Mediaboss Marketing

Canada's two main federal political parties took in less money from individual donations during the second quarter of this year compared withthe same time in 2018 the last non-election yearas the financial slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continues.

According to financialreturns released by Elections Canada this week, the Liberals and Conservatives together raised more than$6.2million in donations between April and June of this year, which is almost $3millionless thanthey raised during the same period in 2018.

Donations are always highest during election years, so comparisons with 2019 would not be relevant.

The drop in donations coincides with the period when the economy came to a virtual standstill as Canadians stayed home to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.

The Conservatives led the pack by pulling in donations from individualstotalling more than$3.5millionin the second quarter of 2018. The party also received about$436,000 in transfers from candidates in its ongoing leadership campaign, for a total of just over $4 million. Theparty raised more than$6 millionfrom bothdonations and transfers during the same period in 2018.

The Liberals pulled in $2.6 million in individual donations this year, compared withjust under$3.1 million in 2018.

The three smaller parties,meanwhile, saw theirdonation totals increase compared with2018.

The New Democratic Partyreceived $1.3 million this year compared withjust $872,000 two years ago, while the Bloc Qubcoisreceived $131,000 in donations, up from a meagre $42,000 two years ago.

The Green Party took in more than$633,000 from individuals and more than$87,000 from its leadership candidates for a total of slightly more than $721,000, up from $572,000 two years ago.

The numbers offer the first significant look into how the pandemic has affected the fundraising efforts of federal political parties.

The $8.2million raisedby all parties from individual donations between April and Juneis a slight decrease from the approximately $8.4million they raised during the firstquarter between January and March. A CBC News analysis found that March 2020 when the novel coronavirus began to shut down businesses and schools in Canada appears to have been the worst March for fundraising in Canadasince March 2006.

Parties had to halt their in-person fundraising events in March after the country went into lockdown. Emails and other messages soliciting money from donors were also temporarily suspended or altered to encourage people to pitch in only if they could.

"We know that not everyone is in a position to give right now, and that's OK. Your involvement means the world to our whole team and we're so grateful to have you standing with us no matter what," one Liberal party email sent in May told supporters.

"If you're able, though, please show your support and chip in $5 today to support our progress for Canadians (or whatever amount feels right for you at the moment)."

These messages have shifted in recent weeks to more traditional pushes for support as pandemic restrictions have lifted and businesses have started reopening.

The Conservatives have also begun asking party faithful to chip in to an "early election fund," with the message that the Liberals "could call an election at any time."

See the article here:
Liberals, Conservatives see drop in donations during height of COVID-19 pandemic - CBC.ca

Published: 7/31/2020 11:26:40 AM

In his book, Bias, former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg claims that there is a liberal bias in the national news media. He writes The bias Im talking about, by the way, isnt so much political bias of the Democratic-versus-Republican sort. For me that isnt the real problem. The problem comes in the big social and cultural issues abortion, gun control, feminism ,gay rights, the environment, school prayer.

Nowhere in his list do any of the economic and financial struggles of the poor, the near-poor, the lower classes, and the middle classes appear.

He is among a number of conservatives who seem to suggest that the liberals of the 1960s were primarily concerned with the bread-and-butter issues of survival of these groups as well as with expanding the social safety-net federal government programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps), while the progressives of 2020 seem to be primarily concerned with the social, identity-politics and culture-wars issues.

To the extent that this is accurate. You can put me down as siding more with the liberals of the 1960s than with the progressives of 2020.

(This letter to the editor is dedicated to the Suffragist Alice Paul.)

Stewart B. Epstein

Rochester, N.Y.

Read the original here:
Liberals and progressives - The Recorder

After soaring in the polls for months thanks to the government's handling of the pandemic, support for the federal Liberals is now taking a hit from the WE Charity controversy.

But that outbreak-induced polling surge has provided Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with a bit of a cushion one that likelywould still win him an election if one were held today.

That may not be the case for very long if the Liberals can't arrest their slide in the polls, however.

After COVID-19 shut the country down, the Liberals saw their support increase significantly. It rose from just under 30 per cent in early March to over 40 per cent at the beginning of June, according to the CBC's Poll Tracker.

Since then, the Liberals have been dropping.

