Features
The JP&N goes one-on-one with Pierre Poilievre
By BERNIE BELLAN (Note: This article first appeared in the June 7, 2023 issue of the JP&N, but our website was under reconstruction, so it didn’t appear here until July 5.)
In the waning days of the 2015 federal election I was one of a small group of journalists representing “ethnic media” that was invited to meet with then-PM Stephen Harper. I agreed to attend.
Frankly, I wondered though, what was I doing there? After all, Harper had a well-known disdain for journalists and I wasn’t especially keen at the notion that I would be representing an “ethnic” publication which, I thought, was so parochial. Further, the Conservatives were clearly in trouble at the time. Why else was the publisher of a small Jewish newspaper who would, under any other circumstance, not be invited to meet with the prime minister of the country now being asked to meet with him?
As a result, when I wrote about that meeting, I titled my piece “My accidental meeting with Stephen Harper.” (That piece was picked up by the CBC and posted to its website. I guess the CBC couldn’t resist taking one final poke at a PM who had long held them in disdain – by publishing my somewhat sarcastic piece.)
And so, on Wednesday, May 31, when I received an invitation to conduct a one-on-one interview with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre on Friday, June 2 (over the phone) – well, again, I was somewhat skeptical. We’re in the midst of a byelelection in which the Jewish vote in Winnipeg South Centre might be pivotal though, which would help to explain the logic in reaching out to a journalist who normally wouldn’t get the time of day from the Leader of the Opposition.
I was asked in advance what kinds of questions I might like to ask, but I was very general in my response, saying that I’d like to ask about climate change, Pierre Poilievre’s support for the convoy that laid siege to Ottawa in 2022, and abortion. The person who had contacted me didn’t say that I couldn’t ask about any of those subjects, which didn’t really surprise me, since Poilievre is an excellent debater and would surely be able to handle himself easily with the likes of me.
As it was, I did manage to get in all the questions that I had in mind – along with one more relating to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Here is the interview:
JP&N: I’ve got to tell you before we begin to chat – you were on my street with Joyce Bateman in 2015 when she was running for re-election and you were helping her run. I met you. I remember you were wearing a black suit and a white shirt and it was a Saturday and I was thinking “You’re overdressed for this.”
Poilievre: Oh my goodness. Was it summer?
JP&N: Well, the election was in October, so it might’ve been in September, but it was a warm day. I wonder – are you dressed for the weather we’re having today (over 30 degrees when we spoke), or are you still wearing a suit?
Poilievre: I’m wearing a dress shirt and luluemons. They’re comfortable but not quite light enough for a day like this.
JP&N: Anyway, I was told I can ask you any questions I’d like, but I know you’re pretty fast on your feet so I don’t think I can corner you. Let me ask you this: Given the weather we’re experiencing and the conditions across the country, what would you say in answer to the question: “Do you believe in climate change, first of all? Do you believe it’s a reality?”
Poilievre: Yes
JP&N: Okay, but what about lessening the use of fossil fuels and drilling for oil? Does this change your thinking in any way – what we’re experiencing now?
Poilievre: I think we have to reduce emissions, which is different, so we will continue using hydrocarbons for everything from asphalt to plastics to medical equipment to components in electric cars for at least generations, and possibly centuries to come. The challenge is how to reduce the emissions into the atmosphere and the answer to that is you produce energy with less emissions, so that for instance in Alberta and Saskatchewan they’re investing in carbon capture and storage, which puts industrial emissions back in the ground where they came from.
You know, so power in the oil sands sustains emissions-free nuclear power instead of coal-fired electricity. We can speed up nuclear power production. It doesn’t take 15 years to get a big plant built; it can be done in five.
Fast- tracking hydroelectric dams in places like Manitoba, Quebec, and British Columbia to allow us more affordable, green emissions-free electricity.
We can incentivize large industrial corporations to reduce their emissions with a carb tax on their emissions so that they’re forced to reinvest in technology if they don’t bring their emissions down. The key here is investing in technologies to bring down the cost of carbon free alternatives rather than bringing up the cost of traditional energy that we still require.
JP&N: I’ll admit, the readership of our newspaper skews older, but a lot of our readers are as concerned about global warming as younger generations, but for younger generations – they’re so engrossed with what’s going on now, what can you say to them about the future because, quite frankly, the Conservative Party has aligned itself with the forces that would continue drilling for oil and continue building pipelines. What would you say to the younger generation – and the older generations that are also very concerned about that?
