Justin Trudeau: Ready or not - Macleans.ca

Justin Trudeau: Ready or not

He’s surged to within striking distance of 24 Sussex. Now it’s going to get ugly.

Darren Calabrese/CP

Darren Calabrese/CP

Last Friday morning, on the day after the campaign’s first French-language television debate, Justin Trudeau walked into GG Fabrication, a factory in Brampton, outside Toronto, and watched with an attentive grin while a piece of heavy machinery stamped a Liberal “L” out of some sheet metal. News photographers took photos. A crowd of area Liberals, arrayed photogenically on risers a short distance from the metal press, clapped cheerfully. Staffers from Trudeau’s national campaign, including his chief of staff, Cyrus Reporter, and his national campaign co-chairman, Dan Gagnier, looked on.

Trudeau was wearing what has been the approved Liberal campaign uniform since David Peterson, the former leader of Ontario’s provincial Liberals, ditched his horn-rimmed eyeglasses and clunky suits for what seemed, in 1985, peppier attire: dark trousers, white shirt with rolled-up sleeves, bright red tie. Informal, ready to work. Thirty years later, it’s hard to imagine a Liberal leader straying far from the prescribed attire. Jean Chrétien wore this outfit, and Dalton McGuinty, and Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. And if there is even a whiff of magic left in the uniform that the latter two stumblebums managed not to stomp out of it on their way to successive historic-worst Liberal election scores in 2008 and 2011, then maybe it will help Trudeau.

He was in Brampton, Ont., to draw attention to the city’s four Liberal candidates, all first-generation Canadians from India: Rameshwar Sangha, Sonia Sidhu, Raj Grewal and Kamal Khera. The Liberal party used to rely on the votes of new Canadians, but, like much else the Liberals used to rely on, the immigrant vote has become something they cannot take for granted. Jason Kenney has spent most of a decade in the fastest-growing parts of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, wooing new Canadians to the Conservatives. Trudeau was here to get some of that vote back.

Related: For the record, Trudeau’s notes for his speech to a Brampton arena

He began with a truncated version of his standard campaign stump speech: After 10 years in power, Stephen Harper is “out of touch with Canadians” and “won’t help Canada’s middle class in any meaningful way.” And if Harper “won’t help,” then the NDP’s Tom Mulcair “can’t help, because he’s signed on to Stephen Harper’s budget.” This was a reference to Mulcair’s insistence that he will run balanced budgets if elected. The vow has severely constrained the NDP leader’s ambition, because Harper has taken care to leave very little taxpayer money in the kitty in case of defeat.

Trudeau, on the other hand, is promising a series of “modest” $10-billion deficits. It gives him room to make more extravagant promises, as he is careful to remind crowds at every stop. “Canadians need help now,” he said, “not two or three elections from now. We’ll start by making the most significant investment in infrastructure in Canadian history.”

Trudeau takes great pleasure in depicting his opponents as interchangeable. “Harper and Mulcair want to keep sending cheques to millionaires,” he said. “We have different priorities. We will use that money to lift 315,000 kids out of poverty.”

There is a measure of revenge in Trudeau’s habit of painting the Conservatives and NDP as birds of a feather. For a decade, under Harper and Jack Layton, the two parties executed a squeeze play on the Liberals, gaining support at every election from 2004 to 2011, while the Liberals lost, in instalments, about 80 per cent of the ridings they held when Chrétien was the party’s leader.

When this long campaign began, it seemed that all of Trudeau’s youth and energy, and all the magic of his family name, was good for very little. The end of July found him in an extended polling slump, stuck in third place yet again, as low as 23.4 per cent in one Ekos poll—lower than Dion’s share of the 2008 popular vote, lower than Ignatieff was at the start of the 2011 election, before Harper and Layton kicked the Harvard prof a little lower still.

But one of the biggest surprises of this autumn is that Trudeau has managed a modest comeback. The poll aggregator ThreeHundredandEight.com found the Liberals and Conservatives tied in public support in the campaign’s eighth week, with the NDP mired in third. The three parties are still so close in support that none can pop champagne corks yet. But Trudeau’s resurgence has been fuelled, at least in part, by his energetic performance in the proliferation of televised debates his Conservative and NDP foes conspired to foist on him, in a bid to trip up this youngest and least experienced of the national party leaders. The electoral gods do not always look kindly on smug assumptions. Mulcair, in particular, silver-tongued and once supremely confident, will be glad when the debates are finally behind him.