Four different pollsters have conducted surveys since July 13, when Trudeau first apologized for his failure to recuse himself from the decision to award the WE Charity the contract for a summer student grant program. They've all recorded drops in Liberal support.

Compared to surveys conducted before July3 when the government announced it was dropping its partnership with WE and the ethics commissioner said he was looking into the matter Abacus Data put the Liberals down four percentage points in its latest poll. The Innovative Research Group (IRG) had the Liberals down just a single point, while EKOS Research recorded the Liberals slipping six points.

The most recent survey, by Lger, put the Liberals down five points since the end of June ending a remarkably steady stream of polls showing the Liberals hovering around the 40 per cent mark.

On average, these four pollsters have put the Liberals down four points compared to pre-WE polling. The Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc Qubcoiseach haveaveraged a gain of one point.

The Poll Tracker which is designed to react more slowly to new trends outside of the urgency of an election campaign has the Liberals down 2.3 points since their peak in early June.

Trudeau's own personal ratings have taken a bigger hit. According to Nanos Research's rolling four-week poll, Trudeau is the preferred choice as prime minister of 34 per cent of Canadians. That's down seven points from mid-June. The Angus Reid Institute (ARI), which pegged Trudeau's approval rating at 55 per cent in May, now puts it at 44 per cent.

It's clear that the WE controversy is at the root of this drop in support for both Trudeau and the Liberals. Among those polled by IRG who said they had read, heard or seen something about the prime minister in recent days, 72 per cent pointed to the WE controversy and among those people, 66 per cent said it gave them a less favourable impression of Trudeau, compared to just five per cent who said it improved their image of him.

While these shifts in public opinion are significant, they nevertheless leave the Liberals in a better position now than they were before the COVID-19 outbreak.

In early March, the Poll Tracker put the Liberals two percentage points behind the Conservatives in national support. The Poll Tracker currently puts theLiberal lead over the Conservatives at10 points. Even the worst recent poll for the Liberals still gave them a lead of three points.

With a 10-point lead, the Liberals would be favoured to win a majority government. But even if that lead was reduced to three points, the party likelywould still win a bigger minority government than the one it currently has(the Liberals lost the popular vote by 1.3 percentage points last October, after all).

Trudeau's own approval had fallen to 33 per cent in ARI's polling in February. It was 35 per cent just before the last election. While the prime minister's latest result of 44 per cent approval is the outcome ofa big reduction over the last few weeks, it's a number Trudeau would have been lucky to get last fall.

The reason that the picture for the Liberals is rosierthan it otherwise mightbe is that the governing party's main opponent is not taking advantage of its current troubles.

The Conservatives have the same level of support in the Poll Tracker now thatthey did when the Liberals were at their pandemic peak. No national poll has awarded them more than 31 per cent support among decided voters in over three months.

Regionally, the party is trailing the Liberals by double digits in the key battlegrounds of Ontario and British Columbia and has less support in Quebec than it did last fall.

The Conservatives' current lack ofa permanent leader undoubtedly is a handicap. Andrew Scheer, who announced in December he would resign once his replacement was chosen, has only become less popular since losing the election in October.

But it's not a given that his replacement will be better placed to capitalize on Liberal woes. Polling by Lger in June found that former cabinet minister Peter MacKay scored no better than a generic Conservative leader. Ontario MP Erin O'Toole, the other front-runner in the party's leadership race, did worse.

The latest survey from IRG found that fewer than 20 per cent of respondents held a favourable view of the two Conservative front-runners. Polls suggest Derek Sloan and Leslyn Lewis, the other two contestants, remain largely unknown to voters.

If the Liberals halt their slide in the polls, they could end the summer in a relatively decent position perhaps a better one than they could reasonablyhave expected to be in at the beginning of 2020.

But how likely is it that the party can stop the bleeding?

According to ARI, just 29 per cent of Canadians see the WE controversy as "overblown" and just 12 per cent believe it is a "simple mistake or error in judgment." The rest are split over whether it was criminal or merely unethical.

How that opinion splitsis important, though. It is predominantly Conservative supporters who see the government's actions as possibly criminal, while it's mostly Liberals and New Democrats who see it as unethical (but not criminal) or a simple mistake.

