistent across both male and female voters.

Pierre Poilievre, by contrast, records approval levels between 33% and 38%, reflecting a more constrained base of positive sentiment. His disapproval ranges from 50% to 60%, indicating that a majority of respondents hold an unfavorable view of him across most surveys. The resulting gap between approval and disapproval underscores a persistent imbalance in overall public reception.

Gender patterns show a clear divergence between the two leaders. Carney performs strongly among women, with approval consistently above the mid-50s and peaking within his overall range, while Poilievre’s favorability among women remains significantly lower and closer to his national average. Among men, Carney maintains a modest but consistent advantage, while Poilievre’s support does not fully close the gap even in his relatively stronger demographic segments.

Regionally, Carney’s support is strongest in British Columbia, where approval approaches the upper end of his range, while Alberta shows comparatively higher disapproval within his overall 30% to 40% band. Poilievre’s regional performance peaks modestly in Western provinces but weakens in Quebec, where his unfavorability is most pronounced.

Age dynamics further differentiate the two. Poilievre’s strongest support appears among voters aged 35 to 49, but his approval weakens notably among younger voters aged 18 to 34 and seniors aged 65 and above, where disapproval reaches the upper end of his national range. Carney, in contrast, maintains more even support across age groups within his 50% to 56% approval band.

Would You Buy A Used Car From PP?

From: the deep dive.ca

Conservative Pundit On Poilievre: “Right Now, Who He Is Will Not Be Prime Minister”

Poilievre’s favourability had fallen to 33% in April 2026, down from 40% in January 2024. Among 2025 Conservative voters, his favourability remained high at 75%, but that was also down from 88% the previous summer.

Conservative pundit on Poilievre: "Right now, who he is will not be Prime Minister"

PP Doesn't Give A Shit About The Party Or YOUR Re-Election.

Liaison:

As for the party leaders themselves, Liaison found that Carney clearly remains voters’ top choice. The new poll found that the prime minister has a +20 rating (57 per cent approval, 37 per cent disapproval), while Poilievre has a –12 rating (37 per cent favourable, 49 per cent unfavourable), and Lewis has a +3 rating (26 per cent favourable, 23 per cent unfavourable).

Léger.

LPC: 48%

CPC: 34%

NDP: 6%

BQ: 6%

GPC: 4%

The Poilievre paradox: Voters agree with everything he says but can't bring themselves to support him.

From: MastermindQuotes.com

The Poilievre paradox: Voters agree with everything he says but can't bring themselves to support him

Why CUSMA Is Already Dead And What Should Come Next.

I thought I would bring you up to date on what's really going on with CUSMA, which will be referred to as USMCA going forward. USMCA was negotiated by the first Trump Administration as a replacement for NAFTA, which, at the time, Trump called the worst trade deal ever negotiated by the United States. That comment should have told us all we needed to know about how Trump handles trade disputes: he mostly complains but also bullies to get his way and moves the goalposts at will, and that's precisely what the Administration is doing now. The formal USMCA renewal date is July 1, 2026, with Trump having three options to choose from: the United States can cancel USMCA on six months' notice; it can be reviewed annually over ten years, or it can be renewed for the next sixteen years. 

Anyone who is even mildly sentient already knows what Trump will do because he has telegraphed it multiple times: he wants a bilateral with Canada similar to one already being negotiated with Mexico, but only on a win-lose basis where Canada caves and gives in on supply management, cultural industries, Chinese EVs and a host of other issues. Trump probably already knows that no self-respecting PM could possibly agree to such terms, so, in essence, there goes the potential bilateral. 

So, what should Canada do next? Given the fact that Dom is a lousy negotiator and his boss lives up to the nickname CluelessCarneyTM, from the bottom of my heart, I'll show them the way forward in this country's best interests: under the WTO's GATT trading principles, Canada should put our industries first when it comes to low-cost imports. All tariffs, with the exception of those on our national security industries, should be dropped unilaterally to 0% to serve as a mechanism to cushion Canadian businesses in this new world where there is no longer a trade agreement with the United States. In crucial areas such as steel, aluminum, lumber, auto parts, pork, and canola, the definitive tariff rate would be negotiated between Ottawa and industry representative lobby groups. In short, the rate should be whatever they can live with while still making a respectable profit. These rates would not affect anti-dumping or countervailing duties already in place unless both industry and the government agreed to modifications. 