There is more to Trudeau’s success than style. That basic decision to spend more than the precariously balanced budget books permit has allowed him to make big promises that capture public attention. Ignatieff was hamstrung in 2011 by a balanced-budget pledge that left him offering forgettable policy trinkets. His outrage against Harper knew no bounds, but his proposed remedies were negligible. At least in comparison with Ignatieff, Trudeau is offering a bigger, gaudier Liberalism.

Friday’s show at the sheet-metal factory was a case in point. Trudeau said GG Fabrication was the fruit of the labours of generations of the same family who came, a few at a time, from India through the middle and late 1990s. Those who arrived sponsored their relatives. “Stephen Harper is putting this success at risk,” Trudeau said. Family reunification is much harder under Harper than it was under Chrétien. “The wait time now to bring parents and grandparents to Canada is almost four years, on average. If your family lives in China, Pakistan, the Philippines or India, you can expect to wait five or six years, or more.”

A Trudeau government will change that, he promised. He’d double the number of applications from immigrants who want to sponsor their parents and grandparents, to 10,000 a year. He’d double the budget for processing these family-class applications.

“Making it easier for families to be together here in Canada makes more than just economic sense,” he said. “When Canadians have added supports, like family involvement in child care, it helps drive productivity and economic growth. And it brings in skilled workers we need so badly.” It was one of the less coherent paragraphs I’ve heard in a while: Driving productivity and attracting skilled workers are not “more than economic sense”; they’re the very definition of economic sense. But churning out campaign rhetoric is a rough-and-ready business at the best of times, and Trudeau has gained attention, not with finesse, but with a sort of neon-bright optimism.

As he wrapped up his prepared remarks, Trudeau vowed to “repeal the unfair elements of Bill C-24 that creates second-class citizens.” C-24 is a new Harper law that permits the government to revoke the Canadian citizenship of dual citizens who are convicted of terrorism, treason or other serious offences. “No elected official should ever have the exclusive power to revoke Canadian citizenship,” Trudeau said. “Under a Liberal government, there will be no two-tiered citizenship; a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”

This or that? See where you stand this election with our Policy Face-Off Machine

The time came for questions from reporters. I asked about C-24. It doesn’t put your citizenship at risk for jaywalking, after all. It’s for people who contemplate or perform armed assault against Canada. What’s wrong with that?

Trudeau turned 30 degrees from where the reporters’ microphone was located, toward the television camera that would record his response. “I think, any time you have a state that has the power to remove Canadians’ citizenship—that makes a distinction between Canadians who have chosen Canada and those who have been here with their families for generations—is problematic,” he said. The rule of law means that penalties should apply equally. “But the idea of imposing a radically different penalty, depending on whether or not your family was born in Canada or not, goes completely against a rule of law and a respect for justice that I know Canadians expect,” he said.

“Quite frankly, Conservatives themselves, who are supposed to not want a particularly interventionist state, should be particularly concerned that an elected official could somehow decide to revoke your Canadian citizenship. There are consequences for anyone convicted of a heinous crime against Canada, terrorism or acts of war against Canada. Severe consequences. And there should be. But we should not be creating two classes of citizenship. That goes against everything that Canada has ever succeeded in creating, as a country that is strong, not in spite of our differences, but because of our differences.”

As you might expect, the response drew hearty applause from the crowd of predominantly immigrant Liberals at GG Fabrication. But Trudeau would soon be reminded that, in any clash of ideas between a challenger and an incumbent, unique options are available to the incumbent alone. Hours after Trudeau spoke, Zakaria Amara became the first Canadian to have his citizenship revoked under the auspices of Bill C-24.

Governments normally refrain from momentous action during campaigns, because their authority to do so is in the process of being weighed and judged by voters. It is impossible to believe that the moment of Amara’s revocation was accidental. Amara, born in Jordan, was one of the ringleaders of the so-called Toronto 18 plot. He was arrested in 2006 for planning to detonate truck bombs laden with fertilizer in downtown Toronto. If he and his fellow plotters had succeeded, hundreds of people could have died. Now he has been stripped of his citizenship under provisions of a law Trudeau and Mulcair oppose.

Jason Kenney, the defence minister who is speaking to reporters more than the rest of the Conservative campaign combined these days, told the National Post that only a very small number of dual citizens stand to lose their Canadian citizenship under C-24, but that Amara obviously qualified. “Somebody who meticulously planned to slaughter hundreds of his fellow citizens for ideological reasons? Yes, I think that’s the worst of the worst.”