ARI found that Trudeau's approval ratings have taken the steepest dive among NDP and Conservativevoters. But they are still higher among these groups than they were before the pandemic.

Because of the political capital the Liberals have built up throughtheir handling of COVID-19, the party has a chance to weather this storm. While the Conservatives remain stagnant, the Liberal base is enough to win an election. The supporters they've picked up in the last few months the ones they have not lost because of the WE controversy over the last few weeks give them some wiggle room.

But the pandemic is also far from over and Canadians' views of the federal government's handling of the emergency are dimming. Lger found satisfaction with the government's management of the crisis is down six percentage points since the end of June to 73 per cent. Satisfaction with provincial and municipal handling of the outbreak has dropped just three points over that time.

And more political fallout from the WE controversy is likely; Trudeau will testify at committee on Thursday and the Bloc has announced it might try to force an election in the fall if Trudeau and Finance Minister Bill Morneau do not resign.

Still, despite the hits they've taken, the Liberals would be the favourites to win a snap vote now. But they'll lose that edge if the hits keep coming.

See original here:
Polls suggest Liberals would still win an election despite WE controversy but only if the bleeding stops - CBC.ca

BILL BLACK

The decision to investigate the mass-shooting tragedy via a joint independent review had a very short life.

The affected families and communities had been calling for months for a public inquiry, which would have greater independence and the ability to compel witnesses to provide written or oral evidence, and to supply relevant documentation when asked.

Nevertheless, the provincial and federal governments announced the weaker review process. It would be less independent of government, which would have both the interim and final reports to consider before they would be shared with the public. The documents and other evidence they received were to be kept confidential.

To make matters worse, they attributed the choice to exclude the full participation of the families on the theory that it would protect them from further trauma. They had no reason to believe that was what the families wanted, and would have learned that if they bothered to ask.

When announcing the review, Attorney General and Minister of Justice Mark Furey confidently asserted that: the government of Nova Scotia is committed to ensuring that they, and all Nova Scotians, get the answers they deserve. We have heard the calls for an independent and impartial review into why and how this happened, and for timely recommendations that will make our communities safer. This joint review will achieve these outcomes.

This confidence was misplaced, as he must have known. There were demonstrations by the affected families and their supporters, and widespread media criticism. Over the weekend, five Liberal members of Parliament from Nova Scotia broke ranks and joined the criticism of their own government.

When that happened, Furey decided to abandon ship:

I have heard from family members and many Nova Scotians who are opposed to a joint review of the tragic events of April 18 and 19 and would prefer a joint public inquiry ...

If the federal government agrees to a joint public inquiry where federal agencies including the RCMP, Canada Border Services Agency, Criminal Intelligence Services Canada, Canadian Firearms Registry and the Public Alert Ready System will participate and offer testimony, I will support that and so will our government.

A few hours later, Bill Blair, his federal counterpart, fell in line. There will be a full inquiry after all. In response, Furey provided the following statement:

We heard overwhelmingly from families, survivors and Nova Scotians on the importance of a public inquiry regarding the tragic events of April 18 and 19. Our government wanted an inquiry from Day 1, but we also needed the federal government at the table. I am pleased that the federal government now supports a joint inquiry.

That is different from the deferential tone of Premier Stephen McNeil in May: There will be a review, Im sure. Its our belief that the national government will lead that as they see fit (and) we as a provincial government will provide the support where we can.

If they were unhappy with the review format, why didnt Furey and McNeil say so a week ago?

More to the point, what were the federal Liberals thinking? They should have known that the review announcement was going to be unpopular. Why would they make it worse by providing a rationale that was transparently false?

Being forced unwillingly into an inquiry will reinforce suspicions that they have something to hide. Families will be watching like hawks to see if either government fails to provide any evidence requested by the inquiry.

Other collateral damage is the loss of caucus discipline. That wall having been breached, there will likely be other occasions.

This continues a pattern that so far has mostly revolved around Justin Trudeau. His initial responses on awkward questions on free vacations from the Agha Khan (He is a close family friend ), SNC-Lavalin (The Globe and Mail story that there was pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould is false ...), and the failure to recuse himself on the WE contract (I needed to be there because I know so much about the topic ) all fell apart under scrutiny, but not before making a bad situation worse.