Broadly speaking, under MFN rules, these 0% tariffs would apply to all WTO member nations except for countries subject to a specific exemption or in cases where an exemption is proposed by the federal government.

Alberta Referendum: Why The Separatists Will Win!

Let’s start with one of the questions, the one concerning separation:

Should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta initiate the legal process provided for in the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should secede from Canada?

I want to make it clear and confirm my support for Smith’s decision to organize this initial referendum. Like her, I believe that Albertans must be heard and that, had the government blocked this initiative, the consequences for national unity would have been both immediate and disastrous. 

Let us now turn to the reasons why I think the separatists will win. They start with 35 percent support for their option. Add to that a vague question, which does not require constitutional negotiations on separation to take place immediately after the referendum, and the final outcome will be chaotic, to say the least. 

 I think the separatists will urge federalist Albertans to send a message to Ottawa by voting ‘Yes’, and if they play their cards right, it won’t be too difficult for them to secure the 15 percent plus one vote they need to get a win. People will be told that it's ‘risk-free’ to vote ‘Yes’ now, and then vote ‘No’ later. This will be a distortion of the well-known refrain that ‘the West wants in’. 

If the ‘Yes’ vote wins, the danger to the Canadian federation will grow rapidly: we know Trump and what he is capable of. I expect his Administration to maintain, at the very least, close ties with the Alberta separatists. Trump has his eye on Alberta’s oil and gas; he might therefore suggest that an independent Alberta could benefit from a fast-track process to achieve statehood, which would pose a problem for the ‘remain’ option. If such a scenario were to unfold, I think Albertans would probably welcome this offer and might, in the end, accept Trump’s offer.

 But let’s get back to the question: if the ‘Yes’ vote wins, it will mean that Smith must resign as UCP leader. Let’s not forget that, on the face of it, she is the head of the federalist camp and its principal advocate in the province. Her party’s members are split into two equal camps on this issue. So… if the ‘No’ vote loses, there's no way Smith can stay on as Premier. 

To sum up: I have a sinking feeling that the ‘Yes’ vote will win. And as a result, this vote will change the course of history in Alberta and in the other Canadian provinces and territories. 

Time To Ratchet Up The Pressure.

You can count on me. Fresh off Rodriguez and now PP is next. God bless the CPC. Time to win again without Pierre keeping us in the ditch.

UK: Starmer Is G-O-N-E!

Now, at least, Labour will have a fighting chance. I prefer the Conservatives but can live with another Labour win if that's what it takes to keep Reform out. No offense, Nigel.

UK: Oh, Christ.

From: The Daily Mail.

An Opinium poll:

He [Burnham] recorded a net acceptability score of +8, ahead of John Healey (-8), Al Carns (-10) and Wes Streeting (-16).

But Mr. Burnham's standing [with the public] has fallen by 12 points since May, representing the largest decline among Sir Keir's possible replacements.

And then there's this: 

When asked who would be the best PM, voters narrowly chose Mrs. Badenoch over Sir Keir by 23 per cent to 22 per cent, while Mr. Farage also maintains a narrow lead over Sir Keir (27 per cent to 26 per cent).

In both cases, around four in ten respondents choose neither option.

But look at voting intention: 

PCC : Réveillez-vous, bande de poltrons !

Je suis désolé de devoir énoncer une évidence, mais le caucus conservateur s’est, dans l’ensemble, montré lâche. Non seulement avons-nous déjà perdu QUATRE élections d’affilée – comme si cela était acceptable pour un politicien du PCC sérieux et réfléchi –, mais même cette réalité ne suffit pas à inciter nos députés à s’opposer à notre chef. 

