The Conservative Candidate has Taken a Stealth Approach to Winning the Burlington Seat.

federal election 2019By Pepper Parr

October 15th, 2015



The Gazette has been interviewing candidates for the upcoming federal election in order to provide a perspective on where they stand on issues of interest to Burlington.  We may not get to them all but we will try.  But there is one candidate who has not yet responded to our request for an interview.

Michaels with election signJane Michaels is the Conservative Party of Canada candidate for Burlington.  And with the Liberals and Conservatives running neck-in-neck according to the national polls, who she is, where she comes from and where she stands should be highly relevant to the voters.  That is particularly important given that her Liberal opponent is generally regarded as doing a fine job representing constituents.

What to say about Jane Michaels, the Conservative Party candidate whose name will be on the ballet you are handed next Monday?

Jane Elizabeth Michaels chose not to take part in the BurlingtonGreen all candidates debate; she chose not to participate in the videos that were done about each candidate, she chose not to take part in the session at Nelson High School where all the candidates met with the students.

The Gazette has received scores of scraps of information; most of it gossip in nature.  We did receive a note from an individual who cannot be identified who said: “I have some very grave concerns about the potential of Jane Michael becoming a member of Canadian Parliament.

“I think there is some information that the Burlington voters have the right to know, but have concerns about what my legal obligation and potential repercussions are pertaining to in-camera meetings of the school board.”

The Gazette is not alone in being shutout by this candidate.  Michaels also chose not to take part in the BurlingtonGreen all candidates debate.  She chose not to participate in the ECoB video interviews.  She chose not to take part in the candidates session at Nelson High School.

We have been advised that Ms Michael’s has been canvassing door to door and that she has opened an office on Brant Street.

Jane and AndrewOne would expect that a candidate for office would relish the opportunity to meet the press and tell her story, to let the the voters know why they should support her.  But Ms. Michaels seems to believe she can win by hiding in her office.

Perhaps she is concerned that someone will ask her about her experience and her political record.  As  as school board trustee she had been sanctioned by the Halton Catholic Board.  According to the former leader of the PC party she falsified her nomination application when she ran for the Tory provincial nomination, neglecting to note that she had declared bankruptcy, not once but several times.

We are advised that Ms. Michaels  attended the Burlington Chamber of Commerce Q&A session.  Were it not for that event we’d have to find ourselves calling Jane Michaels the stealth candidate.

Isn’t it time to come out and meet the public Jane?



Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

24 comments to The Conservative Candidate has Taken a Stealth Approach to Winning the Burlington Seat.

  • david barker

    David I’m not saying you should vote Liberal, but if you are voting Conservative please bear in mind:-

    Scheer lied about his experience and background. He was never a licensed insurance broker as he claims on his resume.

    Scheer when called on his lie, he lied again saying he qualified as an insurance broker but never registered. He never qualified (confirmed by the regulator).

    Scheer is hypocritical, “shaming” others for holding dual citizenship, whilst secretly holding dual citizenship himself.

    Scheer is hypocritical for saying Trudeau should have declared the blackface incidents when he was vetted by the Liberals. Scheer never declared his dual citizenship during his own vetting.

    Scheer is anti a woman being free to have a choice regarding having an abortion. He has said as PM he would not introduce legislation to outlaw it, but he would support a private member’s bill to do just that.

    Scheer is anti gay marriage

    If you think Trudeau is a hypocritical liar, you surely must think the same of Scheer.

    Please vote for the best candidate in your riding irrespective of who their party leader may be.

  • David

    The reason I will be voting Conservative is Trudeau….Nothing else matters.

  • BJ

    Believe what you hear. No wonder she won’t issue a rebuttal: she can’t because it is all true. If you have nothing to hide, you would be speaking out. I understand she doesn’t have many volunteers and the office is in chaos. Looks good on her. When you disrespect the members of the Community, what do you expect.

  • david barker

    Philip, I believe you miss my point. Trudeau’s big mistake in the whole SNC affaire was not that he tried to get JWR to go the Deferred Prosecution route, it was, as it always is with any mistake, the fact that he tried to cover it up. If he had owned it from the start it would never have blown up as it did. He obviously received and accepted bad advice.

    Trudeau did own his blackface episodes immediately and apologised right away. Trudeau never lied about this nor did he attempt to cover it up or make it sound acceptable (though at the time back then it might well have not been unacceptable as it is today).

    On the other hand Scheer knowingly lied on his resume about being a licensed insurance broker. Then when found out tried to cover it up. He bold face lied again saying he had gained accreditation, though never registered with the regulatory body. In fact he had not qualified at all, having only completed 1 of 4 required courses. (pants definitely well on fire)

    You will recall Scheer hypocritically slammed AG Michael Jean, Stephane Dion and Tom Mulcair each for holding French citizenship, whilst being a closet dual citizen himself. His stated concern being each might have split loyalties. What hypocracy! When asked during this election campaign why he had not declared his dual citizenship he said quote “No one ever asked me”. What BS that is. Would you not agree that if Scheer’s response is acceptable, it could also have been applied by Trudeau’s as respects his blackface episodes, and all is well!

