2

This is the ending part of an article in The CBC News: Kent Hehr has committed the ultimate sin for a Trudeau minister

Hehr destroys all of that. His off-script remarks darken the whole sunny facade, which is supposed to be about caring and smiles and unlimited budgets and hope and hard work. It's about as off-brand as you can get for this government. It's a wonder Trudeau would allow the impression it's tolerated.

I think 'it' means 'this government' and the last sentence means 'It's surprising that Trudeau would allow the bad impression this government has endured." But then it doesn't make sense. Because the sentence should mean that the author is surprised that Trudeau would allow the bad impression this government has opposed."

Am I understanding this wrong?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

Here, "it's" refers to Hehr's collection of actions and "off-script remarks" or perhaps the situation created by Hehr's actions and remarks.

In the third sentence, the writer says that these remarks and actions are "off-brand," meaning they are inconsistent with the message the government is trying to send.

In the last sentence, the writer is surprised that Trudeau allows the impression that these remarks are tolerated.

In no case does "it" refer to the government here.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    So, in other words, the writer omitted a that before the last it's, which is why the sentence is so confusing.
    – Kevin
    Dec 16, 2017 at 3:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .