[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

I don't think the conference is a fair attack on the Conservative leader.  He had nothing to do with organizing the conference.

But it is worrying that the core supporters of the Conservative party would invite Trumpists to speak.

He didn't organize the Trucker's convoy.  He gave them his total, unwavering support.

I've been critical of the left all my life for letting the radicals in their ranks free-reign.  I'll do the same when my former party does it.

All I see are anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists, these anti-globalist talks as if free trade was making us somehow poorer.

Oh, I agree he is fully accountable for the support he gave to the Convoy. But he has not given any support to what happened at the convention.  I feel some sympathy for the leaders of big tent parties.  There are always going to be people within the tent doing stupid things.  I think the line is crossed if support is given by the leader for what was done.

[crazy canuck]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Canada's #1 non-event tv show.

I did not watch it. Both leaders were frenchwashing their campaigns. Nothing new was said if Chantal Hébert is to be believed.

I'll watch them, report back.

Thanks 

In my usual non-verbose style.

PP's interview. He wasn't roasted but he was asked about it. His answers were politician double speak banking on the fact that the french audience doesn't watch english media. His plan to keep Radio-Canada but close CBC won't pass the smell test. Most interesting none-answer was after the question about how we don't see any of the CPC candidates. Overall, PP did pretty good. He sounded like a real person, but so much Quebecwashing.

Carney's interview. I hate that man, if Trump wasn't around he would be dead in the water like Ignatieff. He speaks like the international banker that he is. Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada. His french is de-rusting, getting there. Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship. Less double speak than PP and Singh but he doesn't get hard questions in englis

Many thanks to you and Viper

[Zoupa]

Story was blown up out of proportion.  some stuff was from Liberal insiders, but most was not:
https://x.com/BryanPassifiume/status/1911569486697668629

Then once the Liberals admit to it, you go with the classic "no big deal" excuse.

The buttons are an issue.

The underlying problem is that there were far right personalities from the US invited to the convention and it didn't raise any alarm in the Conservatives rank.

First of all it wasn't a "Conservative" conference.  I called it Conservative-aligned.  It's the Canada Strong and Free Network, formerly the Manning Conference.  No candidates attended, being that they're all campaigning.

Second, here's the attendees:

https://canadastrongandfree.network/date/csfn-ottawa-2025/

Please tell me who on the list is objectionable.  Surely you wouldn't say that any right-wing American is automatically objectionable?

I wouldn't be caught dead listening to Gad Saad or Chris LaCivita. I haven't researched all the speakers, but these two are objectionable for sure.

[viper37]

Campaigning abasing trump works because Mr. P makes it easy for them.

Apparently, PP got roasted for his similarity to Trump last night during a show of a popular Quebec personality.  Carney's French was weak, as expected, but apparently he was able to answer questions about Quebec culture - to the surprise of many. 

Anybody from Quebec watch it?

Edit: also I heard a commentator saying that the appearance of the leaders last night was probably more important than the French language debate because of the show's popularity in Quebec, and the fact the Habs will be playing during the debate.

Canada's #1 non-event tv show.

I did not watch it. Both leaders were frenchwashing their campaigns. Nothing new was said if Chantal Hébert is to be believed.

I'll watch them, report back.

Thanks 

In my usual non-verbose style.

PP's interview. He wasn't roasted but he was asked about it. His answers were politician double speak banking on the fact that the french audience doesn't watch english media. His plan to keep Radio-Canada but close CBC won't pass the smell test. Most interesting none-answer was after the question about how we don't see any of the CPC candidates. Overall, PP did pretty good. He sounded like a real person, but so much Quebecwashing.

Carney's interview. I hate that man, if Trump wasn't around he would be dead in the water like Ignatieff. He speaks like the international banker that he is. Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada. His french is de-rusting, getting there. Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship. Less double speak than PP and Singh but he doesn't get hard questions in englis

Many thanks to you and Viper

Carney's interview. I hate that man, if Trump wasn't around he would be dead in the water like Ignatieff. He speaks like the international banker that he is. Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada. His french is de-rusting, getting there. Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship. Less double speak than PP and Singh but he doesn't get hard questions in englis


Point of dissension with my esteemed compatriot.
I like the international banker that he is.  If he wasn't an international banker, I'd not be pinching my nose and voting Liberal.
Finance guy gonna be finance guy.
We need more people like him, not artist managers, not television personalities.


Enjoys being the PM more than being the PM of Canada.
His exact phrasing was that he enjoys being PM more than he enjoys campaigning.  Campaigning is boring, he's an introvert, he meets people and he watch cows.  The Bloc Québécois leader was again outraged (level 95/100) that Carney said he was bored watching cows.  Watching cows is supposedly exciting.  I can tell the Montreal guy has watched a lot of cows in his life.  I will abstain from inferring on how many legs he thought they had.


