Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This was on every news outlet including CBC. This was not the tiniest wedge (and this isn't really a Carney government thing, but a personal Freeland / individual MP one)

Take it another way, if an active CPC MP was an unpaid economic advisor to Modi and India, should that be allowed?

Freeland is perfectly fine to do this while not being an active MP. Or she could wait on taking the unpaid advisor role to an ally / foreign government until she was leaving for the Rhode Trust role later this year.

Are you comparing India and Ukraine? lol

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you comparing India and Ukraine? lol

Yes I am comparing a foreign country and government to a foreign country and government. Both are external foreign entities to Canada last I checked.

What are you lol or going on about?

Replace India with any country of choice if you think the country mentioned is personally offensive in some way to you or somehow beneath a comparison. Do you prefer the US? Serbia? Poland? Philippines? Is there a threshold where accepting an unpaid advisor role to a foreign government while an active MP is acceptable and non-acceptable?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Yes I am comparing a foreign country and government to a foreign country and government. Both are external foreign entities to Canada last I checked.

What are you lol or going on about?

Replace India with any country of choice if you think the country mentioned is personally offensive in some way to you or somehow beneath a comparison. Do you prefer the US? Serbia? Poland? Philippines? Is there a threshold where accepting an unpaid advisor role to a foreign government while an active MP is acceptable and non-acceptable?

OK, I’ll replace it with Ukraine, since there’s no reason to change the country at all, and say I’d feel exactly the same if it was a CPC MP.

Why the need to change the country at all?

EDIT: and to be clear, I think you know there are all sorts of problems with Modi and India, so I don’t think that choice was totally random on your part. If it was, you should know better that it would be viewed differently just based on the country itself.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

OK, I’ll replace it with Ukraine, since there’s no reason to change the country at all, and say I’d feel exactly the same if it was a CPC MP.

Why the need to change the country at all?

EDIT: and to be clear, I think you know there are all sorts of problems with Modi and India, so I don’t think that choice was totally random on your part. If it was, you should know better that it would be viewed differently just based on the country itself.

Why does the country matter? So you would be apparently ok with an active CPC MP having an unpaid advisor job to Ukraine. Would Poilievre also count?

I used India because it's plausible based on alleged foreign interference ties between one / some CPC MPs and India. Canada-India have renewed diplomatic and trade relations. I see little distinction or difference.

Don't let the Ukraine war and support of their fight cloud you that it is still a foreign government with significant human rights and corruption concerns including same sex marriage ban and discriminative laws, and had put in place a bill to remove corruption scrutiny, that was only repealed after heavy foreign pressure threatening support and mass protests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9w19pl84r8o.

"We chose Europe, not autocracy," said a poster held by one demonstrator. "My father did not die for this," said another.

And for the record, no I am not ok with any active MP holding any type of advisor job to a foreign country, regardless of country of concern or party, regardless of how friendly we are with them, and regardless of my own support of Ukraine. MPs are elected to represent Canada and Freeland is free to do this while not an active MP.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Why does the country matter? So you would be apparently ok with an active CPC MP having an unpaid advisor job to Ukraine. Would Poilievre also count?

The country matters, because one is an ally we have been supporting in a defensive war, that Canada has a vested interest in helping to redevelop and prop up for the security of our most critical alliance.

The other plays a very different role, and is not actively being attacked.

I think it almost sensible for a sitting MP to be in an economic advisory role for Ukraine.

PP is an interesting question. I may not be excited about it, because I think his economic ideas are short sighted and mainly political in nature, rather than considerate of sustained our social institution, conserving and sustaining the social institutions that we have, being my primary economic concern on a federal level. And maybe I would consider that a person in party leadership should have better things to focus on. But fundamentally to the question, if the CPC had that mandate to speak for Canada, no I would not have an issue with one of their members helping to advise on the reconstruction of the Ukraine.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This was on every news outlet including CBC. This was not the tiniest wedge (and this isn't really a Carney government thing, but a personal Freeland / individual MP one)

Take it another way, if an active CPC MP was an unpaid economic advisor to Modi and India, should that be allowed?

