Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by #-3

I hope so, best thing in the world for Canada is for them to keep fighting him, instead of getting into power, until they find a fiscal conservative to lead them, or at lease someone who isn't socially reactionary.

Except no one knows what "fiscal conservative" means anymore.
- Is it spending more on military?
- Is it shrinking government services? (which is really more libertarian than conservative)
- Is it paying down debt?

People like to pretend that "fiscal conservative" somehow means "responsible with money" but what it actually seems to mean is "spend even more money and grift as much of it as possible to yourself and your friends with very little value going back to the people".

If it is just "responsible with money" that people want then you could literally get that from any party. For all we know, Elizabeth May could be the absolute best person to run a balanced budget but we'll never know because Green = gross.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

She’s tendering her resignation on Friday and there’s no evidence she’s actually started her advisor role so could you explain what the issue is?

I thought there was actually pretty clear evidence that she starts the role in July 2026…

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Firebot

No one made a big deal because there is no big deal to be had.

Neither have anyone made a big deal about Freeland accepting a role as head of the Rhode Trust announced back in November expected in July 2026 (where she was largely expected to resign before the date).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/for...ving-1.6797717

https://nationalpost.com/news/erin-o...-strategy-firm

O'Toole did not start the job until after he was out of office and not an active MP and also he did not take a position for a foreign government, to bring him up is odd as it's not related to working for a foreign government and not the scenario I asked about.

Surely you see the difference between getting a normal job post politician work (whether in Canada or abroad) which everyone does, and being appointed a position to advise directly for a foreign government while still an active MP (which is the case here)?

If Freeland's announcement came hand in hand with a tendered resignation along with Zelensky's announcement, this would have been a complete nothing burger in terms of issue. The way it has transpired turned what should be a positive news into an issue.

There is absolutely no way this wasn’t going to be spun as an issue by at least a certain subset of people. This was going to be whined about in every possible scenario. If Dr. Strange ran through time to examine millions of scenarios for an option to avoid backlash from a small loud mouthed group, he would have held up a goose egg instead of a 1.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Gonna be the CPC boogey man for the next 20 years and does not care at all. Good for him.

This must drive some people absolutely bonkers.





"##### Trudeau" you say? OK!

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

There is absolutely no way this wasn’t going to be spun as an issue by at least a certain subset of people. This was going to be whined about in every possible scenario. If Dr. Strange ran through time to examine millions of scenarios for an option to avoid backlash from a small loud mouthed group, he would have held up a goose egg instead of a 1.

I can understand the optics of it seeming like a conflict of interest at first glance, but as we dig deeper it's pretty apparent the rules were followed and perhaps the PR could have been handled better, but ultimately nothing wrong was done. For the record I would be saying the same if it was a Conservative/NDP member. No need to play team politics on this.

As for the bolded, it's pretty telling that this story is pretty big on russian telegram socials right now. Gee, I wonder what their intent is? Always always always have to keep in mind that any kind of news about Ukraine immediately get's put in the russian bot machine and is "helped" along the way to various news/social media outlets. This is no different and it's pretty apparent that a few russian channels ran with this story well before the Canadian news outlets got wind of it.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

She’s tendering her resignation on Friday and there’s no evidence she’s actually started her advisor role so could you explain what the issue is?

Don't be daft (otherwise why else would you make this post as soon as she hard pivots on her stance?).

Multiple news outlets and experts stated it was an issue. Freeland even states in her more 'immediate' resignation this is done on the advice of the ethics commissioner.

The former ethics commissioner chimed in and highly questioned what Freeland is doing and directed her to read section 33.

https://twitter.com/user/status/2008577782922805422

https://twitter.com/user/status/2009265637420351548

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...3.html#h-92317

Won't quote it, but you can read the section for yourself.

Note that it mentions "for remuneration or not", the unpaid part of the appointment has no bearing in regards to the act. There is also a 1 year prohibition for MPs after leaving office, and a 2 year prohibition for former ministers in matters where they had direct dealings with. So even with this resignation now confirmed removing the immediate conflict, there may still be a violation of the act. In the end though, if the ethics commissioner investigates on it and clears it, that's where it should end and where the story should end. Like I said prior, this is more of a "you can't do that" issue, which is why we have a Conflict of Interest Act in place.

PM, MPs and the government (and it's opponents) can claim everything they want including claiming everything is by the book, ultimately it's the ethics commissioner that investigates based on a complaint and if it believes a breach may have occured and rules and decides. There has been no such ruling here, just confidential advice provided which has eventually lead to her immediate resignation as an action to remedy.

As Dion states in a separate tweet, "A conflict arises as soon as it arises."

https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/inve...nqueteOui.aspx

If there was no issue, none of the timeline would have happened the way it has and she would stay onboard as an MP. A conflict is a conflict but it doesn't mean it's nefarious.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Except no one knows what "fiscal conservative" means anymore.
- Is it spending more on military?
- Is it shrinking government services? (which is really more libertarian than conservative)
- Is it paying down debt?