    Philip, I must call you out. Your comment as respects the dual citizenships held the 11 Liberal MPs you list is extremely racist.

    What does it matter from where a Canadian citizen originated (whether first generation or later). EACH AND EVERY ONE IS CANADIAN AND JUST AS MUCH A CANADIAN AS YOU OR ME.

    You have lost a great deal of credibility with that remark. But no wonder you support the likes of Scheer & Ford.

    A mea culpa is appropriate. Though even if you apologise the belief is clearly in your heart.

    • Phillip Wooster

      David, there is nothing racist about it! Just a typical, sanctimonious Liberal deflection. YOU raised the issue of dual citizenship–it’s a non-issue with Scheer (his father was American, Scheer has been totally focused on Canada) but for you, you don’t want to recognize that Liberals as well hold dual citizenship and as I pointed out, some of these are from countries that don’t have a sterling record of democracy or respect for human rights. I must say I’m not surprised you scream racist—it’s typical of Liberals when confronted with criticism of their viewpoints. Your hero–Trudeau, called a woman a racist for asking if Trudeau was going to pay for the illegal immigration he was promoting. David you should be ashamed for sinking to such a low accusation.

      And as much as you seek to dismiss Trudeau’s corruption as a “mistake” and “acting on bad advice”, it was a mistake he committed over and over and over again. He never even apologized for Lavalin. One can only hope for a Conservative win next Monday so we can call a judicial inquiry into the Lavalin and Mark Norman Scandals and restore the rule of law to Canada.

  • david barker

    Well , Philip, as I’ve said in this forum before, in the SNC matter, I believe Trudeau’s error was that he should have realized early on that JWR was not going to take the desired Delayed Prosecution route. He should at that time replaced her, as he is entitled to do, with a new AG supportive of a different judicial resolution. Instead he tried to persuade (influence) her. His actions were, in my view, well intentioned in that he was attempting to mitigate collateral damage that would likely fall upon, employees, retail shareholders, and suppliers of SNC. His actions were not made for any personal gain. Philip I bet if your RRSP was invested heavily in SNC or if you were a supplier dependent upon SNC contracts you might have a different view.

    So Philip, how do you feel about Scheer’s bold face lying and deceptions as to his resume and dual nationality; to episodes he undertook both knowingly and purely for personal gain.! Are you at peace with that?

    • Phillip Wooster

      Let’s assume that your observations about Trudeau’s behaviour about SNC Lavalin are accurate–it was just about jobs and protecting innocent third parties. Wouldn’t Trudeau have just come clean on the alleged scandal and put it behind him? BUT HE DIDN’T! First he lied when the G&M story broke and denied it happened. Then, in the House of Commons, he used his majority to block a motion for a judicial inquiry. Then, he failed to provide JWR a blanket waiver to testify about the WHOLE scandal whereas he allowed Butts and Wernick to testify about the entire episode. Third, he used his majority on the Judicial Committee to shut down further investigation into the affair. Fourth, he rose in the House of Commons to state that the Ethics Commissioner would have full access to witnesses and documents to review the Lavalin scandal but he lied–the Commissioner revealed that he had been blocked from interviewing 9 key witnesses and several documents. Fifth, he used his majority on the Ethics Committee to block the Commissioner from testifying. And finally, the RCMP were prevented from gathering evidence about the scandal from cabinet ministers. SIX separate occasions when Trudean blocked investigation into the Lavalin Scandal—this was a concerted cover-up! If his story were true that this was just about jobs, you don’t spend that much political capital on covering it up. What was he really hiding.

      I must say that I’m disappointed with Scheer’s failure to be fully transparent but his transgressions pale in comparison with Trudeau’s failure to disclose his numerous black-face escapades during the vetting process. And as for his dual citizenship, his dad was from the USA but Scheer’s record is one of being a Canadian–he was born here, raised here, has served in the House of Commons for 14 years and raised his family here. How does that compare with 11 Liberal MP’s with dual citizenship, some from such stalwart democracies as Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (although Monsef may be from Iran, she’s not sure).

  • Mary Jenkins

    Pepper, I see you are carefully choosing which comments you choose to post. You’re not even trying to hide your partisanship. I just read the very lengthy article you wrote on Karina. You left out her voting record. Seems to me that should be most important. Voting to keep a child rapist and murderer in a healing lodge. Voting to halt investigations into our government. Voting to turf two extremely bright women MPS for exposing Trudeau. Hmmmm what are you basing your opinion on?

    • Bob

      I’m pretty sure that the readership is waiting for the Pepper and Ray in depth piece on JM, when and if she comes out of hiding. If you even believe half the negative stuff out there about JM, She has some explaining to do – like setting record straight.

  • david barker

    Penny. My question to you “is not the candidate a reflection of the party” was not put to you in any way isolated to Ms Michael. It was a question that should be applied to all candidates and parties. Yes, therefore Trudeau is a reflection of the Liberal party and Scheer of the Conservatives.

    In my view the choice between the two main parties is not that difficult.

    Trudeau has certainly made many errors in judgement, but I find him to be more believable as someone wishing for wider social justice; as one would expect since that is what the name of his party implies.