It is hard to know whether the miscue around investigating the Portapique tragedy was just a bad day at the office, or reflects a persistent Liberal belief that they can bamboozle Canadians.

RELATED:

Read the original:
BILL BLACK: Review vs. inquiry why did the Liberals get it wrong the first time? - Cape Breton Post

OTTAWA A timeline of events regarding the Canada Student Service Grant program, based on public documents, eventsandstatements from cabinet ministers, government officials, and WE Charity:

March 6, 2020: WE Charity staff prepare a concept paper on service learning for public servants at Employment and Social Development Canada.

April 5: Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau talk over the phone about how to help students whosesummer job and volunteer opportunities were vanishing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.Finance Department officials are tasked withconsidering options the next morning.

April 7: SmallBusiness Minister Mary Ng and WE co-founder Craig Kielburger have an introductory phone call in which Ng asks WE to send what it calls a "pre-established proposal" to help young people launch businesses.

April 7 or 8: Morneau's office contacts theWE organization, among other groups, to get their input on potential programs. Morneau says the call was on April 7 while WE says it was April 8.

April 9: WE Charity sends the unsolicited proposal for a youth business program to Youth Minister Bardish Chagger, Ng, Morneauand Trudeau's office. The price tag is between $6 million and $14 million to provide digital programming and $500 grants, plus"incentive funds,"for8,000 students.

April 16: ESDC officials mention WE in the context of the student program in an email discussion with Finance officials.

April 18: Morneau's officials raise the idea of partnering with a non-profit, or for-profit group to administerthe program. (ESDC officials suggest the same day that WE might be an option.) Morneau said it was the first time he was involved in any talk about WE and the grant program.

April 19: Wernickcontacts Craig Kielburger. WE says the call wasto discuss launching a youth service program in the summer and that Wernick asks Kielburger to develop a proposal to fulfil that objective. During the call, Wernick learns of the April 9 proposal for a youth business program and Kielburger agrees to send both proposals.

April 20: Morneau's office contactsWE to ask about its ability to deliver a volunteer program. An official's record of the call notes "WE Charity will re-work their 10-week summer program proposal to fully meet the policy objective of national service and increase their current placements of 8,000 to double."

April 21: Morneau approves going with an outside organization to run the volunteer program, but nospecific group is chosen.

WE's youth entrepreneurship program proposal is included in annex nineof a briefing packageabout a student aid programthat goes to the Prime Minister's Office, chief of staff Katie Telford later tells the finance committee. The proposal is declined.

April 22: Trudeau announces a $9-billion package of student aid, including the outline of a volunteer program paying students up to $5,000 toward education costs, based on the number of hours they volunteer. WE sends Wernick an updated proposal to reflect the announcement. The message is forwarded to Chagger, Ng and Morneau.

April 26: Morneauspeaks with WE co-founder Craig Kielburger, but told the finance committee neither of them talked about the Canada Student Service Grant program. Craig Kielburger later tells the committee he only brought up the youth business proposal, not the grant program.

April 27: Volunteer Canada, a charity that promotes volunteering and helps organizations use volunteers well, meets Chagger and raises concerns about paying students hourly rates below minimum wage and calling it volunteering.

May 4: WE sends a third proposal to ESDC, this time with more details and specific to the grant program. Finance official Michelle Kovacevic, who was working on the program,told the finance committee she received it May 7.

May 5: Chagger goes to a specialCOVID-19cabinet committee with the recommendationto go with WE for the program. Neither Morneau nor Trudeau isat the meeting.

The same day, a member of the Prime Minister's Office policy team speaks with WE as part of stakeholder consultation, but then directs the organization to ESDC.

WE begins incurring eligible expenses.

Story continues

May 8: Trudeau finds out that WE is being recommended to run the student-volunteer program hours before a cabinet meeting. He later tells the finance committee that he pulled the item from the agenda and sent it back to the public service for more due diligence because of how the deal could be perceived.

May 21: The public service comes back to Trudeau, he tells the finance committee. The recommendation to go with WE doesn't change.

May 22: Cabinet, including Trudeau and Morneau,approved handing the reins of the program to WE.