Je tiens à vous rappeler à tous que la machine du Parti libéral est l’organisation politique la plus efficace du monde occidental. Lorsqu’ils étaient en difficulté dans les sondages à l’automne 2024, ils savaient exactement quoi faire pour conserver le pouvoir : s’inspirant du courage de Long et s’appuyant sur cela étape par étape, l’opposition au chef s’est accélérée et finalement fait boule de neige jusqu’à ce qu’ils parviennent à forcer la main de Trudeau. Trudeau n’avait aucune intention de quitter, tout comme Poilièvre, mais son caucus lui a clairement fait comprendre que s’il ne démissionnait pas, un vote de non-confiance irait de l'avant pour le destituer. C’est pourquoi Trudeau a annoncé à contrecœur, en début de janvier, qu’il démissionnerait de son poste.

Il est tout à fait ridicule qu’un simple membre du parti – insignifiant, inconnu et sans importance – doive servir d’outil aux dissidents. Je n’arrive tout simplement pas à croire qu’aucun député n’ose s’opposer publiquement à Pierre. Votre comportement est bien plus que honteux. Contrairement à vous, les transfuges passent pour des saints. De toute évidence, vous vous fichez complètement de notre parti. Si ce n’était pas le cas, vous lui accorderiez la priorité et feriez tout ce qui est nécessaire pour être dans la course lors des élections surprises de fin d’automne, qui auront lieu juste après le référendum en Alberta et les élections au Québec.

Je terminerai avec une citation de Heseltine :

« La politique, c’est comme le jardinage : il faut être impitoyable. »

Alors, passons à l’action. Débarrassons-nous de PP maintenant.

CPC: Wake Up, You Gutless Cowards!

I'm sorry, I have to state the obvious, but the Conservative caucus has, on the whole, shown itself to be cowardly. Not only have we already lost FOUR elections in a row – as if that was acceptable to any serious and thoughtful CPC politician – but even that is not enough to get our MPs to stand up to the leader. 

I would remind you all that the Liberal Party machine is the most effective political organization in the Western world. When they were struggling in the polls in the fall of 2024, they knew exactly what to do to keep power: drawing inspiration from Long’s courage and building on that step by step, opposition to the leader grew and then snowballed until they forced Trudeau’s hand. Trudeau had no intention of leaving, just like Poilièvre, but caucus made it clear to him that if he did not resign, a vote of no confidence would be held to remove him. That is why Trudeau reluctantly announced, in early January, that he would quit as leader.

It is totally ridiculous that an ordinary party member – insignificant, unknown and of no importance – should have to carry the water for the dump PP crowd. I simply cannot believe that not a single MP dares to publicly take on Pierre. Your behaviour is worse than shameful. Compared to you, the turncoats look like saints. Clearly, you couldn’t care less about this party. If that weren’t the case, you would put it first and do whatever it takes to be in contention for the surprise late-fall election, which will occur right after the referendum in Alberta and the election in Quebec.

I’ll conclude with a quote from Heseltine:

‘Politics is like gardening: you have to be ruthless.’

So, let’s get on with it. Remove PP now.

Starmer expected to resign on Monday and set out orderly exit.

They got Starmer. About time. The UK needs a moderate-centrist government, and they won't get that with Reform UK.

From: The Observer

"One Labour peer, who is close to the prime minister, insisted Starmer would not “walk away” from No 10, creating a vacuum but would “arrange a deliberate slow march in good order, as a matter of duty and dignity”. The friend said: “I think he sees the realities. Stopping ‘chaos’ (as he rightly put it) is now not possible by staying, so that only leaves one option. I think he has come to see it as the dutiful option to serve the country and the party.”

"Another Labour grandee said the prime minister now appeared “resigned” to stepping down. “He’s come up hard against the reality that the support isn’t there,” the source said. “The truth is, everyone knows this is no longer a tenable proposition. There’s a sadness about it all, of course, but sometimes there’s just an inevitability in politics and as Boris Johnson said, ‘When the herd moves it moves’.” [emphasis added].

A cabinet minister said Starmer was “calmly going through things” after a series of highly personal conversations with his closest allies over recent days. “He just wants to do what’s right for the country and, having spoken to the people he wants, he is now spending quality time with his most important adviser – Vic,” the minister said.

Oh Look! PP Is Still CPC Party Leader.

