Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

Let’s just celebrate the fact that Freeland is resigning. She should know the rules better though. Isn’t this like her fourth time quitting this government?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Let’s just celebrate the fact that Freeland is resigning. She should know the rules better though. Isn’t this like her fourth time quitting this government?

Shouldn't you be celebrating Freeland? She's the one who brought down Trudeau. Not the 3 word slogans. Not the bumper stickers. Not even the polls. Freeland brought down Trudeau.

I would think you would want to raise a statue in her honour.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Shouldn't you be celebrating Freeland? She's the one who brought down Trudeau. Not the 3 word slogans. Not the bumper stickers. Not even the polls. Freeland brought down Trudeau.

I would think you would want to raise a statue in her honour.

No, I’m good.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.”

You don't see a big difference between the wording from January 5 and the January 7 one and you call next few weeks specific? Whatever you want to go with I guess...

Why need a 2nd tweet at all if that's the case?

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?

So closer to option 1 (that you were discussing without all the information unknowingly to discuss it properly to know that the Friday resignation was brand new) . From my perspective based on the discussion at the time it looked different. No harm

You can go back to my reply. The main issue is largely diffused now, but to claim there wasn't an issue at the onset or there were no issues (conflict) is the point of contention. I don't have any issues at this point.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You don't see a big difference between the wording from January 5 and the January 7 one and you call next few weeks specific? Whatever you want to go with I guess...

Why need a 2nd tweet at all if that's the case?



So closer to option 1 (that you were discussing without all the information unknowingly to discuss it properly to know that the Friday resignation was brand new) . From my perspective based on the discussion at the time it looked different. No harm

You can go back to my reply. The main issue is largely diffused now, but to claim there wasn't an issue at the onset or there were no issues (conflict) is the point of contention. I don't have any issues at this point.

Where did I say the Jan 5 & 7 tweets were the same? You might be misreading me there because I’m aware they’re different.

I think I had enough information to discuss it “properly” (not sure what that means or who decides that). My feeling on the matter turned out to be correct. But that was probably also convenient, though I am often right about these things.

One correction though. It doesn’t sound like there was an issue at the onset. It sounds like there was a perception of a possible issue based on a lack of information (so maybe it wasn’t me who didn’t have enough information to discuss it properly?). It turns out that it was already being mitigated directly with the ethics commissioner through the entire process.

An understandable reaction for ethics critics. And the politically correct one for the opposition. But for the rest of us, it’s probably a good reminder not to react to strongly without all the information. It’s still worth trusting that some people still deserve the benefit of the doubt, even in politics.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Wolven

For myself growing up in Alberta it was always about "fiscal conservative, social progressive"

You know I think 90% of the people have had this conversations with have described themselves in this way, and I think a great deal of them vary wildly from what they are describing.

I don't personally know you well, but I would describe myself as something of a socialist market technocrat, obviously as many have observed the political spectrum is neither flat nor two dimensional. But I would say I am probably somewhat to the left of the classic "fiscal conservative, social progressive" mantra, and I think you have often shown your self to be something of a firebrand compared to me, so from what you have posted here, I would put you significantly to the left of that description (which is OK, certainly well intentioned compared to the naivety of libertarians or crassness of the far right).

While I say it would be nice to have fiscal conservatives representing the right, that is because I think then both sides could negotiate from a well intentioned place in that prospective, while right now I espouse fairly unethical intent to many of their positions.

I in fact no longer view myself as a fiscal conservative, I think the biggest problem that plagues modern governments in a globalized world is difficulty collecting a fair and equitable level of taxation compared to what they contribute, especially to high earning institutions, almost all of the other social strife we see ripples out from that. And I think the primary reason that governments need more money is a aggressive Keynesianism being within the means of government. It could change the way markets work for the better, and really accelerate productivity growth. For me I think the best possible thing that could happen in the world would have been for a large industrialized trade alliances that pushes against rouge industrial policy, maybe some UN scale NGO that assess the effective tax rates on specific HS codes from every country and automatically levees tariffs on anything below a certain level (kind of a guild or cartel of governments preventing corporate tax sheltering). The prime evidence that it is a problem is how much more powerful wealth has become for earning that labour, If the way to get richer is to be richer (and not to do better work), than we are doomed to eventually reach a productivity growth spiral. (It almost seemed plausible 5-10 years ago, now under the current US regime it seems fantastical).

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

One correction though. It doesn’t sound like there was an issue at the onset. It sounds like there was a perception of a possible issue based on a lack of information (so maybe it wasn’t me who didn’t have enough information to discuss it properly?). It turns out that it was already being mitigated directly with the ethics commissioner through the entire process.

An understandable reaction for ethics critics. And the politically correct one for the opposition. But for the rest of us, it’s probably a good reminder not to react to strongly without all the information. It’s still worth trusting that some people still deserve the benefit of the doubt, even in politics.