For Trudeau, it was, at the very least, a test, if not a trap. He had spoken in the abstract, on the campaign trail, of the value of equal citizenship for all Canadians. The Conservatives had offered up a concrete example: a would-be mass murderer. Trudeau responded as he has done in the face of earlier tests: He refused to back down. At the next televised debate, on Monday from Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, C-24 came up again. The resulting exchange between Harper and Trudeau produced one of the most bitter displays of stark ideological difference in recent Canadian political history.

Harper was the first to mention the citizenship law. Trudeau returned to it later, as if eager. “Despite 10 years to do something about it, he just revoked someone’s citizenship,” he said. “Quite frankly, it worries me when the first response is not, ‘This person needs to be in jail,’ but it’s, ‘This person should be given a two-tiered citizenship’—that we recognize that someone can be judged differently by our system of laws and rights, because their parents were born in a different country. That is not Canadian.”

“Are you seriously saying, Mr. Trudeau, we [should] never be able to revoke citizenship from somebody?” Harper asked. “Because we revoked the citizenship already of war criminals. And why would we not revoke the citizenship of people convicted of terrorist offences against this country?”

“Mr. Harper, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” Trudeau replied. By now, the Liberal and the Conservative were speaking more or less simultaneously. “You devalue the citizenship of every Canadian in this place, and in this country, when you break down and make it conditional for anyone.”

Harper was having none of it. “The individual in question, Mr. Trudeau, was convicted of planning the most heinous attacks ever against this country. A few blocks from here, he would have detonated bombs that would have been on a scale of 9/11.”

“The politics of fear, once again,” Trudeau said. “We are not a country dominated by fear. We are a country of law and rights.”

Only a fool would try to guess who, among the spectators who broke into applause during the latter part of this exchange, was clapping for which leader. It was all a bit of a mess. But let nobody claim, when voting day comes, that there are no stark differences among parties. The difference over Zakaria Amara’s fate is only one that separates Harper and Trudeau.

But the two men also have something in common.

In 2004, I wrote in this magazine that members of the newly united Conservative Party of Canada should choose Stephen Harper as their leader because, among his other qualities, he was unapologetic, and the new party would need more than a little cheek as it faced its challenges. Harper has made it as far as he has since then because he has met his share of opponents who are easily abashed, who step back from a confrontation, whereas Harper does not step back. I imagine Ignatieff was his favourite. Three or four times, the former Liberal leader made as if to bring an end to the Parliament in which he was Opposition leader, the better to bring the wrath of the voters down upon Harper’s head. Each time, Harper growled at him and Ignatieff postponed the reckoning. By the end of it, he was unconsciously reciting Conservative attack ads against him and saying things like, “Do I look like I’ve been steamrolled?” in public, when that was precisely how he looked.

This summer and fall, Harper has been beset by unapologetic people. Rachel Notley, the new premier of the province he represents in Parliament, is one of them; Kathleen Wynne, the premier of the province where he has spent most of this campaign, is another. He calls their management disastrous and they fire back. But the most disturbing, surely, is Trudeau, because Harper has been whacking away at him for two years, with millions of dollars of advertising money, yet Trudeau is still there. Worse: He keeps doing the very things Harper finds outrageous about him.

A year ago, Trudeau withheld his support from Canada’s military participation in the coalition against the so-called Islamic State. That, plus a dumb joke about Harper “whipping out his CF-18s,” earned Trudeau reviews as a lightweight. Six months later, he reiterated his position, even as members of his own caucus whispered around town that they wished he’d change his mind. This was in March, and it led me to write this about Trudeau: “He is beginning to be predictable, at least: Whether the issue is legalized marijuana, niqab-covered faces, boycotting Sun News or forbidding pro-life stances in his caucus, he doubles down on his positions once they get him in trouble . . . Liberal caucus members can stop asking whether he’ll shift positions once things get hot; he plainly likes the heat and isn’t for shifting.”

Of course, cheek is no guarantee of success in politics. On the tiny number of citizenship applicants who want to wear a niqab while taking the oath, Trudeau is offside the great majority of public opinion, in Quebec and outside, as measured by more than one pollster. And on the revocation of citizenship. And on the military’s mission in Iraq and Syria. If he loses this election—and there remains a very good chance he will—a season of second-guessing will begin among Liberals, and most of them have way more experience at that particular hobby than he has at leading a party.