People like to pretend that "fiscal conservative" somehow means "responsible with money" but what it actually seems to mean is "spend even more money and grift as much of it as possible to yourself and your friends with very little value going back to the people".

If it is just "responsible with money" that people want then you could literally get that from any party. For all we know, Elizabeth May could be the absolute best person to run a balanced budget but we'll never know because Green = gross.

IMO and I guess this is just me, but a fiscal conservative is generally someone who cares about the institution being wealthier in the future than it is now. I give the current right wing a hard time about his because many of their ideas are so obviously short term, and often clearly bake in worse future outcomes.

I would love to see a strain of right wing politics with more of an economic focus, and much much longer term thinking. But we have a bunch of social conservative meme lords grifting off the fact that some business leaders whose businesses did just fine under the NDP but only had to pay the lowest taxes in the country by a little bit (not a lot) tell them about how economically disastrous the NDP was, and the fact that the people who listen to those business leaders are generally to lazy to look at the numbers.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Except no one knows what "fiscal conservative" means anymore.
- Is it spending more on military?
- Is it shrinking government services? (which is really more libertarian than conservative)
- Is it paying down debt?

People like to pretend that "fiscal conservative" somehow means "responsible with money" but what it actually seems to mean is "spend even more money and grift as much of it as possible to yourself and your friends with very little value going back to the people".

If it is just "responsible with money" that people want then you could literally get that from any party. For all we know, Elizabeth May could be the absolute best person to run a balanced budget but we'll never know because Green = gross.

I've said this before, but I get people telling me they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" all the time. Because they don't want to come off as bigoted. But give it a minute and they start complaining about "the woke agenda".

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Except no one knows what "fiscal conservative" means anymore.
- Is it spending more on military?
- Is it shrinking government services? (which is really more libertarian than conservative)
- Is it paying down debt?

People like to pretend that "fiscal conservative" somehow means "responsible with money" but what it actually seems to mean is "spend even more money and grift as much of it as possible to yourself and your friends with very little value going back to the people".

If it is just "responsible with money" that people want then you could literally get that from any party. For all we know, Elizabeth May could be the absolute best person to run a balanced budget but we'll never know because Green = gross.

I always boiled it down to this: Deficit = Bad, Lower Taxes = Good, Protectionism = Bad, Less Regulation = Good. Of course a lot of Conservative (Big C) Parties aren't actually fiscally conservative (small c) anymore by my definition (if they ever were). Conservatives don't really want to limit spending... they just want to spend the budget room on #### that they want and any reduction in deficit is merely a happy accident.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I can understand the optics of it seeming like a conflict of interest at first glance, but as we dig deeper it's pretty apparent the rules were followed and perhaps the PR could have been handled better, but ultimately nothing wrong was done. For the record I would be saying the same if it was a Conservative/NDP member. No need to play team politics on this

It's not about if something wrong was done, it's whether there is a conflict which allows for corruption / nefarious.

I'm sure Freeland has only the best intent in accepting this advisor position with Ukraine considering her roots, the conflict part is the concern. Another way to think of it, would she have had this appointment offered to her if not for her finance minister role and her ability to talk directly to Zelensky as special representative to Ukraine? Would she have gotten this role as a journalist or solely as a backbencher MP? That's where the conflict of interest factors in and why prohibitions are in place in the act. When the announcement is done and she's at that moment still an MP and special representative, concerns about conflict were legitimate as it is a clear conflict.

The whole "she is going to work for a foreign government at the same time that Canada is handing out 2.5 billion in aid to that same government" is ridiculous thrash but this is exactly what a conflict of interest permeates and why it needs to be avoided. It could have been handled better.

[AFireInside]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Except no one knows what "fiscal conservative" means anymore.
- Is it spending more on military?
- Is it shrinking government services? (which is really more libertarian than conservative)
- Is it paying down debt?

People like to pretend that "fiscal conservative" somehow means "responsible with money" but what it actually seems to mean is "spend even more money and grift as much of it as possible to yourself and your friends with very little value going back to the people".

If it is just "responsible with money" that people want then you could literally get that from any party. For all we know, Elizabeth May could be the absolute best person to run a balanced budget but we'll never know because Green = gross.

Not one person who says this about themselves is actually a fiscal conservative, it usually means they are a selfish dope who only wants money spent on things they want.

Any money spent by a conservative government will get a pass, and any money spent by a left leaning government is the cause of all the worlds problems, even though in the long run it can be more cost effective.

Fiscal conservatives will happily watch governments give private corporations everything and ask for more, while they complain about things getting more expensive.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It's not about if something wrong was done, it's whether there is a conflict which allows for corruption / nefarious.