What a bunch of cowardly fools we have in caucus. What a laugh I'll get when we blow our fifth election in a row in late fall. We deserve everything we get in this party. Carney must thank his lucky stars. I'll bet even he didn't expect us to be that stupid... 

Burnham Wins Makerfield!

Starmer should go by Monday. If he doesn't, expect a considerable number of cabinet ministers to resign. Looks like a done deal.

Nanos Research.

LPC: 43%

CPC: 31%

NDP: 12%

BQ: 7%

GPC: 6%

Liaison Strategies.

Liberals: 41%

Conservatives: 32%

New Democrats: 14%

Bloc Québécois: 6%

Greens: 2%

Les membres de la CAQ sont morts de peur.

Pauvre Fréchette. La lune de miel est finie suite aux performances moins que spectaculaires de la première ministre devant l'Assemblée nationale. Le malaise de la CAQ est de retour. En conséquence, plusieurs ministres se sont portés à la chasse aux souris.

Bref, l'épisode ridicule de voir les ministres Roberge et Jolin-Barrette crier au meurtre en dénonçant le plan des libéraux lorsqu'on parle de la protection et de la promotion de la langue française. Pour la CAQ, un gouvernement Milliard serait une catastrophe pour le maintien du français et son épanouissement.

Selon eux, Milliard et son gouvernement auraient l'intention de s'abstenir d'utiliser la clause dérogatoire pour protéger le français. Quelle folie. Le PLQ sait que si le parti agissait ainsi, ce serait la fin des chances pour le parti de former le prochain gouvernement. C'est aussi élémentaire et clair que cela.

À mon avis, le duo ministériel a vraiment peur de perdre ses fonctions lors de la prochaine élection. Et voilà pourquoi ils font tout leur possible pour faire passer les libéraux pour des diables. Je rappelle aux ministres que la jeunesse de nos jours est, en partant des citoyens de ce monde. Au moins une pluralité se voit assez confiant et formée pour conquérir le monde dans le profil des affaires en Amérique du Nord, et ce n'est pas surprenant pour personne qu'une bonne connaissance de l'anglais soit de rigueur pour  réussir. Voilà pourquoi Milliard et le PLQ conservent les 16% des places dans les cégeps anglophones qui sont attribuées aux francophones qui veulent faire leur marque à l'extérieur du Québec.

Quelle honte au Québec d'avoir des jeunes qui peuvent battre les anglophones dans le monde des affaires nord-américain. Dans ce contexte, ce n'est pas la CAQ qui veut les encourager à faire leurs marques de façon resplendissante à l'extérieur du Québec. Le petit parti de la CAQ conserve ses idées médiocres pour le futur du peuple québécois. Ils veulent une nation plutôt insulaire, vulnérable et satisfaite d'éviter les plus grands défis du monde. Pauvre CAQ, ils ont oublié la révolution tranquille et la cohérence logique de la suite : aller avec empressement à la recherche des défis majeurs sur cette planète.  Pour leur part, les jeunes sont toujours preneurs.

 

L’aide médicale à mourir (l'AMM) pour des raisons uniquement de santé mentale : la commission parlementaire recommande au gouvernement canadien de l’interdire indéfiniment.

Commençons par les journalistes mal informés : l’AMM n’est pas l’euthanasie. Dans le premier cas, c’est la personne elle-même qui décide de recourir à l’AMM. Dans le second, la décision est imposée à une personne qui n’y a pas consenti. C’est clair ?

J’ai des sentiments mitigés sur cette question lorsqu’il s’agit de la maladie mentale : je comprends qu’avec une thérapie et un traitement médicamenteux adaptés, il existe une chance raisonnable que la personne connaisse une amélioration temporaire de sa qualité de vie. Je comprends donc pourquoi certains médecins et psychiatres veulent d’abord essayer toutes les solutions possibles. Il en va de même pour les pensées suicidaires. Le traitement des idées suicidaires n’a pas et n’aura jamais de taux de réussite de 100 %. Je connais des personnes qui ont bénéficié d'une bonne intervention thérapeutique et de bons médicaments psychotropes dès la première tentative, d’autres à la deuxième, et quelques-unes qui n’y sont pas parvenues et qui ont fini par mettre fin à leurs jours.