But already he has weathered better than his opponents expected, and come through obstacles designed to bring him down, and he is not only standing, he seems for all the world to be enjoying himself.

One more bit of torment for Harper to ponder: Whether it’s one of them, or Mulcair who is prime minister, however briefly, after this election is done, it seems likely that Trudeau will be the first Liberal leader since Paul Martin to stay on as leader after his first election. The year he spent in the polling doldrums succeeded only in acclimating Liberals to the possibility he might not win. Which means he will probably be granted more than one chance to try. Assuming, of course, he needs more than one. Harper’s last campaign has been dedicated to keeping Trudeau down; at that, at least, Harper has already failed.


Justin Trudeau: Ready or not

  1. But the Liberal Party invented two-tier citizenship, when they passed the law that let Canadian citizenship be stripped from war criminals.

    All Harper has done is take the Liberal “two-tier citizenship policy” and expand it to convicted terrorists.

    The breach had already been made decades ago, by the Liberal Party.

    • Typically, a person is a war criminal if they slaughter innocents in some way, which is pretty much exactly what a terrorist would do.

      So why is stripping citizenship from war criminals okay for the Liberals (and Trudeau, he is not calling for revocation of the war crimes law), but not for terrorists.

      • The reason the new law is different is that the war criminals were kicked out was because they were deemed to have lied on their citizenship applications -c28 is because of subsequent bad behavior. Lying on your application has always been a reason to be stripped of your citizenship.
        Many who came over after ww2 lied about their names or about their activities or occupations during the war in order to escape detection.

        • Well, terrorists would have also lied, when they took the oath of citizenship.

          How is lying when you are reciting the oath of citizenship any different than lying about details of your past?

          • I agree – that is very likely the case here, unless they were radicalized after arrival. In which case, the argument could have been made in court and – if successful – would have gotten the same result. In this instance.

            You’ll note, though, that with C-24, a court doesn’t get to weigh the evidence. It’s a political decision – one that, as here, may be subject to use (or abuse) to gain votes.

            Further, C-24 can strip Canadian-born and -raised individuals who have access to second citizenship (they don’t need to have applied for it; the mere fact that they are eligible is enough) of their Canadian citizenship.

            There are major problems with C-24 that need resolving. The CPC chose Amara as the poster boy because they knew it would be good optics during an election (and you can bet the timing was very carefully planned) and he doesn’t fall into one of the more dubious groups that C-24 can be used against. So he helps to sell the law and paper over the real problems (well, problems to those who don’t hear the dog whistle and believe in the rule of law).

          • If you look carefully, many of those terrorists came to Canada as kids.

          • “Further, C-24 can strip Canadian-born and -raised individuals who have access to second citizenship (they don’t need to have applied for it; the mere fact that they are eligible is enough) of their Canadian citizenship.”

            This is something that is regularly glossed over. If one of your parents, or in some cases one of your grandparents, has another citizenship, then you may be eligible for that citizenship. So, even though you were born in Canada, may never have realized you’re eligible for another citizenship, never have set foot in the country of this other citizenship, and not speak the language of this country of other citizenship, you could in theory end up being stripped of your Canadian citizenship and eventually deported to what is in effect a totally foreign country.

            And, of course, this stupid law can result in very unequal treatment for 2 people committing the identical crime if one has (access to) another citizenship and the other doesn’t, which is itself a travesty of justice.

            I imagine C-24 will go to the SC, where it will hopefully be tossed.

    • No, the Liberal Party didn’t pass any law to strip citizenship from war criminals.
      The law allows citizenship to be revoked from those who obtain it fraudulently.

      Try again.

    • War Criminals are stripped of their citizenship because they lied about their background and personal history on their application, not because of the crimes they committed.

      • Terrorists also lied, when they took the oath of citizenship.

        • Then no changes to the law are necessary.

          Try again. Or don’t. You’re not very good at this.

    • The reason war criminals have been stripped of citizenship is that they acquired that citizenship by lying and fraud. That has always been a reason for losing citizenship in Canada.

  2. A very well written article. I could never vote for Harper or any conservative member as their policies are always so insulting and divisive but both the NDP and Libs issues as well and Green should win but never will. These elections are both exciting and terrifying in the level of change that will or could come to the country due to the voters will, I just wish we could make these changes with a warmer heart and more open mind. My people are acting like scared children looking under the bed for boogie men and it has had a hardening effect throughout our society.

