Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The irony of some usual posters all huffy and puffy because notorious CBC "hard right winger" Rosemary Barton asked a very normal follow up question to a snarky deflection by Carney on what was a pretty softball question by Stephanie Levitz really says it all.

Considering all the partisan conspiracy theories into why Poilievre never got his security clearance and very defensive of some narrative questions to Poilievre by reporters in the past, they should theoretically be pretty objective about what should be rather benign questions on Carney's assets that he eventually needs to disclose anyways if they weren't partisan. With the blatant corruption happening down south, being a little prudent with our prime minister to avoid conflicts of interest is a good idea, past, current and potential future ones.

But good to know the CBC is now wrong and these were boneheaded reporter questions Not like this has not been in question ever or reported on.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mar...rust-1.7480909

The problem comes is that Carney is in a particular spot that is not covered as he just took office as PM recently without being elected (does not need to disclose his assets as a result), and may get elected prime minister for 4 years without needing to disclose his assets for Canadians to review until after he's elected the way the rules are written. In the meantime, he's prime minister with these undisclosed assets. Carney's claim that a blind trust is enough in his current situation may be technically true, but it's leaving questions unanswered on information that would normally be available publicly to Canadians but are not.

Poilievre for example has full disclosure available publicly

https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/...b-002655368060

Of course Barton being a little snarky herself about Conservatives suddenly cheering her on.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1901787122639438043

The thing is, you don’t find out the values. Like all you’re going to find out is that he has Brookfield Shares or RSUs (for example), and there are no values. We know the assets that Poilievre has (some ETFs including a Bitcoin ETF and some rental property), but that’s all you find out. So really, it’s just much ado about nothing.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Slava

I’m not sure what they hope to uncover with those assets. He’s got Brookfield shares, RSUs and other savings from his employment over the years. No one should be surprised by this.

Maybe the high priced CBC investigative team pulls the information circulars or insider trading reports?

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what’s your specific issue with how he answered the question?

How would you have liked him to answer the question?

While eating an apple, presumably.

[Party Elephant]

Considering the world of #### going on all around us I can't say I care at all about Carney being mildly annoyed at a press conference, like talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

[AFireInside]

Conservatives are such a big weird group.

"Justin's not ready!"
"Justin speaks like an idiot"
"Carbon tax is the worst thing ever imagined!"

"I loved how Pierre doesn't take any crap" (Aka he's a smug jerk)..

Carney comes in with better experience than Pierre, a good speaker, eliminates the carbon tax annnnd gets a little irritated with the media like Pierre always is, and they are still whining..

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Slava

The thing is, you don’t find out the values. Like all you’re going to find out is that he has Brookfield Shares or RSUs (for example), and there are no values. We know the assets that Poilievre has (some ETFs including a Bitcoin ETF and some rental property), but that’s all you find out. So really, it’s just much ado about nothing.

Why isn't he disclosing them when he is going to need to anyways and they are supposedly much ado about nothing, resorting to "following the rules" rhetoric he fully well knows is unique to his situation only?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...n-blind-trust/

Considering the momentum the Liberals and Carney currently have, stuff like this are unneeded. Poilievre may be desperately trying to stick dirt in a poor strategic move, but if enough dirt does stick because of how Carney responds, it may hurt the Liberals enough to swing the momentum pendulum away from them.

[Manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Why isn't he disclosing them when he is going to need to anyways and they are supposedly much ado about nothing, resorting to "following the rules" rhetoric he fully well knows is unique to his situation only?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...n-blind-trust/

Considering the momentum the Liberals and Carney currently have, stuff like this are unneeded. Poilievre may be desperately trying to stick dirt in a poor strategic move, but if enough dirt does stick because of how Carney responds, it may hurt the Liberals enough to swing the momentum pendulum away from them.

Oooh maybe he’s hiding something….???!

[Mr.Coffee]

I dunno. If it’s a nothing burger just release the data or answer the questions honestly.

Just like how if it’s a nothing burger PP should get security clearance.

When politicians dance around stuff, all it does is raise suspicion on possible non-issues. If such suspicions are unwarranted or silly, then show people that.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Oooh maybe he’s hiding something….???!

They're all hiding ####. That is what politicians do.

[dammage79]

I'm not defending they but if he's in a position where the rules don't apply to him, then why would he give his personal information? I wouldn't if I didn't have to. Not even in good faith would I do such a thing.

It wasn't a key part of getting the job.

Now if you ask me if there should be a rule amendment to that aspect of PMship, then yeah, if the Liberals get re elected then Carney should have to become transparent.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Single digits for Singh / NDP...guess propping up Trudeau for so long was worth completely decimating the party. That's worse than the Alexa McDonough days.

CPC is 8 points down from their peak, but the real story is really the Liberal surge from nationalism and Carney and the complete ineptitude of Poilievre unable to do the obvious steps.