Mais ne vous y trompez pas : cette vision et cette volonté d’agir constituent, en elles-mêmes, une discrimination positive – une violation de l’article 7 de la Charte et du droit à l’autonomie individuelle. Dans des décisions telles que Carter, nous avons fait beaucoup de chemin depuis Rodriguez. Cette réalité explique pourquoi certains partis politiques ne souhaitent pas que cette question soit examinée par la Cour suprême du Canada. 

C’est lorsqu'on parle du cycle de la vie que je commence à perdre mon enthousiasme pour cette approche. L’une des cruautés de la vie est que notre empreinte sociale s’amenuise inévitablement à la suite de la mort. La plupart des gens parviennent à s’adapter et à aller de l’avant, mais certains, à un moment donné, n’en ont plus envie. Certaines personnes sont littéralement seules au monde, ou n’ont que peu de relations ou d’amitiés solides et enrichissantes. L’État est-il vraiment censé dire à ces personnes qu’elles doivent s’accrocher jusqu’à leur mort physique ? Je ne considère pas cela comme une solution équitable. Pas du tout. À un moment donné, même une personne atteinte d’un trouble mental devrait pouvoir être l’arbitre de sa propre vie, mais comment s’assurer que cela tienne la route, tant sur le plan juridique que sur le plan moral ? 

Penchons-nous maintenant sur le cas de personnes souffrantes de troubles cognitifs graves. Il s’agit d’une ou de plusieurs formes de démence. Dans le cas de ma mère, elle a passé ses deux dernières années confinée à son lit et à son fauteuil. Devait-elle vraiment passer ses derniers jours dans un tel état ? Je ne le pense pas. 

C’est là que les directives anticipées en matière de soins de santé devraient entrer en jeu : une personne ne souffrant d’aucune maladie mentale ou cognitive, ainsi que celles présentant des troubles de santé mentale gérables ou une déficience cognitive légère, devraient pouvoir rédiger et signer de telles directives. Il devrait y avoir un seuil ou une loi élaborée par le Parlement permettant à une personne d’agir de bonne foi, conformément à ce qu’elle-même et ses médecins ont préalablement déterminé, selon la prépondérance des probabilités, qu’un traitement psychiatrique aurait des chances d’être inutile plutôt que le contraire. 

En tant que personne ayant déjà souffert d’idées suicidaires et ayant tenté de mettre fin à mes jours en 2013, voici ma position. Tout ce que je demande à chacun de nos députés, c’est d’essayer de se mettre à la place de ceux qui souffrent d’une détresse et d’une cruauté mentale insupportable. Nous leur devons bien au moins cela !

MAID For Mental Illness Reasons Alone: Parliamentary Committee Recommends Indefinite Exclusion To The Canadian Government.

Let's start with the ignorant headline writers: MAID is not Euthanasia. Under the former, it's the individual who decides to access MAID. In the latter case, it's a third party who imposes the decision on a non-consenting human being. Got it?

I'm kind of all over the place on this issue when it comes to mental illness: I get the point that with proper therapy and drugs, the odds likely favour at least a temporary breakthrough in quality of life. So I can understand why some doctors and psychiatrists want to use all the silver bullets first. Same thing with suicidal ideation. Suicidal ideation does not now nor will it ever have a successful treatment rate of one hundred percent. I know of people who either got the right therapeutic intervention and psychotropic recipe on the first try, others on subsequent tries, and a few who didn't and who ended up taking their lives. But make no mistake that this view and desire to act is in and of itself positive discrimination, a violation of Section 7 of the Charter and the right to individual autonomy. In decisions like Carter, we've come a long way from Rodriguez. This reality explains why some political parties don't want to see this issue come up before the SCOC.

Where I start to fade in support of this approach is regarding the circle of life. One of the cruelties of life is that inevitably, our social footprint shrinks thanks to death. Most people can adapt and go on, but some, at a given juncture, have no desire to do so. Some people are literally alone in this world or have few solid nurturing relationships or friendships. Is the state really supposed to tell these people that they have to stick it out until their physical demise? I don't see that as a just response. Not at all. At some prescribed period, even a person with a mental condition should be able to be the arbiter of their own life, but how do you legally and morally square that circle?