    • Good post-once you let fear loose people tend to turn off their rational thinking and compassion.
      The present government is expert at appealing to wedge issues that kindle fear and resentment.
      A good case in point is the flyers they sent out about refugees not deserving health benefits. Today they say that they only removed it for failed applicants but the flyers themselves mentioned all refugees. Refugees appear to be code for muslims and no doubt about it muslims are the current
      bogeyman this government uses to great effect.

    • The Harper government has been and is on the right course. My only complaint is that they didn’t do more to implement policies with their majority. I for one hope Harper continues to lead. Trudeau leading Canada will look the same as Wynne leading Ontario-straight into bankruptcy. Hopefully, however, Trudeau would be less corrupt than Wynne.

  3. Like I have always said, if your attacking your opponent on a personal level, it means your message of vision and policy is not getting through, or your internal polling is causing you a headache. Wedge politics doesn’t move the country ahead, it debases it, it makes people angry, it makes people hate, and it divides. I guess we as a country, will all have to come to terms with the fact that we as a society will live in a divided nation, well into the 21st century, or at least, until the people of this country start smarten up, and learn how to share our country, instead of tearing it apart. P. E. Trudeau, when liberal PM, tried to bring the country together by using immigration, not as a wedge issue, but to open the world to our country in a way, so we as Canadians could understand how the world works and what it takes to live in a civil country full of people from all over the planet. In just ten years in power, Jason Kenny and Harper has used this immigration file regularly as a whipping boy, or girl, in order to whack the liberals of today over the head with it. They, immigrants, who now come to this country, have become the biggest pool of wedge politics that Harper and the cons can beat and berate at a moments notice, in order to drive the country nuts and stick it in the other parties grills. Trudeau has now made it clear to Steve Harper, he is not a Pussy, he is a Stallion. Harpers bark is bigger than his bite. Trudeau then sucked Mulcair down a rabbit hole when he made him eat Harpers budget, also when Mulcair started to measure the drapes at 24 Sussex, voters started to look at him a second time.

  4. Great analysis by Mr. Wells. This has been a very good election campaign and Canadian values appear to be at the heart of it. 60 to 65% of the population are not well served or represented by the current party system and the first past the post format. The conservatives get top marks for navigating the system. I would have hoped that the issue of the democratic deficit in parliament would arise but there is still time. I do recall a time before omnibus bills and routine proroguing , muzzled scientists-hamstrung parliamentary officers and fear based decisions were not the norm.

  5. Trudeau actually surprised me by meeting Harper head-on, especially with the citizenship part of the debate. Harper’s been stifling opponents for years simply by taking them by surprise with his shamelessness. For all the criticism about Trudeau interrupting, it was the only way to deal with it. In the audio of that and many other Harper speeches, you hear his defensiveness and stress. Trudeau just sounds urgent and personally I appreciate that. He’s been good at not being sidetracked, and that focus also either aided or been aided by the media being motivated to follow up with more detail. For example, the fact that war criminals lost their citizenship for lying on the application. Not a fact Wells shares, but whatever. >

    Bob Rae was the guy for not backing down from Harper before this. That was a lost opportunity for the Liberals, even if he hadn’t gotten them to power, they wouldn’t have lost so many seats, because he was fearless in the face of Harper’s prevarications and that’s what was needed. Rae was fast on his feet.

  6. Interesting that with C-24, there exists an identifiable group, what Stephen Harper might even refer to as “Old Stock”, as many have been here several generations, that fall into the “second tier” of citizenship.

    Who are they?

    Jewish people, who have a right of return to Israel under Israeli law, meet the proviso of being dual citizens, or persons who can get citizenship in another country if they were to lose their Canadian citizenship.

    I wonder how much mention that is getting in Mont-Royal or Thornhill.

    • I’m sure Jewish Canadians hankering to join ISIS are now shaking in their boots.

      • Of course not, but now that Stephen Harper had intimated that they might apply this measure to other crimes, the fact that Jewish people are in that “second tier” irrespective of how long their families have been here is somewhat ironic, especially considering how assiduously the Conservatives have courted that group.

      • No need to join IS. There’s a long list of other organizations inlcluding the PKK, an affiliate of which a Jewish Canadian joined in order to fight IS.

