• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2025 Federal Election - 28 Apr 25

If Trudeau has in fact had such an iron grip on the party over his tenure - a claim many here have made, with a lot of truth to it - does that not logically mean that his resignation from PM and the selection of a new leader, particularly one not coming from within the existing cabinet, is in a position to do some considerable steering of the party’s direction?

A lot of choice words have been used to describe Trudeau, some focusing on how tightly PMO has controlled the party. If he had that control when he was PM, and if he’s no longer PM, that should necessarily mean there’s a considerable redistribution of power and influence within the party. Carney certainly hasn’t seemed shy to grab the wheel and change course.

I used to think that it was Trudeau that kept everything wrapped tight, but soon realized it was the PMO crew in short pants (Telford et al). As Trudeau admitted to the ethics commissioner, he saw the PM as being a figurehead while everyone else did the work. Since most Ministers didn’t seem to have much influence on their files, it made sense that the PMO was running everything.
 
According to the latest G&M article, his Chief of Staff knows what was up. Is that enough?
Well, his COS can’t divulge classified information to him, so if he’s okay with an unelected civilian saying “Trust me Boss, can’t give you the details…but do this…” then sure, it should be ‘enough.’
 

Poilievre says he'll pay broadcaster's $75,000 fee for Carney if he'll join French debate


If Poilievre had a security clearance we could see where he's getting all this money.

All campaign contributions are reported to Elections Canada who scrutinizes those contributions for inaccuracies.

How is his security clearance tied to contributions? Perhaps you mistook a lack of financial disclosure, like Carney? Which I believe PP has done.

He can afford the joining fee because the CPC has a massive war chest.


"The Conservatives have a sizable war chest for the election after a banner fundraising year, having raised almost $41.8 million in 2024.

The Liberals raised about $15.2 million and the NDP took in close to $6.3 million in donations over 2024 — though the Liberals are likely to see a sizable influx of cash in the wake of their leadership race, which saw Carney alone raise more than $4.5 million in less than two months."
 
It's about time someone put the Carney/Brookefield/ China marriage on the table.

Poilievre calls out Carney's China ties after Liberals allege India interference

The Conservative leader said Carney should explain a $276 million loan Brookfield Asset Management secured from the Bank of China


 
Last edited:
Well, his COS can’t divulge classified information to him, so if he’s okay with an unelected civilian saying “Trust me Boss, can’t give you the details…but do this…” then sure, it should be ‘enough.’
Assuming we know the non-conversation-conversation hapoened, cool enough. If we don’t know if it happened, from the outside looking in, how different would it look than Arya?
It would come down to how much one trusts the speaker.
 
Assuming we know the non-conversation-conversation hapoened, cool enough. If we don’t know if it happened, from the outside looking in, how different would it look than Arya?
It would come down to how much one trusts the speaker.

I wouldn’t bet your money on the truth of that statement. Carney has been caught lying on a number of occasions already. Everything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
It's about time someone put the Carney/Brookefield/ China marriage on the table.

Poilievre calls out Carney's China ties after Liberals allege India interference

The Conservative leader said Carney should explain a $276 million loan Brookfield Asset Management secured from the Bank of China

Sure but let's put Pierre's India ties on the table too and let Canadians decide. Right now Pierre has more direct links to India while a lot of the accusations against Carney and China are here say at best.
 
I wouldn’t bet your money on the truth of that statement. Carney has been caught lying on a number of occasions already. Everything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
See what I mean about how much you trust the speaker or not? ;)
 
This could have easily been avoided if PP had just done what everyone else did and just got cleared. But he didn’t and now he has to deal with that decision.
 
Sure but let's put Pierre's India ties on the table too and let Canadians decide. Right now Pierre has more direct links to India while a lot of the accusations against Carney and China are here say at best.

You'll have to put up some links to explain your accusations. Or are you hinging your statement on the single G&M story which can also be considered hearsay?