Moving on now to those who suffer from severe cognitive impairment. We're talking one or several forms of dementia. In my mother's case, her last two years consisted of a bed and a chair. Should she really have had to end her days in such a state? I think not.

That's where advanced medical treatment directives should come in: a person suffering from no mental or cognitive illness, along with those who suffer from manageable mental issues or mild cognitive impairment, should be able to draft and sign such directives. There should come a point where a law drafted by Parliament ought to allow an individual to proceed in good faith, following what they and their doctors previously determined on the balance of probabilities as more than likely unsuccessful psychiatric treatment. 

As a person who previously suffered from suicidal ideation and attempted to take his own life in 2013, that's where I'm at. All I ask of each of our Parliamentarians is to try to put themselves in the shoes of those who are suffering unbearable mental anguish and cruelty. Surely, we owe them at least that much!

PP: Still Waiting For Caucus To Ditch This Dud...

Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Tick, tock. Time is running out. The late fall federal election is coming!

Angus Reid Institute: Why Is No One Surprised?

PP: Favourability.

CA: 33

BC: 35

AB: 47

SK: 48

MB: 34

ON: 33

QC: 23

NB: 35

NS: 27

NL: 33

UK: Starmer Is Fucking Desperate.

Ha, ha, ha. Starmer wants to offer Burnham a cabinet post! Not happening in a million years. That was the wrong signal to send: now Burnham knows for sure that he can take Starmer politically.

Québec : Sondage Léger.

PQ : 30%

PLQ : 27%

CAQ : 21%

PCQ : 13%

QS : 8%

Starmer warns Burnham not to throw UK into 'chaos' with leadership bid.

From: The Independent.

“If there is a challenge, I [Starmer] will fight. I’m not going to walk away from this.”

Translation: Starmer already knows that he's toast but will go through the motions anyway. What a fool.

Québec: Sondage Pallas Data.

PQ: 29

PLQ: 25

CAQ: 20

PCQ: 14

QS: 11

Why The American-Iranian Peace Deal Is Bullshit.

Talk about a useless consolation prize: the United States and Iran end combat operations, the American naval blockade and the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened to tanker and other ship traffic. However, neither side can dictate terms to either Israel or Hezbollah in Lebanon. So, there's the fatal flaw.

Then there's the matter of the Iranian uranium stockpile and its nuclear enrichment program. Yeah, right. Iran will turn over all of its material to the Americans for destruction. Maybe the Easter Bunny can preside over that effort! 

I always get a good laugh when people poo-poo Obama's JCPOA deal. From the get-go, Iran was bound and determined to stifle IAEA electronic monitoring, not to mention site visits. That had nothing to do with the JCPOA or this deal, for that matter. Iran cheated from the moment of its first uranium enrichment to this day, and no one should be shocked or surprised about that. That's just who the Iranians are.

In all instances, the IAEA got to see only what the Iranian regime wanted them to see. In short, this agreement is a total failure when it comes to containing or eliminating the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Only a war with American boots on the ground could have done that, and surprise, surprise, that won't ever happen. 

G7: Will Trump Throw His Usual Temper Tantrum?

You bet he will and take his marbles with him. Évian-les-Bains will get to see him leave early!

Carney: From Elbows Up!TM To Whimping Out...

Trade talks on CUSMA are going nowhere, with only two weeks before the Trump Administration must make a formal, written decision. Trump says he doesn't think he will renew USMCA, so the focus will now turn to its expiration date. That will be either in six months, sixteen years from now or somewhere in between. Another triumphant Carney negotiation under LeBlanc's wise auspices. We might as well have stayed home and fed candy to moody Hoekstra.

This Prime Minister has shown himself to be such a lightweight that he can't even open a bridge as scheduled. Caving in to every one of Trump's spontaneous whims or demands is now the order of the day. That sure is CanadaFirstTM leadership for you. What a disgrace.

But oh right, he isn't PP.

Réplique de PSPP : il semble nerveux mais confiant.