The CPC should have held a leadership review as soon as JT announced his resignation. PP did what he had to, but he’s no statesman. They’re kind of hooped now.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The irony of some usual posters all huffy and puffy because notorious CBC "hard right winger" Rosemary Barton asked a very normal follow up question to a snarky deflection by Carney on what was a pretty softball question by Stephanie Levitz really says it all.

Considering all the partisan conspiracy theories into why Poilievre never got his security clearance and very defensive of some narrative questions to Poilievre by reporters in the past, they should theoretically be pretty objective about what should be rather benign questions on Carney's assets that he eventually needs to disclose anyways if they weren't partisan. With the blatant corruption happening down south, being a little prudent with our prime minister to avoid conflicts of interest is a good idea, past, current and potential future ones.

But good to know the CBC is now wrong and these were boneheaded reporter questions Not like this has not been in question ever or reported on.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mar...rust-1.7480909

The problem comes is that Carney is in a particular spot that is not covered as he just took office as PM recently without being elected (does not need to disclose his assets as a result), and may get elected prime minister for 4 years without needing to disclose his assets for Canadians to review until after he's elected the way the rules are written. In the meantime, he's prime minister with these undisclosed assets. Carney's claim that a blind trust is enough in his current situation may be technically true, but it's leaving questions unanswered on information that would normally be available publicly to Canadians but are not.

Poilievre for example has full disclosure available publicly

https://prciec-rpccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/...b-002655368060

Of course Barton being a little snarky herself about Conservatives suddenly cheering her on.

Do you understand how humour works?

[2ArmBands]

Wasn’t Carney already outed for investing money in high carbon and foreign pipeline projects? Of course at the same time he was playing a key role in working against Canadian pipelines.

Hard to imagine he would have anything to hide.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

Wasn’t Carney already outed for investing money in high carbon and foreign pipeline projects? Of course at the same time he was playing a key role in working against Canadian pipelines.

Hard to imagine he would have anything to hide.

I would think when one makes a claim like this rather offering baseless speculation they would provide references they have read and have determined to be credible enough to believe.

I believe you are likely speaking that Brookfield asset management invested in UAE pipelines while Carney likely influenced the banking initiatives in Canada to require climate risk disclosure. This is pretty significantly different than what you describe above.

But please present your actual believes and where they came from rather than posting random musings. Then there can be real discussion on whether or nots it’s relavant .

[bizaro86]

If the media is going to ask him "Gotcha" type questions, I think they should go with:

"Under your leadership a giant Canadian company moved to the United States. What policies are you enacting to stop that from happening with other employers?"

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would think when one makes a claim like this rather offering baseless speculation they would provide references they have read and have determined to be credible enough to believe.

I believe you are likely speaking that Brookfield asset management invested in UAE pipelines while Carney likely influenced the banking initiatives in Canada to require climate risk disclosure. This is pretty significantly different than what you describe above.

But please present your actual believes and where they came from rather than posting random musings. Then there can be real discussion on whether or nots it’s relavant .

Yes you are correct that would be one instance. There are others.

He has also opposed Canadian pipeline projects in the past. This is on record.

What more are you looking for? Is it not a double standard?

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by AFireInside

Conservatives are such a big weird group.

"Justin's not ready!"
"Justin speaks like an idiot"
"Carbon tax is the worst thing ever imagined!"

"I loved how Pierre doesn't take any crap" (Aka he's a smug jerk)..

Carney comes in with better experience than Pierre, a good speaker, eliminates the carbon tax annnnd gets a little irritated with the media like Pierre always is, and they are still whining..

Do you actually believe the carbon tax has been eliminated?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

Yes you are correct that would be one instance. There are others.

He has also opposed Canadian pipeline projects in the past. This is on record.

What more are you looking for? Is it not a double standard?

I’m looking for you to provide the specifics of what you object to, form an argument around it so I can evaluate if I agree or disagree with it. Otherwise I am just arguing with myself while you post innuendo

But in general I don’t think it’s a double standard for a person to in one job be pushing reforms to incentivize the private sector to behave in a manner that is good for the environment and in a private sector job responding to the very incentives he is trying to change.

That shows a fundamental understanding of the business and regulatory drivers required so that the corporate incentives align with environmental objectives. It’s exactly how you’d expect someone to act.

Why do you see a double standard?

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by 2ArmBands

Do you actually believe the carbon tax has been eliminated?

Of course when he changes what you've been crying about for the past 5 years you don't have believe it because reasons.

I actually don't care if it's been eliminated, he did what you wanted and it's not good enough because it's not about the carbon tax, or any other policy when it comes to many conservative supporters.

[Muta]

There is an odd sense of fear and desperation from the conservatives in this thread recently. It's refreshing.