May 23: The public service officially begins negotiating a contribution agreement with WE, which would have paid up to $43.5 million in fees to the group.

May 25 to June 3: In a series of meetings with Volunteer Canada, WE suggests the target for placements through the program had gone from 20,000 to 100,000.

June 12: WE co-founder Marc Kielburger says in a video chat with youth leaders that he heard from Trudeau's office about getting involved in the volunteer program the day after it was announced by the prime minister.He later backtracks, saying the contact came the week of April 26 from Wernick, and not the Prime Minister's Office.

June 23: WE Charity Foundation signs a contribution agreement with the federal government. WE signatoriesincludeScott Baker, named as president of the one-year-old foundation and executive director of WE Charity, and chief financial officer Victor Li. Chagger signs for the government.

June 25: Trudeau unveils more details about student aid. A government release notes that WE will administer the student-volunteer program.

June 26: Facing questions about WE, Trudeau says the non-partisan public service made the recommendation, and the government accepted it: "As the public service dug into it, they came back with only one organization that was capable of networking and organizing and delivering this program on the scale that we needed it, and that was the WE program."

July 3: Citing the ongoing controversy, WE and the Liberals announce a parting of ways and the federal government takes control of the program. Ethics commissioner Mario Dion tells Conservative and NDP ethics critics in separate letters he will examine Trudeau's role in the awarding of the agreement because of the prime minister's close ties to the group.

July 9: WE says it has paid Trudeau's mother Margaret about $250,000 for 28 speaking appearances at WE-related events between 2016 and 2020. His brother Alexandre was been paid $32,000 for eight events, and Trudeau's wife Sophie Gregoire Trudeau received $1,400 in 2012 for a single appearance. The organization says Trudeau himself has never been paid by the charity or its for-profit arm.

July 13: Trudeau apologizes for not recusing himself from discussions about WE over his family's longtime involvement with the organization. Morneau also issues an apology.

July 16: Dion says he will investigate Morneau's actions in the affair. Chagger testifies at the finance committee, saying Trudeau's office didn't direct her to go with WE.

July 21: Ian Shugart, clerk of the Privy Council, tells the Commons finance committee there is no evidence to suggest Trudeau spoke with WE before the organization was awarded the deal to run the student-volunteer program.

July 22: Morneau tells the finance committee hejust repaid over $41,000 to WE for travel expenses the organization footed for the minister and his family. The Opposition Conservatives call for Morneau to resign.

Trudeau's office says he and Telford have agreed to testify before the committee with a date and time to be set.

The House of Commons ethics committee also calls on Trudeau to testify, andvotes to seek copies of records for Trudeau and his family's speaking appearances dating back years. Six opposition members outvote five Liberals to have that committee start its own investigation.

July 23: Conservatives and New Democrats ask Dion to launch a new probe of Morneau over his travel expenses.

July 27: A copy of the contribution agreement with WE Charity Foundation is filed with the finance committee. It lays out the details of the program, includinga provision for a maximum contribution of $543.53 million $500 million for grants, and $43.53 million to WE.

July 28: Craig and Marc Kielburger testify over four hours of sometimes testy interactions with MPs on the finance committee. The co-founders of WE Charity say their history and experience, not ties to Liberal cabinet ministers, landed the group the deal to run the volunteer program. They add they would have never agreed to take part in the program had they known it could jeopardize the work the WE organization has done over 25 years.

They also say WE estimated the cost of theprogram to bebetween $200 million and $300 million.

July 29: The Conservatives call on the federal ethics czar to widen his probe of Trudeau to include travel expenses WE covered in addition to speaking fees for his mother, wifeand brother. Dion sends letters to the Tories and NDP saying he is expanding his probe of Morneau to look into the $41,000 in WE-sponsored travel.

July 30: In a rare event, Trudeau testifies before the House of Commons finance committee and lays out when he first learned about WE's involvement in theCanada Student Service Grant program. He says WE Charity didn't receive any preferential treatment in the process. He also says itis now unlikely the grants will be rolled out. Telford also appears before the committee.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2020.

The Canadian Press

Follow this link:
A timeline of the controversy around WE, the Liberals and a student program - Yahoo Canada Finance