Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

While this adds more information to the discussion. thats for sure not the interview I saw.

Hopefully Pepsifree can find it for you as he's all of a sudden jumping to help. My googlefu skills are clearly not as topnotch and cannot find what is scrubbed.

[Fuzz]

I think it's still up in the air as to if the interview was scrubbed, or shotinthebacklund had too much sedation at the dentist. We also can't overlook the possibility of their dental office using the TV's as psyops for the Russians.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You quoted it. Sounded important as you called it interesting. Note how I didn't quote a whole block of a transcript as I can filter down on the important parts.

May want to narrow down your quote down to what exactly you are deflecting on.

OK, I’ll re-quote it and remove the offensive comment that Matt refers to and bold the interesting things. Let me know if you want me to read it to you also or explain the big words.

MG: Thanks for being here. How satisfied are you with this report?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, I think what it shows is, is that Canada has a culture, a political culture of indifference when it comes to putting protecting Canada over party interests. It's a mediocrity of indifference. And I think what's unfortunate is a lot of attention is on the word traitor. So, you know, Justice Hogue said it didn't meet the test of traitor, just a lot of dimwits who are willing to be used, ethical lapses and questionable judgement. And we'll focus on that. But I think the big issue here with her statement was that she says, quote, The single biggest threat to democracy is online interference and disinformation. It is an existential threat. And so, Matt, I think the issue of, you know, trying to monkey wrench a local riding association meeting is kind of like stagecoach robbery when we're talking about 21st century methods of electoral interference and undermining. And that's the larger threat posed by the platforms like X, by Meta, and the ability of bots, deepfakes and AI. And we are simply not ready to deal with what's going to hit us in this coming election.

MG: Can I just ask you, before we talk about that, about something that you posted on another platform. This is on Bluesky, and it is about, maybe this speaks to what Michel was talking about when it comes to the culture of understanding interference. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, says that he will no longer receive security briefings from CSIS. You said this is a no brainer. Pierre Poilievre … refuses or can't get security clearance. Something stinks here. What are you suggesting?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, the question is, is who doesn't put Canada first?

MG: Are you suggesting he's not putting Canada first?

CHARLIE ANGUS: Absolutely. What kind of person is going to run for leader of the country and not get a security clearance and get briefed on threats to our nation? I mean, I know it's a bit of a ridiculous example, but I mean, my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school. We've got a man who's going to be prime minister, who's the story in the media now is he's not getting it. He's refusing to get it.

MG: He said that he's not getting it because he wouldn't be able to act on that information.

CHARLIE ANGUS: Well, that's ridiculous. How could he act on the information if he doesn't know what it is? So again, I think what, I think, Matt, that that's the issue and the bigger problem. And, you know, Mr. Trudeau certainly comes in for a lot of condemnation in Justice Hogue's report, is that we're seeing partisan interests over the nation. And Canadians are not being reassured that in the larger global threats, and we are in a very dark, dark time with everything from Russian bought information to a president who's threatening our sovereignty, that we have the steps in place to protect the integrity of our nation. And I don't see that. I don't see that with Elections Canada. I don't see that with the willingness of the government to step up at this time. And we may be barreling into an election very quickly. So I think we have to talk about this and raise some alarm bells.

To explain one thing for you, Angus did not “deflect” on the word traitor, he’s referring to the fact that the focus is on there not being any “traitors” which is the wrong thing to focus on in his opinion, something JK touches on as well:

MG: I mean, this is important in part because the headlines were explosive and that led to this inquiry. And Justice Hogue was very clear, saying that there are no traitors in Parliament, but there are MPs whose actions are problematic. So what is problematic behaviour but not treason when it comes to foreign interference? How do you, what's the daylight between the two?

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Well, we're dealing with a judge. A judge is usually sticking to the rules of law and the definition that the law gives to the word traitors. Traitors in the criminal code is defined very, very clearly. But certain actions, certain behaviour, certain accommodation that are certain that some elected officials and senators have done through the years are close enough to be a treason to this country.

MG: Would that be taking a meeting? Would that be… what would that constitute?

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: That would be much more than taking a meeting. That would be to very much intentionally, consciously put forward policies or interests of a foreign countries before the interests of Canada. And they do so most of the time because they see personal gain and personal interest in doing so, either because they see that they might get the support for re-election, or if they are a senator, simply gaining personal gain or favour from that country.

MG: But you're suggesting that that doesn't meet the legal threshold of treason.

MICHEL JUNEAU-KATSUYA: Here, that would need to be investigated much, much more.

Perhaps it would be better if you actually read it and didn’t just hyperfocus on the specific mention of Trudeau. That way you could understand the entire flow of the segment and what was being discussed instead of making comments about people “spooging” and patting yourself on the back for googling readily available things.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I think it's still up in the air as to if the interview was scrubbed, or shotinthebacklund had too much sedation at the dentist. We also can't overlook the possibility of their dental office using the TV's as psyops for the Russians.

https://www.cbc.ca/programguide/prog...=1738261483844


maybe they dont archive the days broadcasts? thats the show it clearly was on.
Ive spent hours trying to track it down. I promise it exists (existed) and that Michel guy was very adamant and clear CSIS findings and the Hogue report did not Jive.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK, I’ll re-quote it and remove the offensive comment that Matt refers to and bold the interesting things. Let me know if you want me to read it to you also or explain the big words.