Freeland is perfectly fine to do this while not being an active MP. Or she could wait on taking the unpaid advisor role to an ally / foreign government until she was leaving for the Rhode Trust role later this year.

To be clear, I understand how this sounds like special pleading, but consider if you will the way news cycles currently work.

Someone working for the western standard or the rebel wakes up in the morning, knowing that unless they can get thousands of clicks their irrelevant little rag will cease to exist and they will lose their job. They know that people talk about and share outrages while ignoring politics when their is no news. So they write an article saying "how outrageous is this thing that is not news", then stupid people click on the link and say "yes that is outrageous", then the MSM whose job it is to get clicks goes, "Oh no everyone is clicking on that article we aren't covering", so they start covering the not news, but in the 3rd paragraph they stipulate that it isn't news so they can feel better about themselves for reporting facts, and pretend that they aren't aware that none of their readers make it to the 3rd paragraph.

It's incumbent upon us to not be the stupid people who buy into the fake outrage.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by #-3

The country matters

No it really doesn't...

The US should be proof of that.

We have plenty of people in government with informal ties to foreign countries, allies or foes that can change on a whim based on the country that controls the government. 13 years ago Ukraine was a Russian puppet and there would have been no way that Freeland would have been involved personally with that government at the time.

People seem to be excusing this in the context of Ukraine's situation today specifically, and that is a mistake.

I think it almost sensible for a sitting MP to be in an economic advisory role for Ukraine.

PP is an interesting question. I may not be excited about it, because I think his economic ideas are short sighted and mainly political in nature, rather than considerate of sustained our social institution, conserving and sustaining the social institutions that we have, being my primary economic concern on a federal level. And maybe I would consider that a person in party leadership should have better things to focus on. But fundamentally to the question, if the CPC had that mandate to speak for Canada, no I would not have an issue with one of their members helping to advise on the reconstruction of the Ukraine.

Governments make partnerships with governments and use representatives to work together. MPs are elected to represent Canada and their constituents. She is not taking this role in the capacity of a Canadian government representative. That is what she was doing previously, as Special Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine.

There is a very strong line in difference. Note that there was zero controversy in the previous role, because it was within capacity as an MP.

[IliketoPuck]

MLAs going to Mar A Lago to discuss separation from Canada when 70% of their constituents don't want to do so would fall under the same analysis, presumably?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Why does the country matter? So you would be apparently ok with an active CPC MP having an unpaid advisor job to Ukraine. Would Poilievre also count?

Yup. Especially PP. The less time he spends in this country the better

[Blaster86]

I think I pointed this out when posters here were talking about how Carney's attempts to make headway into Alberta are important and could make a difference next election.

I said it will not. Even though he is calling plays from a moderate Conservative playbook, and trying to do things that many people from Alberta had called for over the last 6 years. Lo and behold, the first minor thing they could latch on to and the very people who swore this wouldn't happen are making it happen in this very thread.

[TheIronMaiden]

Leaving public office really is damned if you do damned if you don't.
You retire - everyone blames you of grifting because you get the pension
You go work in the private sector- everyone gives you #### for being corrupt like Jason Kenny
You go work for a cause you believe in? you get accused of syphoning off money in some conspriacy.


At the end of the day, MPs and MLAs are highly motivated, and well connected before they get into politics and they sure as hell aren't going to stop that after politics.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Firebot

No it really doesn't...

Well that's ridiculous, of course going to North Korea would be viewed differently to put an extreme example on it, going into a role that is clearly adversarial to Canada's policy would be a problem, while the roll he is taking completely in line with Canada's policy is fine.

And I am not at all commenting on the merits or lack there of, of her actions. I am specifically commenting on the stupid pointless outrage of something that shouldn't even move the needle. I annoyed a bunch of people here on the left about the same stupid faux. outrage about something not at all outrageous with the speed limit thing in Alberta, when there outrage at the very least cut against measurable facts.