    Scheer has also made mistakes, e.g. about his background, and to me does not come across as being honest in relation to a woman’s choice on abortion, or as to gay rights.

    So let’s say as to a choice between the leaders, it’s a wash.

    So it comes down to choice between Conservative party policies and Ms Michael on the one hand versus Liberal party policies and Gould on the other.

    In my view it has to be Gould and the Liberals.

    Liberals are by nature more inclusive and have more of a social conscience than do the Conservatives.

    As to candidates in my view , Michael does not come close to the quality.of Gould !

    Just my view. Each to their own !

    • Phillip Wooster

      “Trudeau has certainly made many errors in judgement”?????? You call two ethics violations and six deliberate attempts to cover up what is likely a criminal invesigation an “error in judgement”? Trudeau’s behaviour struck directly at the rule of law–a fundamental underpinning of Canadian democracy and you call it “an error in judgement”? God help Canada.

  • Penny Hersh

    David, that’s a very good question. Is Justin Trudeau not a reflection of the party? I have not as yet voted – I will – but I have found this election to be very difficult.

    • Mike Ettlewood


      He is or, at least, he should be. But this election has been, like the provincial election before, an uncomfortable array of choices that leave one with a bad taste and a worse result. Personally, I believe that when party platforms do not compel, then one should try to choose the best individual regardless of political affiliation. There is also the option of registering a ‘non vote’ which is exercising your mandate but essentially saying “none of the above”. This is better than a spoiled ballot because you have indeed voted and expressed your fundamental dissatisfaction.

  • Elan

    Jane Michael was pushed out as the Provincial candidate by those who (in their weird wisdom) backed Jane McKenna, thee of the “make Burlington Great again” slogan (ouch! – 44% of the vote got her in….to cut the ribbon on the monstrosity on 22 Brant Street!) Jane Micheal sued the conservative party. The settlement is that Burlington gets her as the Federal candidate to the Conservative Party. Wow. And she is a no show….like…everywhere. She did show up at my house last week. Said people were mean to her. geez. wonder why?

  • Mike Ettlewood

    It’s unfortunate that our electoral system permits a candidate who refuses to engage with potential constituents to have their name stand on the ballot. Whatever your political allegiance, the reluctance of a candidate to participate in multiple forums where differences in platform and policy are discussed, should be deeply disturbing. I am appalled by Ms. Michael’s strategy of silence. I am more appalled at the prospect that she may, in fact, win.

  • Phil

    Stealth approach, it is. A few weeks back, I watched a fellow in a pickup truck stop in front of my house and erect an “Elect Jane Michael” sign on my front lawn. I haven’t spoken to ANYBODY from the Conservative party during the run-up to this election, and although I’m probably on a list somewhere as having been a Conservative supporter for most of my adult life (I’ve become disillusioned with them, and did *not* give them my vote in the last federal election), I found it really presumptuous of them to just assume it was OK to stick one of Jane’s signs on my lawn with absolutely no form of prior contact. I removed it immediately.

    I took a quick tour around the neighbourhood, and was not surprised to see quite a few other Jane Michael signs had been planted that same afternoon. But the *really* curious thing is that, during the following week, all but one of them has disappeared. Is everyone’s experience the same as mine, or are we just getting to the point where advertising your political alignment to your neighbours is just too divisive?

  • Stephen White

    Sad performance….really, really sad!!

  • Roger

    Jane was barely qualified a trustee – she will be a bench warmer – if elected

  • david barker


    Is not the candidate a reflection of the party?

    It seems in picking Michael over the objections of the local Conservative Party Association, the national Conservative Party is showing its contempt for not just its local Association but for all the people of Burlington.

    Why would you consider voting for someone or something that is contemptuous of you?

  • Penny Hersh

    The question then becomes do you vote for the party and its platform or the person representing the party in your City?

  • Jim Ridley

    Her absence in public forums only gives credence to the rumors about her. It appears that her only asset is her name on lawn signs with navy blue backgrounds, and I worry that for many voters that will be reasonenough.

  • Hans Jacobs

    Apparently the salary for an MP is $195 K. For that kind of money most of us would probably want a more serious applicant.

  • david barker

    Yes, she is a stealth candidate for MP, just like McKenna being a stealth MPP. Both are absent from meeting directly with their constituents. Why that is does not matter. It does matter that it shows a complete contempt towards the voters Particularly contempt towards those that traditionally vote Conservative and whose votes she is taken for granted.

    However, Mr Parr, no matter her bad behaviour towards the electorate and the media, please at least do her the courtesy of getting her name right. It’s Michael singular, not Michaels plural.

    Whilst on the subject of getting words or pronunciations right, I just want to say it bugs me when words are mispronounced or mis quoted.

    For example:-

    it’s not “neck-in-neck”. It’s either “neck and Beck’s or “neck ‘n neck”. It refers originally to two horses in a race being tied for position, i.e. along side each other.

    “Halloween” is phonetically pronounced “hal_lo_ween” NOT “hol_lo_ween”.

    “Congratulations” is phonetically pronounced “con_grat_u_lay_shons”.NOT “con_graj_u_lay_shons”.

    Please, let’s get it right!

Leave a Reply