Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Most politicians aren't qualified to give good political opinions.... so....

I didn’t say that they were the best qualified person to get your political opinions from either

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I do see how it's problematic but I also view hyperbolism as something that:

a) has always, and will always happen. As such to an extent, understanding hyperbolic statements and relevancy of them and the level of how hyperbolic they are is important;

In my opinion hyperbole doesn’t provide any benefit to political commentary. I’m sure you’d agree that their relevancy in most cases would also have to be considered subjective.

b) is a function of human nature in order to communicate a point, sometimes effectively and sometimes not- sometimes weakening a stance, so there's nuance at play here;

I’m really not following how you think that it communicates a point effectively. I’d argue that it does the opposite.

c) always should be correctly called out, like you're doing, and adjusted to clarify for accuracy; and

That’s currently the status quo and it seems to be having a disastrous effect on the world. I think that it would be more beneficial to fix the status quo instead of wasting our time increasingly having statements unnecessarily re-explained.

d) something that media and tropes on both sides of the political spectrum do literally all the time.

I don’t see how that is relevant but it definitely shouldn’t excuse it.

I am sure Sid and everybody watching can put together that Toronto is not literally broke. I didn't really interpret what he said to mean it was a "fact"- I thought he was just implying that expenditures have been very high and budgets very tight.

If the last few years have taught us anything it’s that some people believe a lot of things they read or see that other people wouldn’t.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I agree with you that accuracy in statements generally speaking is welcome. Lastly, sometimes emotion is necessary to effectively communicate a message as well.

Perhaps, but in this case I think that it was absolutely unnecessary.

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1626559594032951296

Extension of the story that the Globe broke a while ago about 11 Federal Candidates receiving funding from China.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Interview with the soon to be former ethics commissioner, where he states his frustrations.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...iberals-lapses

I mean as much as we want the government to reform the ethics rules or increase penalties its never going to happen as long as there's a sense of entitlement with government members.

Why increase the fines? When right now its worth it to do a little personal enriching or helping your pals out, I mean the worst that can happen is a $500.00 fine, and a party that won't force you to leave their seat because of the fact that if that was the punishment Trudeau would have been gone a long time ago.

I mean if I was in government and I had the ability to give my friends a sole source contract worth lets say $30,000 to help a brother out. Or if I had the ability to accept a personal gift in exchange for making an endorsement call for a friends or fundraisers business. Why wouldn't I? I get a fine, pretend I'm sorry, get to keep my six figure salary and pension.

I mean I laughed at Mary Ng with her little apology that she made a mistake. Then said she'd signed a promise not to do it again. These people literally sign an oath of office when they take their roles as MP's that basically say you agree to the code of conduct of the office. And on this new document that she probably scrawled on a napkin, what's the punishment if she does violate again? That's right, nothing.

The Canadian people don't care about ethic violations, and that is why the Liberals constantly keep getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Sad that we've come this far as a country, but it won't stop until at the VERY minimum the MPs that are caught are either kicked out of the party or removed from their job or the entire party is voted out.

[Fuzz]

POEC commission finds the threshold was met to invoke the act.

[Torture]

Not exactly surprising unless you're a convoyer.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1626635179480449036

Report calls out policing failures and Ontario's inaction during an 'unsafe and chaotic' protest

[Fuzz]

Here come the National Post op eds...Step right up Rex.

[CaptainCrunch]

No real surprise on the report on the invocation of the act.

He was pretty critical in terms of how the governments worked together. On misinformation on both sides through the protest. And he questioned the ability to invoke parliamentary privilege during the inquiry.

He also made strong hints that the barrier for invoking the act have to be higher, if I read it correctly.

[GGG]

I haven’t read the whole thing but I was looking for the discussion around whether this met the strict requirements of the act. It’s worth reading the whole section on it but is conclusion is very interesting. Essentially earlier in the pages he states that it’s okay that cabinet and CSIS have different interpretations in whether the CSIS acts was met, it was unfortunate that the legal basis for cabinets conclusion that basis was not released, however it’s clear that cabinet believed they had met the threshold and that there were reasonable grounds to support that threshold. Pages 190-207 or so

https://publicorderemergencycommissi...-Emergency.pdf

I do not come to this conclusion easily, as I do not consider the factual basis for it to be overwhelming and I acknowledge that there is significant strength to the arguments against reaching it. It may well be that serious violence might have been avoided, even without the declaration of emergency. That it might have been avoided does not, however, make the decision wrong. There was an objective basis for Cabinet’s belief, based on compelling and credible information. That was what was required. The standard of reasonable grounds to believe does not require certainty.

Although he finds that the met the CSIS definition of emergency he also includes a recommendation to remove the clause and modernize the definition.