      • So you believe that this law only applies to isis? My question to you is what is considered terrorism?

  7. I don’t get why Kenney, an MP from Calgary, would be wooing immigrant support from “the fastest-growing parts of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal” when his own city has a far higher rate of immigration and is more ethnically diverse than is Montreal. In 2014, Calgary had the highest rate of international immigration than any city in North America- more than NYC, more than Miami, more than Vancouver, more than Toronto. I know that’s not the point of this article but it grates how little Toronto-based writers know about the rest of the country and how incredibly multicultural both Calgary and Edmonton are- both have higher rates of foreign-born and larger percentages of visible minorities than does Montreal.

    • Thanks John Manzo. Good point – I did not know that and as you say, I am not alone in my ignorance. Thanks for setting us straight.

    • Perhaps look at the electoral results from Calgary for the last, say, 10 federal elections if you’re still perplexed about Kenny’s campaign focus.

      • I’m glad Greatwallsoffire answered this before I got a chance to.

    • I’m sure that I read that 10% of the population of Calgary (back in 2014, pre oil slump), was Americans. Although from a different country, hardly what we in Canada think of as ‘foreigners’. I should think many of this 10% of the Calgary population were in Calgary representing and/or working in the oil industry. I would be surprised if all these ‘foreigners’ are still in that city.

      I wonder how many ‘foreigners’ are in Calgary today, what with many having fled to far greener pastures by now.

  8. Were these the terrorists that were set up by the government.Seems to me I have read an awful lot about poor saps being set up for photo ops I think it is a very high % in the states they are usually simple minded and easily conned into doing stupid things.I just think this should be part of the conversation which tells the real story.Politics of fear with no truth.

  9. I want change, so I’m voting NDP, but if Trudeau gets in, he better do what he says and change Ottawa–including the senate–in significant ways.

  10. I think we are looking at a Trudeau minority.

    • I think you are seeing that with rose-coloured glasses.

      308.com updated this morning and are showing: 32.5% CPC 30.4% Lib 27.2% NDP. They translate this into 128 CPC seats. 110 Lib and 98 NDP.

      Trending towards a Conservative minority.

      What do you see changing to lead to a Liberal minority?

    • Problem with the Libs is Bill C-51. Regardless of their argument of an ‘oversight’ committee (could be subject to huge abuses), is indicative of right leaning ideology if they’re given the mandate. The ability to smoke pot legally is great but I believe my freedom to exercise free speech is more important. What’s the point of getting high if you have to mind what you publically say? It’s a downer.

      I suggest all of you who haven’t read Bill C-51 to do so. I could only get through part of it. It made me sick to my stomach.

      Don’t percuss me for speaking my mind.

  11. So funny. Everytime MacLean’s needs to hype readership, they make Trudeau the main story. Even heard Marty Patriquin sheepishly laughing about it on CBC. Too bad about the timing though folks. Word today is that Conservatives are out in front by 7% over the Grits and the Dippers – couple of points away from a majority. Oh no! The drive-by media guessed wrong again.

  12. If 50 million people say a foolish thing… it is still a foolish thing.
    (Anatole France)

  13. The sad thing is we are all being diverted by these dog whistle and “look it’s a dead cat” strategies when the real issues to Canadians are ignored. Environment, Aboriginal Issues, trade, muzzling of scientists and other government employees, war on organised labour. It boggles the mind that Giles Duceppe, a single issue, single province politician, gets a place in a debate that Elizabeth May, a multi issue, national politician, does not. Blinkers or prejudice? Who knows. Voters need to wake up.

  14. In Canada we have the right to religious freedom and to worship who we please, even if we believe that the moon is made of blue cheese or that there is no God and we’re just an alien experiment. HOWEVER, when you mix that religion with politics and start making policies based on your religious beliefs, then it becomes MY business.
    The Christian Alliance Church, Evangelical Christians, believe that the earth is only 6,500 years old and all scientists are liars.
    They believe that without Israel there can be no Armageddon and therefore no Rapture. Therefore Israel must be protected at any cost.
    They do no support abortion or homosexuality and believes that those who aren’t born-again are “lost.”
    WHO is the most PROMINENT member of the Christian Alliance Church in Calgary, Alberta? Canada’s Prime Minster, Stephen Harper.
    Does this help you to understand where a lot of the policies that have been made in Canada stem from? The media won’t deny this, but they don’t like to talk about very much. I’d like them to tell me why that is.