You should also know that Carney/Brookefield/ China connection is not new. They've been thick as thieves for some years now.
 
The Hogue Report

The first observation I would like to make from the evidence is that it is true that some foreign states are trying to interfere in our democratic institutions, including electoral processes. This is nothing new and comes as no surprise – states have been trying to interfere with each other’s business since time immemorial. What is new, however, is the means deployed by these states, the apparent scale of the issue and the public discourse on the topic.
I have also noted that our democratic institutions have thus far remained robust:

• Although there are a very small number of isolated cases where foreign interference may have had some impact on the outcome of a nomination contest or the result of an election in a given riding, there is no evidence to suggest that our institutions have been seriously affected by such interference or that parliamentarians owe their successful election to foreign entities. While any attempted interference is troubling, I am reassured by the minimal impact such efforts have had to date.
‐-------‐----------------------------------------------------------‐

The Hogue Report also addressed leaks, like the G&M one.

Greater transparency would ensure that Canadians are not entirely dependent on media reports and leaked information (which can easily be misleading or be misunderstood) to learn about attempts or acts of foreign interference. Leaks are illegal, ill-advised, and must undoubtedly be denounced. The risk of leaks increases if government agencies keep such incidents almost entirely secret, and the dependency on investigative reporting will persist. Of course sometimes the government is justified in keeping its operations secret, and in matters of national security sometimes it is vital to do so. But the national security and intelligence community must work hard to find ways to keep Canadians informed. Properly informed, I have no doubt that Canadians will be able to understand what foreign interference is and help defend Canadian democracy against this threat.
 
How is his security clearance tied to contributions?
It's not, I'm just being facetious.

I think the people (in general) making the most noise about Poilievres security clearance are also the same ones who said 'nothing to see here' when CSIS first brought the foreign interference allegations forward against the government. For some reason Liberal supporters thought it was waste of time.
 
You'll have to put up some links to explain your accusations.
I can't speak for MilEME09, but I'll see your Hogue Report and raise you with the March 2024 NSICOP references (pg 32 here) ...

1742940871211.png

Or are you hinging your statement on the single G&M story which can also be considered hearsay?
More hearsay, or less, than these stories, also attributed to unnamed sources in the intelligence community? Especially since I don't see a whoooooooole lot of posts here calling accusations against Team Red "hearsay" because they came from unnamed sources.
Archived links to these here, here and here in case they're firewalled.

Again, in the (to steal a term from someone way smarter than me) political Rorschach game, the same shit can look like a very different pile in the partisan eyes of the various beholders, no matter what team jersey they like.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-03-25 181244.jpg
    Screenshot 2025-03-25 181244.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 1
You'll have to put up some links to explain your accusations. Or are you hinging your statement on the single G&M story which can also be considered hearsay?

You should also know that Carney/Brookefield/ China connection is not new. They've been thick as thieves for some years now.
Would you prefer the new york times?


Cbc?


National observer?





Would you like more?
 
The 1963 general election was the most egregious act of foreign interference. But it’s fine because it was JFK and the Democrats who pulled out all stops to help Pearson get elected. Though he only got a minority even with all the yankee dirty tricks on his side.

 
Not campaign altering but funny

First he misgenders Mr Pants on Fire and now this:

Carney names wrong school when talking about Montreal massacre


During a campaign stop in Halifax on Tuesday Day 3 of the election campaign, Liberal Party Leader Mark Carney made a nod to his party’s candidate Nathalie Provost, who survived the Polytechnique shooting, but he got the name of the school wrong by saying Concordia — and also flubbed Provost’s last name.
 
Ouch - especially considering a survivor appears to be running for Team Red.

Not huge, but more than just a few “not huge’ things can pile up into “looky here.”

Shall be known as "Flubber" ;)

Carney says he knows his new riding well, but flubs reference to local neighbourhoods​

'Did you bother looking at a map of your riding? Bells Corners is not in your riding'

 
Back
Top