Perception is quite the odd choice of word. A conflict is a conflict. There is no such thing as perception. The act is there to define conflict, ensure there is no conflict and rule when there is a breach. Nowhere is there mention of perception in the act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...1.html#h-92024

The purpose of this Act is to

(a) establish clear conflict of interest and post-employment rules for public office holders;

(b) minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between the private interests and public duties of public office holders and provide for the resolution of those conflicts in the public interest should they arise;

(c) provide the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with the mandate to determine the measures necessary to avoid conflicts of interest and to determine whether a contravention of this Act has occurred

Freeland taking an advisor role to a foreign government while as an active MP is a clear conflict. It's not a perception problem.

She would have resigned in the 'next few weeks' instead of today if it was truly being mitigated without the need to have all media outlets, opponents and experts talking about it that it is a conflict and she has to resign immediately. Seems like quite the unnecessary own goal blunder. Why resign quicker if it's only a perception problem all along?

No it wasn't mitigated through the entire process because the story and action from Freeland changed between Monday to Wednesday and it only happened as a result of heavy pressure (and after consultation with the ethics commissioner). Heck if you read the most recent CBC article (the one you claim to have been using) you will find that the Zelensky announcement was pushed ahead and caught her flat footed and scrambling after the backlash. Effectively the situation changed on her.

A source close to Freeland said the initial plan was for her to resign her seat and then take up the Zelenskyy adviser position, but the Ukrainians moved up the announcement.

Your attempt to change the narrative doesn't work just because you want to be on a specific side of a perceived coin.

You are hell bent on trying to claim you are somehow right here aren't you when you didn't even have the proper facts straight? It's like you can't even admit it's been an issue because it could somehow validate a CPC complaint or something lol. It's odd because admitting there is an issue / conflict doesn't mean it also was intentional, deliberate or nefarious. But you wouldn't be you if you didn't do that weird ass contrarian stuff.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Perception is quite the odd choice of word. A conflict is a conflict. There is no such thing as perception. The act is there to define conflict, ensure there is no conflict and rule when there is a breach. Nowhere is there mention of perception in the act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/...1.html#h-92024



Freeland taking an advisor role to a foreign government while as an active MP is a clear conflict. It's not a perception problem.

She would have resigned in the 'next few weeks' instead of today if it was truly being mitigated without the need to have all media outlets, opponents and experts talking about it that it is a conflict and she has to resign immediately. Seems like quite the unnecessary own goal blunder. Why resign quicker if it's only a perception problem all along?

No it wasn't mitigated through the entire process because the story and action from Freeland changed between Monday to Wednesday and it only happened as a result of heavy pressure (and after consultation with the ethics commissioner). Heck if you read the most recent CBC article (the one you claim to have been using) you will find that the Zelensky announcement was pushed ahead and caught her flat footed and scrambling after the backlash. Effectively the situation changed on her.



Your attempt to change the narrative doesn't work just because you want to be on a specific side of a perceived coin.

You are hell bent on trying to claim you are somehow right here aren't you when you didn't even have the proper facts straight? It's like you can't even admit it's been an issue because it could somehow validate a CPC complaint or something lol. It's odd because admitting there is an issue / conflict doesn't mean it also was intentional, deliberate or nefarious. But you wouldn't be you if you didn't do that weird ass contrarian stuff.

But there isn’t an issue. You said so yourself. There was the perception of an issue based on a lack of information, but that information coming to light proved there was no issue at all. That’s a good thing. I think your quote that states Freeland always intended to resign before taking the position makes clear what the truth is. She really can’t control when Zelenskyy announces it, which led to the confusion, but it’s OK.

You’ll notice that I validated both the response of ethics critics and the opposition to this, so there’s no need to lie about what you think I’m doing because you’re desperate to downplay my position. I know it makes you really frustrated when I’m right and you’re wrong but it happens so often I wouldn’t worry about it anymore. It doesn’t take too much effort on my part, so I hope you’re not putting in much yourself.

It’s OK if you can’t admit you were wrong but I don’t think you’re going to lose any “points” or anything silly like that. We all overreact sometimes and get upset when we don’t know all the facts, it doesn’t make you a bad person.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Freeland taking an advisor role to a foreign government while as an active MP is a clear conflict. It's not a perception problem.

Not if they don't overlap. I don't see anything in the Conflict of Interest Act that restricts unpaid work immediately after resigning as an MP. And it sounds like that was the plan until Zelensky announced it earlier than anticipated.

I mean, it's pretty clear what happened here:

1) Freeland agreed to take the job in late December with a start date later in 2026.

2) The plan was to announce it down the road and she would stay on as MP in the interim, for whatever reason (Liberals need her vote, she wanted to keep getting paid longer or increase pensionable service, or whatever)

3) Once it was announced, she would also tender her resignation, which is standard procedure for any MP doing something similar.

But #3 happened earlier than originally planned which left her scrambling a bit.