Doesn't understand or even accepts Quebec nationship.
I didn't get that feeling.  He's not arrogant and closed to the idea like Trudeau was, like other Liberals are.  He's not ridiculing the idea of a Quebec nation, he's not saying we're a bunch of racist hillbillies.  He's not saying the concept of nationhood is tribalism like Trudeau was (strange how that has changed now! hey, look!  There's a Canadian nation!)

But he makes some weird contortions about why he must fight against Quebec laws, saying it's only about the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause only [note: my understanding is that Lévesque did it but bill 101 and the CSC validated its use then].  There doesn't seem to be a problem in the Liberal Party of Canada with Ontario using it for its collective bargaining agreements, only for Quebec.  Which is typically Liberal. 

On the other hand, Poilièvre is saying he will always fight against secularism when speaking to English media, and promising to never Quebec laws when he speaks to French media.

[crazy canuck]

It's text-book perfect whataboutism.  In responding to an allegation of Liberal dirty-tricks (the fake campaign buttons) you ignore it completely and bring up a counter-accusation (Poilievre not taking reporters questions).

If we were going to treat like for like, I would be pointing to all the dirty tricks Conservative supporters are using in social media posting fake information about Carney.  If I did that it would be whataboutism.

Once again, the point I am making is I am far more concerned with things the candidates themselves are doing, not their supporters.  It would be unfair to judge PP by what his supporters are doing because he has said he does not support those actions or views.

I would hope that you would do the same for Carney.

So the reporting of this story says it was done by "Liberal Party staffers".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-oppo-csfn-1.7509217

The Liberal response didn't deny the reporting, but said it's people "got carried away".

https://x.com/BryanPassifiume/status/1911569486697668629

There's lots of bullshit online - from both pro-Liberal and pro-Conservative sources.  I wouldn't hold either against either party unless it can somehow be tied more directly to the campaigns themselves.

And now we have Carney's response.  In my view, he is in the same position as the Conservative leader disavowing things his party members have done. As reported in the Globe:

Liberal Leader Mark Carney says operatives from his party who reportedly planted Trump-style buttons at a conservative networking conference have been "reassigned" within the Liberal campaign.

"I was unaware of this behaviour, but on behalf of my campaign, I apologize for it unreservedly," Mr. Carney said.

"I've made it absolutely clear to my campaign that this behaviour, anything approximating it or in that spirit, is unacceptable and cannot happen again."

[Barrister]

Please tell me who on the list is objectionable.  Surely you wouldn't say that any right-wing American is automatically objectionable?

I wouldn't be caught dead listening to Gad Saad or Chris LaCivita. I haven't researched all the speakers, but these two are objectionable for sure.

OK.  So yourself and Viper at least ID'd some names.

I also said "objectionable", and, well, you both objected.  So you answered my question.

But was "objectionable" too low a bar?

Three of the four names mentioned served under Trump administrations.  Gad Saad, as Concordia professor, I'm not sure the source of the objection, but I'll take it at face value.

But this is feeling kind-of "cancel-culturish".  Like it's too many degrees of separation.

Donald Trump is a bad guy.  I fully agree.  Fuck that guy.  Although I don't think she'd have been a great President, I wish Harris had won.

But we go from:

Donald Trump -> person who served in his administration -> speaker at a Conservative-adjacent conference -> Poilievre the Conservative leader

There's a long tradition in the anglosphere of connections between right-wing English-speaking parties.  The Conservatives (CDN) meet with the Conservatives (UK) with the Republicans (US) and with the Liberals (AUS).

Same is true on the left, with the Liberals / Labour / Democrats / Labor.

I believe it also happens amongst Francophone politicians as well with France.

So does the fact that Chris LaCivita appeared at a Conservative-adjacent conference in Canada mean that people should not vote for the Pierre Poilievre?

Obviously Zoupa you can make up your own mind and vote your own conscience.  But I also doubt you were going to vote Conservative in the first place.

At the end of the day - a speaker at a conference shouldn't indicate complete endorsement of everything that speaker has ever said or done.  There can and should be a "line too far" - if Steve Bannon was appearing at the CSFN conference that would be a different conversation, but I don't think we should draw that line too generously.

[Jacob]

It's okay to cancel people who are trying to organize to overthrow democracy.

Now I don't know if the specific names mentioned are doing that, but if they are - then fuck yeah, cancel the hell out of them.

[HVC]

But the thing is how many instances of happenstance before someone starts to question motivations? 1, 2, 3 sure, coincidences happen every day. 50? 100? Whats your threshhold before you start scratching your chin. Apparently the threshold was lower for our former top conservative Viper. But surely you have a threshold too, or so i hope. Or maybe some boiling frogs never notice before its too late?