What do you find interesting? His hand waving in the air ranting about not putting Canada first? Or that "my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school."? Sounds like he just ranting about Poilievre and security clearance, something that Singh's predecessor, Tom Mulcair did not have as opposition leader when he was and fully agrees with Poilievre

Need to clarify here and explain the big words you want to focus on.

To explain one thing for you, Angus did not “deflect” on the word traitor, he’s referring to the fact that the focus is on there not being any “traitors” which is the wrong thing to focus on in his opinion, something JK touches on as well:

Perhaps it would be better if you actually read it and didn’t just hyperfocus on the specific mention of Trudeau. That way you could understand the entire flow of the segment and what was being discussed instead of making comments about people “spooging” and patting yourself on the back for googling readily available things.

You literally quoted part of what I quoted. Michel Juneau-Katsuya says more investigation is needed to meet the legal threshold. But he fully believes they are traitors and that the report only sees it from a judge perspective. Not sure how that is hard for you to grasp. Instead you are quoting Angus talking about his mother.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

https://www.cbc.ca/programguide/prog...=1738261483844


maybe they dont archive the days broadcasts? thats the show it clearly was on.
Ive spent hours trying to track it down. I promise it exists (existed) and that Michel guy was very adamant and clear CSIS findings and the Hogue report did not Jive.

Ya, I've come across that too, looknig for stuff from the TV online. I think given the amount of content, not everything makes it online. It's not scrubbed, it just didn't make it. I find it's more likely in these daytime interviews.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

What do you find interesting? His hand waving in the air ranting about not putting Canada first? Or that "my poor mother has to get a security clearance to do food programs at the school."? Sounds like he just ranting about Poilievre and security clearance, something that Singh's predecessor, Tom Mulcair did not have as opposition leader when he was and fully agrees with Poilievre.

First you ignore everything (outside of misrepresenting the traitor comment) to focus on a comment Matt brought up to segue into his next question, then you ignore everything to focus on an anecdote Angus himself acknowledges as ridiculous. You’re a very dishonest actor.

What did I find interesting?

From JK:
- the “no traitors” conclusion is the wrong thing to focus on
- there is a significant amount of interference going on that may not meet that threshold, but from an operations perspective, is crucial to address
- the act of prime ministers wanting to hear only what they want to here is true of Trudeau, but also of every PM since Mulroney
- Canada does not take this seriously, and there is no sign that is changing any time soon

From Angus:
- the “no traitors” conclusion is the wrong thing to focus on
- Canada has a culture of political indifference towards protecting Canada over the interests of party
- the biggest threat to our democracy is online interference and disinformation
- local ridings are very susceptible to interference and undermining and we are not ready to deal with it
- Running for leader without security clearance and the ability to get briefed on security threats to our nation is not putting Canada first
- We’re seeing partisan interests over the interests of the nation, which Trudeau is guilty of
- Canadians are not being reassured that we have the steps in place to protect the integrity of our nation, and neither Elections Canada nor the government seem willing to address that

Tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Point by point.

Originally Posted by Firebot

You literally quoted part of what I quoted. Michel Juneau-Katsuya says more investigation is needed to meet the legal threshold. But he fully believes they are traitors and that the report only sees it from a judge perspective. Not sure how that is hard for you to grasp. Instead you are quoting Angus talking about his mother.

Correct, I did, because you ignored JK’s comments that lead into what you quoted. JK’s comments and Angus’ comments regarding “traitor” are thematically the same: the focus is incorrectly on the fact that there are no “traitors,” a high bar for a judge to declare, but not.. as both JK and Angus point out, an indication that we are without major issues to address on the foreign interference threat.

I’m quoting Angus’ comments about foreign interference, the importance of security clearance, and him pointing out the absurdity of PP’s claims and his general summary that individuals, including both Trudeau and PP, are putting party before country.

But I understand why you want to pretend it’s just a segment about his mother.

[Monahammer]

https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-trump-tariffs

Beauty article from one of CPs favourite pundits.


This guy needs to be left in a field somewhere.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-trump-tariffs

Beauty article from one of CPs favourite pundits.


This guy needs to be left in a field somewhere.

Dude has definitely drank the MAGA/Smith kool-aid. What a f’n loser.

[Fuzz]

Hey David. The border is down south, you are free to get the #### out any time you wish.


This shouldn't really be surprising, given the US ownership of the rag. He was probably given a Dunkin' Doughnuts(yes, I did that) gift card to write it.

[Fuzz]

Oh look, I guess I'm not the only one thinking this. Guess we have another media organization to put on the list of disingenuous astro-turfers. Here's a thought, maybe we tariff the #### outa any American owned news organizations operating in our country?






https://bsky.app/profile/stephenmahe.../3lgv76axg5s2r

Another post of his, sure seems to be a pattern today...If you follow the link, there are more in the thread.