And of course, we're talking about an unpaid position, which really undercuts any kind of perception of conflict. If it was a highly paid position with a party that she had dealt with while in government, then yeah, even if she was technically following the ethics rules, then it might be a bit questionable. But this is a volunteer position.

[PepsiFree]

Thanks opendoor for always providing the measured, common sense breakdown of a topic.

[Fuzz]

It sure sounds like a nothing burger of epic proportions.

[woob]

I'm surprised Firebot hasn't blamed this on the CBC somehow.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It sure sounds like a nothing burger of epic proportions.

That's because it is. But come election time this will be brought up for why many people in Alberta "Can't bring themselves to vote for Carney" despite him bending over backwards for Alberta during this term.

[woob]

Can't Vote Carney.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

That's because it is. But come election time this will be brought up for why many people in Alberta "Can't bring themselves to vote for Carney" despite him bending over backwards for Alberta during this term.

Regardless of whether you consider this a nothing burger, I don't think I have seen anyone suggesting it has anything to do with Carney; Freeland isn't even really associated with his government. More of a leftover from the Trudeau PMO. But I guess there are always some people who want to do those sorts of gymnastics; I'd just ignore them.

[Delthefunky]

Thought about posting this in the American politics thread, but figure here is more on topic but it is this: How do we ensure what has happened in the USA does not happen here, ever? I'm still not sure if Trump, or to be more precise that vehicle for overtaking the US system of government, will be ultimately succesfull, but to me the attempt is warning enough. And if he (they) are ultimately succesfull, it surely puts a lot of stress on our system (strengthens our own extremist movements), which like it or not definitely does exist (trucker rally, ostrich farm, etc.)

So how does our system of government differ from the US when it comes to being overtaken by a movement like this? How vulnerable or protected are we? The main reason I ask is because I think if it needs strengthening, now is the time to do it, and I think it's something most Canadians could agree on, before it gets to be too late.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Shouldn't you be celebrating Freeland? She's the one who brought down Trudeau. Not the 3 word slogans. Not the bumper stickers. Not even the polls. Freeland brought down Trudeau.

I would think you would want to raise a statue in her honour.

Hopefully the good Doctor has a Liberal majority to celebrate soon. It is far too important of a period of time to risk Maple MAGA getting into government.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Delthefunky

Thought about posting this in the American politics thread, but figure here is more on topic but it is this: How do we ensure what has happened in the USA does not happen here, ever? I'm still not sure if Trump, or to be more precise that vehicle for overtaking the US system of government, will be ultimately succesfull, but to me the attempt is warning enough. And if he (they) are ultimately succesfull, it surely puts a lot of stress on our system (strengthens our own extremist movements), which like it or not definitely does exist (trucker rally, ostrich farm, etc.)

So how does our system of government differ from the US when it comes to being overtaken by a movement like this? How vulnerable or protected are we? The main reason I ask is because I think if it needs strengthening, now is the time to do it, and I think it's something most Canadians could agree on, before it gets to be too late.

I have thought a bunch on this, especially since the CSIS reports about foreign interference in our political parties (CPC specifically). Obviously, the steps would be more detailed and complex than what I am going to list, but at a high level I think we need to do at least a couple of things to protect our democracy:

1) Electoral Reform - replace First Past The Post with a MMPR system. Also, reform the Senate into elected officials with more reasonable term limits.

Unfortunately, the Liberals (and Conservatives) have been teasing us with electoral reform for 100 years and neither party is interested in fulfilling that promise once they get into office. They want the system the way it is because it essentially creates a 2 party system.

2) Formalize / Strengthen Political parties - Right now our political parties are run on archaic systems that make them very inaccessible to the average Canadian. They either do not have the funding the implement proper security systems or they do not have the motivation to strengthen the party systems to prevent a small, motivated group of people from taking over and running the party.

Just look at the CPC convention later this month as an example. They are going to have their leadership review here in Alberta and they want to lock it down so only people in the room get a voice. National parties should be accessible to the people of the nation, not just the people who can afford to fly to the convention.

I think the only way that our political parties become more accessible (and more secure) is if the government provides them the laws requiring it and the technical tools to implement it (and maybe the cyber security experts to protect it).

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Just look at the CPC convention later this month as an example. They are going to have their leadership review here in Alberta and they want to lock it down so only people in the room get a voice. National parties should be accessible to the people of the nation, not just the people who can afford to fly to the convention.

As I understand it, when it comes to leadership reviews for any of the federal parties those votes are always only open to party delegates who are at the convention.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

As I understand it, when it comes to leadership reviews for any of the federal parties those votes are always only open to party delegates who are at the convention.

Yes - that is specifically something that should change for all parties. Canada is geographically too big for that behaviour and in the year 2026 we know the technology is available to have secure hybrid online conventions that enables digital voting.

Also the digital systems would improve security around ensuring the membership of the parties are legitimate and not foreign agents in India or China.

I do not think it is reasonable to have each party put together these digital systems and security experts independently, so can it become a service being provided by CSIS that is insulated from political interference?