This isn't about if she should be working for Ukraine or not, it's about how people getting outraged about something that isn't outrageous is a problem.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by #-3

To be clear, I understand how this sounds like special pleading, but consider if you will the way news cycles currently work.

Someone working for the western standard or the rebel wakes up in the morning, knowing that unless they can get thousands of clicks their irrelevant little rag will cease to exist and they will lose their job. They know that people talk about and share outrages while ignoring politics when their is no news. So they write an article saying "how outrageous is this thing that is not news", then stupid people click on the link and say "yes that is outrageous", then the MSM whose job it is to get clicks goes, "Oh no everyone is clicking on that article we aren't covering", so they start covering the not news, but in the 3rd paragraph they stipulate that it isn't news so they can feel better about themselves for reporting facts, and pretend that they aren't aware that none of their readers make it to the 3rd paragraph.

It's incumbent upon us to not be the stupid people who buy into the fake outrage.

This "breaking news" was Zelensky formally announcing the position on social media in the very early part of the morning to the surprise of media outlets and Canadians. And into further digging upon the news, CBC (not rebel or western standard) learned from an internal source that this was known in late December

https://twitter.com/user/status/2008110048388530683

A source close to Freeland said Zelenskyy asked her to take on the voluntary advisory role on Dec. 22 while she was in Ukraine, and she told Carney about the request on Christmas Eve.

The source, who spoke on the condition they not be named because they weren't authorized to speak publicly, said Freeland made the case that the new job is a continuation of the work she has been doing and that she sees it as good for both Canada and Ukraine.

There was no "rebel news wakes up in the morning to fabricate outrage" here, it was fully in the rounds before Levant was likely even awake and CBC had a far better inside scoop than he could ever get to get clicks.

So while your fantasy hypothesis on how news lifecycles work may potentially have occured from time to the time (which seems to be quite a strong critic of the MSM), this is purely fantasy here.

The question is why are you so strongly adamant that this is not an issue when Freeland commits to resign on the very same day as the announcement is made public? Considering all the scandals that have plagued Liberals in the past 11 years, MP's resigning would be a daily thing if they always succumbed to even a hint of Levant or Poilievre's breath towards them.

Like it's obviously not a major scandal or even a minor scandal. It's simply a "you can't do that" matter that ends as soon as she resigns (or declines the position until she is no longer MP if she wants to stay onboard as MP until the summer and collect a paycheck).

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

So you would be apparently ok with an active CPC MP having an unpaid advisor job to Ukraine. Would Poilievre also count?

If the context was the same (virtually no overlap and after clearing it with the federal government), then why not?

Erin O'Toole took a job with a French multinational almost 2 months before he officially left office and I don't recall anyone making a big deal about that. There are ethics rules they have to follow as part of that, and it sounds like that's happening in this case.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Leaving public office really is damned if you do damned if you don't.
You retire - everyone blames you of grifting because you get the pension
You go work in the private sector- everyone gives you #### for being corrupt like Jason Kenny
You go work for a cause you believe in? you get accused of syphoning off money in some conspriacy.


At the end of the day, MPs and MLAs are highly motivated, and well connected before they get into politics and they sure as hell aren't going to stop that after politics.

Trudeau nailed it. Peaced out, found a pop star and looks to be enjoying himself.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Trudeau nailed it. Peaced out, found a pop star and looks to be enjoying himself.

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

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

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

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.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

If the context was the same (virtually no overlap and after clearing it with the federal government), then why not?

Erin O'Toole took a job with a French multinational almost 2 months before he officially left office and I don't recall anyone making a big deal about that. There are ethics rules they have to follow as part of that, and it sounds like that's happening in this case.

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.

[Locke]

Putin probably loves this move.

Ukraine is now 'Free Land?' Thats all he ever wanted in the first place...

[PepsiFree]

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.

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?