I've said it before, i dont think Mr P is trump. But i do think he's the point of the spear for our trump. Our version of the tea party. Pushing boundaries that shouldnt be pushed. The spear point must be blunted, bent, and broken before it thrusts too deep.  we're too similar, politically, to america to ignore things. To thow out some more analogies for fun, If you come from a family of drunks you should be weary when you start to sip too liberally. We have a Maple MAGA core that we shouldn't pander to. That's how you get Northern Trump.

[viper37]

Please tell me who on the list is objectionable.  Surely you wouldn't say that any right-wing American is automatically objectionable?

I wouldn't be caught dead listening to Gad Saad or Chris LaCivita. I haven't researched all the speakers, but these two are objectionable for sure.

OK.  So yourself and Viper at least ID'd some names.

I also said "objectionable", and, well, you both objected.  So you answered my question.

But was "objectionable" too low a bar?

Three of the four names mentioned served under Trump administrations.  Gad Saad, as Concordia professor, I'm not sure the source of the objection, but I'll take it at face value.

But this is feeling kind-of "cancel-culturish".  Like it's too many degrees of separation.

Donald Trump is a bad guy.  I fully agree.  Fuck that guy.  Although I don't think she'd have been a great President, I wish Harris had won.

But we go from:

Donald Trump -> person who served in his administration -> speaker at a Conservative-adjacent conference -> Poilievre the Conservative leader

There's a long tradition in the anglosphere of connections between right-wing English-speaking parties.  The Conservatives (CDN) meet with the Conservatives (UK) with the Republicans (US) and with the Liberals (AUS).

Same is true on the left, with the Liberals / Labour / Democrats / Labor.

I believe it also happens amongst Francophone politicians as well with France.

So does the fact that Chris LaCivita appeared at a Conservative-adjacent conference in Canada mean that people should not vote for the Pierre Poilievre?

Obviously Zoupa you can make up your own mind and vote your own conscience.  But I also doubt you were going to vote Conservative in the first place.

At the end of the day - a speaker at a conference shouldn't indicate complete endorsement of everything that speaker has ever said or done.  There can and should be a "line too far" - if Steve Bannon was appearing at the CSFN conference that would be a different conversation, but I don't think we should draw that line too generously.

Bb, I gave you specific reasons why at least 3 of these individals should never have been invited to the conference.

You call this cancel culture, I disagree.

The Cons are currenctly proposing we expell people from the country for protesting against Israel.

How do you call this? Active camcellation?  Affirmative cancellatiom?

[Valmy]

It's okay to cancel people who are trying to organize to overthrow democracy.

Now I don't know if the specific names mentioned are doing that, but if they are - then fuck yeah, cancel the hell out of them.

Is simply not inviting them to speak at something really canceling them? I am not invited to speak at all sorts of conferences.

[Bauer]

...

In my twenty years a criminal case has only ever gotten more complicated, never less.  Lead times for trials only get longer - despite the fact that funding has increased.

Very interesting stuff, thanks for sharing some insights.  It seems to me from an outsiders perspective that many government processes are becoming more complicated, longer, more red tape, more expensive over time.  I worry that without a mechanism to keep the processes efficient the risk is they keep worsening until society appoints Elon Musk to come in with his chainsaw.

[Bauer]

I feel some sympathy for the leaders of big tent parties.  There are always going to be people within the tent doing stupid things.  I think the line is crossed if support is given by the leader for what was done.

I agree with that sentiment, which is why I don't put too much stock into who's running clandestine pin operations, or having maga attendees at a conference.  In the end it's the policies that matter and how the parties intend to implement them.

[crazy canuck]

I feel some sympathy for the leaders of big tent parties.  There are always going to be people within the tent doing stupid things.  I think the line is crossed if support is given by the leader for what was done.

I agree with that sentiment, which is why I don't put too much stock into who's running clandestine pin operations, or having maga attendees at a conference.  In the end it's the policies that matter and how the parties intend to implement them.

Where I think we differ is, I don't think it's just about the policies they intend to implement. I think we should put a lot of importance on how the leaders conduct themselves.  In the case of the conservative leader, the way he treats the media during the campaign is indicative of how he will treat the media if he becomes Prime Minister. That is a disturbing thought.


But maybe you were thinking that is a policy that will be implemented?

[Duque de Bragança]

On the other hand, Poilièvre is saying he will always fight against secularism when speaking to English media, and promising to never Quebec laws when he speaks to French media.

En même temps, à la Macron ? 

[crazy canuck]

Interview with the reporter who wrote the background piece on the person running the conservative election campaign.  She was the person who proposed the barbaric practices hotline and helped organize against O'Toole to bring him down.





https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/front-burner/id1439621628?i=1000703568382