PSPP semble convaincu que sa cause est juste. Il estime qu’il est légitime pour un élu de poser des questions sur les finances du PLQ en général, et plus particulièrement sur la campagne de Rodriguez lors de la précédente course à la direction.

Il souligne que les élus attendent toujours une réponse du Directeur général des élections (DGE) et de l’UPAC. Dans ce dernier cas, tout le monde politique sait déjà que l’UPAC ne fera aucun commentaire à moins que des accusations ne soient finalement portées. C’est un petit point en faveur des libéraux.

PSPP ne fait aucune mention du rapport Fournier, mais il nous laisse avec l’impression que cet examen n’était ni exhaustif ni concluant. Tout cela pour dire qu’à tout le moins, le PQ marque des points.

Millard fait fausse route. Il est peu connu en tant que chef de parti. Avec cette décision irréfléchie, il se fait définitivement un nom auprès des Québécois, sans pour autant laisser une impression favorable en fin de compte.

CAQ : le manque de sérieux de Fréchette.

Eh bien, ça alors ! À la suite de la polémique déclenchée par les scandales Northvolt et Lion Électrique, ainsi que par celui impliquant les quatre autres entreprises qui ont soumis des propositions à leurs créanciers pour éviter la faillite, Christine Fréchette semble transférer la responsabilité sur l’ancien premier ministre et son prédécesseur ministériel quant aux investissements réalisés sous le gouvernement de la CAQ.  

C’est bien beau de se concentrer sur un aspect technique des investissements, mais voici les commentaires de l’ancienne ministre de l’Économie, de l’Innovation et de l’Énergie à la suite de l’issue malheureuse de cette affaire :

 « Notre souhait est que le [syndic] se mette à la recherche d’un acheteur pour […] relancer le projet »

Fréchette semble délibérément ignorer le concept de responsabilité ministérielle, la responsabilité collective du Conseil des ministres et, enfin, la solidarité ministérielle. Quel manque de sérieux de la part d’une cheffe de gouvernement. Cela donne à réfléchir, c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire.

PLQ : l'erreur de calcul de Milliard.

À la suite des propos tenus vendredi dernier par le chef du PQ à la fin de la session, le PLQ a demandé à Paul St-Pierre Plamondon de retirer ses propos et de présenter ses excuses. Ce dernier refuse de se rétracter officiellement de ses prétendues allégations, estimant que sa déclaration, formulée sous forme interrogative, constituait un commentaire tout à fait légitime. Naturellement, Charles Milliard est d'un avis contraire.

Il fut un temps où l’ancien chef Pablo Rodriguez avait également donné son consentement au nom du parti pour préparer une mise en demeure, mais dans un contexte différent contre le Journal de Montréal. Cependant, aucune poursuite n’a été intentée malgré la mise en demeure.

Nous sommes en terrain glissant pour Milliard et les libéraux, car leurs avocats l’ont sûrement averti que si PSPP posait cette question publiquement — et a fortiori devant les médias —, il avait peut-être déjà la réponse… Dans un contexte similaire, rappelons-nous le procès remporté par Jean Charest contre le gouvernement du Québec et le procureur général à la suite de fuites policières de renseignements personnels.

En bref, il est clair que les stratèges du Parti libéral ne sont pas à la hauteur de la tâche : cette question ne devrait pas faire l’objet d’une procédure judiciaire, car le délai entre aujourd’hui et octobre prochain est trop court pour obtenir un jugement du tribunal.

De plus, d’un point de vue politique, répondre aux allégations du PQ ne fait que donner du crédit, à savoir, de l'oxygène à des propos qui semblent infondés et illégitimes. De plus, en nous défendant de cette manière, nous renforçons des idées – qui ne sont pas nécessairement déjà bien ancrées dans la conscience publique – selon lesquelles le PLQ est X, Y et Z. Enfin, certains milieux politiques ne manqueront pas de spéculer que le PLQ passe à l’offensive pour étouffer cette affaire pour des raisons qui ne servent que ses propres intérêts. 

En conclusion, ce n’est pas une situation gagnante pour le parti. Par ses actions, le PLQ prend un risque considérable de voir notre niveau d'appui continuer à s’effondrer. Hélas, à suivre.