Recommendation 31: The incorporation by reference into the Emergencies Act of the
definition of “threats to the security of Canada” from the CSIS Act should be removed. Recommendation 32: There should be an in-depth review of Part II of the Act dealing
with public order emergencies with a view to:
a. ensuring that the definition of a public order emergency is modernized in order to capture the situations that could legitimately pose a serious risk to the public order, now and in the foreseeable future;
b. providing the government with the tools necessary to address these situations; and
c. ensuring that the threshold remains high, the invocation of the Act remains exceptional, and all appropriate safeguards are put in place to maintain Parliament’s ultimate and effective control over the steps taken by the Government in response to a public order emergency.
Recommendation 33: Section 25 of the Emergencies Act should be amended to include a requirement to consult with the territories.

The other thing I find throughout the report is his finding that this situation was preventable and shouldn’t have arose to the state of emergency. So the government in all its branches failed and that failure resulted in an emergency.

I find that problematic that government ineptitude can be used as a means to create conditions to suspend the rights of citizens. I don’t have a better solution though.

The other neat section is on the asset freezing which was generally considered appropriate but the lack of a method to unfreeze assets in the legislation was not appropriate.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

-snip-

The other thing I find throughout the report is his finding that this situation was preventable and shouldn’t have arose to the state of emergency. So the government in all its branches failed and that failure resulted in an emergency.

I find that problematic that government ineptitude can be used as a means to create conditions to suspend the rights of citizens. I don’t have a better solution though.

The other neat section is on the asset freezing which was generally considered appropriate but the lack of a method to unfreeze assets in the legislation was not appropriate.

Because the failures were with branches the Federal Government does not have direct control over(for good reason) I see this more as a feature, not a bug. When everyone else fails, the Federal Government still has a tool to solve a problem.

[PeteMoss]

^^ I think unless you want the feds to be able to compel the provinces to act - you aren't going to get there. (response to GGG's post)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Torture

Not exactly surprising unless you're a convoyer.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1626635179480449036

Yoho in 3.............2..................

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1626700104538157062

[btimbit]

Further showing just how out of touch PP is, and again my biggest problem with him. I don't get the sense that he actually feels that way one bit, but he has no problem just making up BS to appeal to the fringe of his base.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Further showing just how out of touch PP is, and again my biggest problem with him. I don't get the sense that he actually feels that way one bit, but he has no problem just making up BS to appeal to the fringe of his base.

He is playing to a base that cannot get him elected as PM, and creating a trench between those who could. It’s their whole “we don’t want to rule” m.o. The money, prestige, not having to actually work is a way better deal.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yoho in 3.............2..................

Thanked cos you ####ing nailed it

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1626700104538157062

What point are you proving, exactly? PP was supportive of the convoy and insisted they had done nothing wrong and that Trudeau's response was heavy-handed. A commission rules that no, his response was not heavy-handed, and that elements of the convoy were at risk of turning violent.

I'm not a huge fan of the CBC, but while the hell wouldn't they ask the leader of the opposition if he's changed his views of supporting it? What kind of a moron is he to attack that as biased? It's a legitimate question no matter who asks it.

Is the conservative party trying to create their own Fox News where the journalist just suck their dick and sing their praises?


Note: I do not expect an actual response.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Azure

The Canadian people don't care about ethic violations, and that is why the Liberals constantly keep getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Sad that we've come this far as a country, but it won't stop until at the VERY minimum the MPs that are caught are either kicked out of the party or removed from their job or the entire party is voted out.

They did. It brought down the last era of Liberals.

Along the way the Liberals got smarter. They positioned themselves as the party of righteousness. Playing wedge issues and identity politics to position them as the party of virtue. Anyone against them as plain evil.

Its taken from Trump and American politics. If you use tribalism into a us vs them people will forgive anything you do and reject anything you feel is evil.

Look at the term Liberal in the US. Its an insult.

Look at Conservative here. It means out of touch, greedy evil people who will regress (insert social issue here).

Easy to fleece pockets when people look the other way.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

They did. It brought down the last era of Liberals.

Along the way the Liberals got smarter. They positioned themselves as the party of righteousness. Playing wedge issues and identity politics to position them as the party of virtue. Anyone against them as plain evil.

Its taken from Trump and American politics. If you use tribalism into a us vs them people will forgive anything you do and reject anything you feel is evil.

Look at the term Liberal in the US. Its an insult.

Look at Conservative here. It means out of touch, greedy evil people who will regress (insert social issue here).

Easy to fleece pockets when people look the other way.

The difference now is those same Liberals would never be taken down today because the MSM media has no interest in smearing them and holding them accountable.

They’d rather attack the leader of the opposition, just like the NDP.

[Wormius]

The media reporting on the news isn’t bias.

The self-branded non-mainstream media though is doing exactly what was described: cheerleading only their team.