I'm sure Freeland has only the best intent in accepting this advisor position with Ukraine considering her roots, the conflict part is the concern. Another way to think of it, would she have had this appointment offered to her if not for her finance minister role and her ability to talk directly to Zelensky as special representative to Ukraine? Would she have gotten this role as a journalist or solely as a backbencher MP? That's where the conflict of interest factors in and why prohibitions are in place in the act. When the announcement is done and she's at that moment still an MP and special representative, concerns about conflict were legitimate as it is a clear conflict.

The whole "she is going to work for a foreign government at the same time that Canada is handing out 2.5 billion in aid to that same government" is ridiculous thrash but this is exactly what a conflict of interest permeates and why it needs to be avoided. It could have been handled better.

I agree. I am as hardcore a Ukraine supporter as there is, but I would be lying if I said that it wasn't a bad look (even if the intentions are genuine). Definitely could have been handled better, the logistics and details figured out beforehand. At the same time, she is certainly a great fit for the job and should do well in it.

I agree, rules are in place for a reason and should be followed as such. I look forward to the exact same kind of agreement from Conservative supporters at both a federal and provincial level if/when something simliar happens within their party so we can all nod in agreement what went right/wrong.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I've said this before, but I get people telling me they are "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" all the time. Because they don't want to come off as bigoted. But give it a minute and they start complaining about "the woke agenda".

Yeah, there was a study done after the 2016 US elections that looked at voters' beliefs in terms how they felt about social and fiscal issues and correlated that with how they voted. One of the main conclusions was that fiscal conservative/socially liberal voters essentially don't exist in any real numbers. Voters were divided into quadrants, and the fiscal conservative/socially liberal quadrant had less than 4% of the voters. Whereas the often joked about social conservative fiscal liberal quadrant was far bigger (over 1/4 of voters) and Trump won by winning that quadrant.

Obviously things could have changed since then, but if anything, I would suspect the number of fiscal conservatives who are actually socially liberal is even smaller now. Probably why right wing parties focus so much on culture war issues now, because they know fiscal conservatism is a losing message.

[Blaster86]

This thing is gonna be the CPC's "But her e-mails" battle cry come the next election.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by #-3

IMO and I guess this is just me, but a fiscal conservative is generally someone who cares about the institution being wealthier in the future than it is now. I give the current right wing a hard time about his because many of their ideas are so obviously short term, and often clearly bake in worse future outcomes.

I would love to see a strain of right wing politics with more of an economic focus, and much much longer term thinking. But we have a bunch of social conservative meme lords grifting off the fact that some business leaders whose businesses did just fine under the NDP but only had to pay the lowest taxes in the country by a little bit (not a lot) tell them about how economically disastrous the NDP was, and the fact that the people who listen to those business leaders are generally to lazy to look at the numbers.

I hear you and it is not just you. For myself growing up in Alberta it was always about "fiscal conservative, social progressive" and the thought was: toughing out reduced services so that the province could get out of debt and balance the books so that we wouldn't be wasting public money on interest payments.

Their propaganda built the relationship in our minds that fiscal conservative = responsible budgets. Then we get out of debt and the first thing that happens when the PC party elected a new leader is they made a bunch of fiscally irresponsible decisions and undid all of the progress we made. And the following new leader was even worse. But their messaging stayed the same.

When you start questioning the concept, there is nothing "conservative" or "right wing" about balanced budgets or smart investing or any of that stuff. It is a made-up slogan that current conservatives cling to and they hope it tricks people into remembering how things were 30 years ago. They hope that people will think about great economies and ignore the fact that the conservatives had very little to do with making the economy great.

If anything, what you described with "the institution being wealthier in the future than it is now" would be better described as Fiscal Progressivism. Simply because the core of progressivism is that the future is more important than the past (which is the opposite of conservatism).

All of this is to say that watching Alberta politics closely over the decades forces me to stop thinking about the silly left/right spectrum and start questioning what aspects of the political matrix are most important.

Neoliberalism (Private Markets) vs. Socialism (Public Services)
Elite (Corporatocracy) vs. People (Populism)
Conservatism (Keeping things how they were) vs. Progressivism (Changing things to advance to the future)
etc.

Unfortunately, almost none of these political ideologies advocate or insist upon balanced budgets or ethics in governments. Libertarianism wants small government in order to prioritize personal freedoms but there is nothing to say that the small government has a balanced budget or ethics and accountability in how the money is spent.

In the end what you realize is that any one of these political ideologies could be fiscally responsible but we've been conditioned to think that the "left" is about reckless spending and massive government bloat when that is not actually true.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

The most obvious reason she is sticking around is for HoC votes. Her and Mark are on good terms, as far as I know, so it would make sense.


I'm not saying this is a good look, or not unethical. But I don't think you need to look far for the reason.