Today we have Jordan Peterson on the front page of the Post, lamenting the rough treatment Canada dishes out to USA. In the Journal we have @DavidStaplesYEG saying maybe Alberta should go, and in the Post, @IvisonJ warning against retaliation.

Strong reason to keep the CBC.

[Azure]

Given how connected China is to fentanyl, and how tied in China is to our ports, especially Vancouver, money laundering (which Canada basically ignores), I call total BS on the whole we don't have a massive fentanyl problem. And of course.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1885040794865713441

[Fuzz]

Ward Elcock, former CSIS director
“The whole thing would be a lot simpler if he would just get clearance … What it frankly says to me, listening to Mr. Poilievre’s normal criticism of the government, he likes to make criticisms that are pretty far-reaching without any visible support. I guess I assume he’s afraid that if he gets a briefing, then he will actually know some facts that he can’t criticize on the basis of those facts. It’s hard to criticize when you actually know something. “

Stephanie Carvin, an international relations professor at Carleton University and former CSIS analyst
“There’s a clear moving of the goal posts. It went from ‘I should be able to get through this a threat reduction measure,’ finally the government agrees, ‘Okay we’re going to give you a threat reduction measure.’ ‘Oh, okay, now I don’t want to because I can’t talk about the intelligence.’ I don’t know what he would say that hasn’t already been said in the (Hogue) report … I guess my concern is that not taking an intelligence briefing because you can’t turn it into a meme is not the seriousness with which we should be approaching this issue.”

Jessica Davis, president of Insight Threat Intelligence and former official at the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) and CSIS
“It’s confusing to me that someone who wants to be the prime minister of Canada would turn down information about the country’s security, particularly at a time when the country is facing significant terrorism, foreign interference, and other threats. Surely, greater knowledge of the threats facing Canada would be an asset in crafting policy and running a successful campaign. Turning down this information is a disservice to himself, his party, and, ultimately, Canadian voters.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/10989610/...ret-clearance/

Essentially Pierre chooses ignorance over fact so he can make memes and deceive. This is about as on-point a representation of the wacko right as we will ever see. Facts don't matter. Scoring points does. This is not Prime Minister material.

[Azure]

Fuzz says PP is not PM material.

Shocker. Especially considering PP could do and say nothing that would make Fuzz change his mind.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Fuzz says PP is not PM material.

Shocker. Especially considering PP could do and say nothing that would make Fuzz change his mind.

Instead of dancing around with your usual deflections, why not address my point? Do you believe a policy of purposeful ignorance to play politics is Prime Minister like behaviour?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Azure

Fuzz says PP is not PM material.

Shocker. Especially considering PP could do and say nothing that would make Fuzz change his mind.

Find anyone who honestly believes PP is PM material and that there isn’t anyone better in the CPC caucus.

[PepsiFree]

This is the same poster who acknowledges PP is a disaster whenever he’s trying to blame and mock the libs for not voting for O’Toole. He’s just full of farts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Instead of dancing around with your usual deflections, why not address my point? Do you believe a policy of purposeful ignorance to play politics is Prime Minister like behaviour?

You're the biggest hypocrite on here. Post after post is is about PP not being fit for PM, but the Trudeau government, mired in scandal after scandal for literally the better part of his entire tenure as Prime Minister, its been crickets from you.

"Usual deflections."

Is rich coming from a Liberal apologist.

[Azure]

“Since Canada’s current climate policy has become too divisive, it’s time for a new, more effective climate plan that everyone can get behind,” Carney said at an event in Halifax Friday morning.

“It’s a plan that makes our economy more competitive. It grows good jobs today and will grow better ones in the future.”

He sketched out broad points of a plan that largely swaps the stick for the carrot for Canadian households. It includes financial incentives for purchases of more energy efficient appliances and electric vehicles, and improvements to home insulation.

https://kitchener.citynews.ca/2025/0...en-incentives/

Finally the financial incentives are being added in, which is the proper way to reduce emissions because it creates actionable policies instead of stupid taxes with no plan in place.

But isn't it great that Carney is already blaming everyone else for the stupid Liberal plan?

"Yeah our plan was great, but because Canadians hate it we'll have to change it, but its not our fault, its the Conservatives fault for lying about it!"

What a bloody joke.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://kitchener.citynews.ca/2025/0...en-incentives/

Finally the financial incentives are being added in, which is the proper way to reduce emissions because it creates actionable policies instead of stupid taxes with no plan in place.

But isn't it great that Carney is already blaming everyone else for the stupid Liberal plan?

"Yeah our plan was great, but because Canadians hate it we'll have to change it, but its not our fault, its the Conservatives fault for lying about it!"

What a bloody joke.

Incentives are nice and I love when the government gives me money but most incentive programs really only help well-to-do people who can afford to do retrofits or purchase electric cars and whatever else. These types of incentive programs are really just an offshoot of trickle down economics where they think that giving breaks to wealthy people will help the environment overall. Taxes from the poor and middle class are just going to subsidize purchases made by people above them financially.