Poilievre: I would ask: “What is their alternative?” The world is going to continue to consume between 60 and 100 million barrels of oil a day for at least the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency, so where do you want that oil to come from? Canada, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia? I want it to come from Canada and why not incentivize to grow greener, to reinvest in lowering emissions so that we have the lowest emitting barrel of oil on planet Earth? That’s the common sense solution. You can shut down our energy sector tomorrow. It’ll just mean more oil will come from Russia – where they have no climate change standards.
JP&N: Except that the oil sands are one of the dirtiest sources of oil on Earth.
Poilievre: No, not at all. Actually the oil sands have dramatically reduced their emissions from each barrel of oil. Alberta has had some of the most aggressive emission reductions policies for two decades that have worked through the “tier” program – the technology in a program that requires them to meet targets and, if they don’t, they have to contribute to a technology fund that all businesses can draw from to reduce emissions.
They also have an alliance of the five biggest oil companies that have drawn up a plan to get to net zero in the next several decades that is well advanced of almost all the oil producing countries in the world.
JP&N: Okay, the time is limited and we’ve been dwelling on this issue, so I want to switch gears and talk about what is undoubtedly going to be a wedge issue between you and the Liberals, which is the issue of abortion. I know the Liberals are looking forward to trying to trap the Conservatives in some way – I don’t know if that’s the right word, but does the Conservative Party have a unilateral position on abortion or is it left to each member to vote their conscience on that?
Poilievre: A Poilievre-led government will not have any laws restricting abortion, period.
JP&N: So if an individual member wants to bring it up as a private member’s motion, would you allow it?
Poilievre: No such bill would pass and no such bill has come from a Conservative MP – to ban abortion – in the 17 years that I’ve been a Member of Parliament, I’ve never seen that happen.
You know, a lot of people fear monger about it, but I’ve never seen it happen, so no such bill would pass.
JP&N: Another issue – perhaps it’s yesterday’s issue, but it still relates to the tone you adopted when you came out to greet the members of the (truckers’) convoy in Ottawa. Do you have any misgivings about having done that?
Poilievre: I think we had a group of people that had lost their jobs because the Prime Minister brought in unscientific and unnecessary mandates on the people who are least likely to spread a virus. A person sitting in a truck all day – we called these people heroes for two years while they brought us our goods and services across the border.
All of us were comfortable in our homes. These people were on icy highways bringing the essentials that kept us alive and suddenly, and inexplicably, Trudeau broke his own promise that the vaccines would be voluntary. He hit them with a mandate and took away their jobs, so they came to the nation’s capital to try to get their jobs back and I supported them in that.
I do regret the nasty, divisive approach the Prime Minister took. It was a political opportunity to divide people. What he really wanted to do is make you afraid of your trucker, forget about the fact you can’t pay your rent, you can’t pay your mortgage, you can’t afford groceries, the streets are more dangerous. Forget about all that and focus on the scary guy who delivers your food and your medicine in a truck. Maybe it was a successful political strategy but it was a terrible way to divide our people.
I’ll be a prime minister who unites our people, brings everyone together. That includes hard working truckers and others. What we need right now is less division and more unity.
JP&N: If you have a little bit more time, I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask you a question that’s close to the hearts and minds of a lot of Jews, especially in Winnipeg South Centre, which has one of the highest proportion of Jewish voters in the country.
Stephen Harper was here two weeks ago speaking at our Jewish National Fund Negev Gala and came out, as expected, four score in support of Israel. I wouldn’t expect anything different from you, but I’m wondering, what would you say to Jews who would like to see Israelis and Palestinians brought together in a way that maybe hasn’t been done? Do you have any ideas on how to do that?
Poilievre: Yes, I do. In fact, it’s a big priority of mine. I think there’s a lot of common ground between Israelis and Palestinians and one area in which Conservatives can help is by encouraging more trade and commerce between Palestinians and Israelis.
The Israeli economy is probably the most entrepreneurial in the entire world. If not – a close second to Singapore. And Palestinians are desperate for an opportunity to feed their families and to build a better future. I think if we – Canada – can assist in bringing together Palestinians and Israelis that share a common economic purpose to reduce poverty and desperation and division, I think it could create the foundation for a lasting peace. That’s how I’d like to proceed.
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