Carney didn't want/need her vote in the House.

Asked while in Paris if he (Carney) had asked her not to vacate her seat on account for the very narrow minority government dynamics in Parliament, Carney said “absolutely not.”

“My judgment was that taking that role would be consistent with resigning as an MP, and I welcomed her doing that.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/arti...tion-pressure/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Don't be daft (otherwise why else would you make this post as soon as she hard pivots on her stance?).

…

If there was no issue, none of the timeline would have happened the way it has and she would stay onboard as an MP. A conflict is a conflict but it doesn't mean it's nefarious.

Because I made the post after I looked it up and that’s what it said. Not sure how that’s “daft” or why you’re angry and offended about a question.

Looking at the tweet, it also states she’s been in consultation with the ethics commissioner through the process. So if there is no issue, there is no issue, correct?

Why would she stay onboard as an MP when she already said she’d be resigning? There was never a timeline where she wasn’t going to resign.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I agree. I am as hardcore a Ukraine supporter as there is, but I would be lying if I said that it wasn't a bad look (even if the intentions are genuine). Definitely could have been handled better, the logistics and details figured out beforehand. At the same time, she is certainly a great fit for the job and should do well in it.

I agree, rules are in place for a reason and should be followed as such. I look forward to the exact same kind of agreement from Conservative supporters at both a federal and provincial level if/when something simliar happens within their party so we can all nod in agreement what went right/wrong.

Like when Danielle Smith put Dave Yager on the AER and also as her advisor

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...roup-1.7591544

Or all the LeGrange stuff:

https://globalnews.ca/news/11015584/...n-allegations/

Or when Smith intervened in a criminal case against a supporter?

https://www.timescolonist.com/albert...terest-7019587

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because I made the post after I looked it up and that’s what it said. Not sure how that’s “daft” or why you’re angry and offended about a question.

Looking at the tweet, it also states she’s been in consultation with the ethics commissioner through the process. So if there is no issue, there is no issue, correct?

Why would she stay onboard as an MP when she already said she’d be resigning? There was never a timeline where she wasn’t going to resign.

At the time of my post yesterday and the discussion happening at the time, the only mention about resignation was that she will resign sometime over the next few weeks.

https://twitter.com/user/status/2008288057414303956

"In the coming weeks I will also leave my seat in Parliament."

This post came in nearly half a day after the Zelensky appointment announcement (it appears to have been done to appease the escalating questions about the appointment and conflict of interest), and it was only a vague mention of resigning at some point in the future. This response to this immediate conflict at hand became an issue.

Surely you weren't discussing this topic over the past 2 days without knowing and not understanding why people had issues that whole time...right?

So either you were arguing for the sake of arguing before without knowing the info and just coincidentally looked it up and stumbled upon a fresh new tweet and posted about it within 30 minutes to counter me specifically, or you are gaslighting and being daft (and doing it again if it's the latter).

https://twitter.com/user/status/2009023444499800513

Tweet 3:04 PM · Jan 7, 2026

Post 01-07-2026, 03:31 PM

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

At the time of my post yesterday and the discussion happening at the time, the only mention about resignation was that she will resign sometime over the next few weeks.

https://twitter.com/user/status/2008288057414303956

"In the coming weeks I will also leave my seat in Parliament."

This post came in nearly half a day after the Zelensky appointment announcement (it appears to have been done to appease the escalating questions about the appointment and conflict of interest), and it was only a vague mention of resigning at some point in the future. This response to this immediate conflict at hand became an issue.

Surely you weren't discussing this topic over the past 2 days without knowing and not understanding why people had issues that whole time...right?

So either you were arguing for the sake of arguing before without knowing the info and just coincidentally looked it up and stumbled upon a fresh new tweet and posted about it within 30 minutes to counter me specifically, or you are gaslighting and being daft (and doing it again if it's the latter).

https://twitter.com/user/status/2009023444499800513

Tweet 3:04 PM · Jan 7, 2026

Post 01-07-2026, 03:31 PM

It wasn’t a vague “sometime in the future” it was “in the coming weeks,” no? Maybe not as specific as the “this friday” follow up but certainly more specific than “sometime in the future.”

I’m also not sure why you think those are the only two options. I asked a question. I didn’t attack you, or counter you. Literally just asked a question. Convenient timing for me I guess as that’s what the first article that showed up on Google said (CBC). Said it was posted 2 days prior so I didn’t even know it had just happened, but I guess that was the original time of the article and not the update. Time between looking it up, reading the first part of the article, and jumping back to ask the question was probably 3 minutes if you want to track my time.

I’m not even sure how that question could be viewed as “countering” you lol. Did you not just say that if the ethics commissioner says it’s all good it’s a non-story. So, I can ask the question again: if she’s resigning on Friday and has been consulting with the ethics commissioner the entire time… what’s the issue? None right?