Queenmandy85

He was Premier for 17 years.

Just as an aside, but so did Tommy Douglas, but CCF are just grits in a hurry.

That will come as big news to the Liberals. Every major scandal has been under a liberal government except the Pacific Scandal. So the Liberal Party doesn't exist?

I campaigned for the only Conservative to defeat a Trudeau. I campaigned for him in the leadership campaign and then in the federal election that followed. Once in office, he set about privatizing Metro-Canada, strengthing ties with Israel and getting rid of the deficit Trudeau left him.

How can you compare what you refer to as Trudeau's "scandals" with the real scandals like the customs scandal or the hald dozen separate incidents of bribery, especially from the mafia, under Mike Pearson. Now those were real scandals, not a visit to one of the worlds leading religious leaders or a clumsy attempt to save 1500 engineering jobs by asking if a deferred prosecution was possible. (Pearson was also re-elected after all the revelations came out.)

Like any sport, you have to set an example. The rule is the same now as when you were in kindergarten: It is not whether you win or lose, it is how you play the game. The Prime Minister keeps winning because the CPC chooses losers to lead. When they eventually get a good leader like Mr. O'Toole, they drop him. We had the chance to have Jean Charest, but instead we picked Poilievre. He will win the next election and be a one -hit wonder.

My location is Saskatoon. That should be your first clue. ? Tell me, how many grits were elected is all of Saskatchewan in the last election? I can give you a little hint: 0. NDP won ...0 seats. CPC won ALL the seats in Saskatchewan. If Mr. O'Toole or Charest were leading the party, we would not be having this discussion. I am afraid Mr. Poilievre is going to be harmful to the CPC. The promises he has made he can't keep or shouldn't. He wants to fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Stupid. Get rid of the CBC? Mulroney merely pre-empted 20 minutes of one episode of Coronation Street and brought holy hell down on himself. The most critical file we are facing in the greenhouse effect. Mr. Polilevre should be creating a path to drastically reduce emissions while bringing more prosperity to the west, Ontario and Quebec. Presenting a vision of a better future is what could give him his record majority. By remaining silent on what he plans to do gives the electorate a picture of a man with no vision. A viable visionary plan would leave Trudeau's policies in the dust.

Normally, I would agree with you, but which party. CPC is reform. Reform is Social Credit. When my late father-in-law retired from the RCAF in 1952, he was approached by a guy from the BC Social Credit party who asked him to run. Sec Bennett was the socred leader at that time. My F-in-L asked the guy to explain what Social Credit was about. The guy told him about funny money and all that. Seeing to prospective candidate was even more confused, the party guy leaned in and said, "We're going to get rid of the jews." His feet probably didn't touch the ground on his way out. Manning has never even tried to hide the fact that he admires Lincoln. Not MacDonald, not Borden or Churchill. Not Pitt, or Diefenbaker. No. He admires an American republican president over any Canadian or British Conservatives.

Way ahead of you. When I email him, he phones me back and he listens to what I have to say. We disagree on a number of issues, but there is a reason why he keeps getting re-elected with a massive majority. He pays attention to his constituants. Added bonus, he is not afraid to admit his mistakes. I am 90% sure I will vote for him. Mr. Poilievre asks me to support him without giving me a hint of what he plans to do. To add insult, he keeps asking me to give him money. Do I want to support a whiney panhandler who says "trust me?' You might as well vote for Trudeau. At least he doesn't threaten to cancel Coronation Street.

Unless Mr. Poilievre begins to mature and earn my donations rather than thinking of me as an unthinking cash cow, I am going to vote for the candidate in my riding who I believe will be the best MP. I'm not going to vote for a Prime Minister or a political Party. I am a Progressive Conservative, the party of Sir John A. Unless there is a Progressive Conservative Party, I have no party to vote for.

If they can do that without violating the Act, they should. But that is not a revelation. We already knew that. We also know it made no difference to the outcome. If anything, this issue has been a benifit to Mr. Poilievre. Ther seems to be a misunderstanding that I somehow support Prime Minister Trudeau. I have supported the Conservative Party since I was a teenager until it ended and was replaced by Reform. I did join the CPC over a year ago. I supported Mr. O'Toole in the last election and was sorry he was forced out, Since then, I have been disappointed by the leader. All I seem to be to Mr. Poilievre is his ATM machine. Sorry, in the coming election, my focus will be on my local candidates, regardless of Party. I will say this in PP's favour. He has a future in comedy. I would pay money to watch his stand up. It is funny. I can think of another comedian who has turned in to one of the Great War leaders of our time. However, Mr. Poilievre should stick to comedy.?

Yes, you misunderstood. Whether or not something is unfair is not the issue. My contention is that it is illegal. It is not for someone in CSIS or one of its contractors to decide government policy. In this case, how should the government deal with this issue once they were informed. The point being, only government and Parliament set government policy, not members of the military, law enforcement the security services nor the public service. They can advise the government, but never encroach on the government's (including Parliament) perogative to make policy. If the public servant, soldier, police officer or security service member feels the need to openly disagree with government policy, they must first resign, just as a member of Cabinet should.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. By crickets, I wanted to illustrate there isn't much a public inquiry can say if the subject matter is classified and cannot be made public. It is amazing how all of the western nations were scrambling over each other to be China's friend until there was that ah ha moment when we all discovered Xi is a psychopathic SOB. For Canada, it came when we arrested Madam Meng Wanzhou for the US DoJ. Lots of people will claim they knew the Chinese administration was evil for years but that wasn't the tune people were singing in 2016. I'm not sure what a public inquiry is supposed to reveal. We already know China tried unsuccessfully to manipulate the last election. It has never been any secret that we don't have effective laws to prevent it. The Russians and the Americans have been doing this interference since the Second World War. What else do they want to know? China is a relatively late comer to the game. It's not like we can retaliate. How do we interfere in Chinese elections?

I wonder what a public inquiry would look like? "This inquiry is called to order. I call on all persons who have relevant information pertaining to foreign interference in Canada's electoral process, not covered by the Security of Information Act 1985, to come forward and give their testimony." (Sounds of crickets and cute little tree frogs) "Thank you all for coming."

I will go out on a limb here and presume this refers to me. I did not imply such a thing. I explicitly said CSIS needs to be non-partisan. I still haven't heard an explanation of where the word "trans" comes in.

The aim of the individual who leaked this seems to me to be trying to damage Prime Minister Trudeau. Attacking Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Singh or Mr. Poilievevre is fair game, but not if the individual is an active member of law enforcement, the military, or an agency like CSIS and especially using classified information. China's interference isn't news. They have been doing it for years and that is no secret. The Russian interference was old news when Igor Gouzenko defected in 1945.

How did I smear them? The Security of Information Act is clear. Sec. 4 "Wrongful communication, etc., of information; Communication of sketch, plan, model, etc.; Receiving code word, sketch, etc.; Retaining or allowing possession of document, etc." and Sec. 18 "Breach of trust in respect of safeguarded information." Rather than calling for the resignation of Mr. Johnston, perhaps it is Director Vigneault who needs to resign.

By using this strategy, Mr. Poilievre opens him self up to references to the revelations of his child molesting in 2019. That too is a false accusation, but when he starts throwing excrement, he should expect to get buried in it. Unless he can back up his accusations with proof, he is going to show himself to be a dung feeder. It is unbecoming of an honourable member. He keeps asking me to renew my membership and give him money, but he goes out of his way to alienate me. Political discourse has rules. Opposing politicians are rivals, not enemies. They need to be able to work together behind the scenes because, in the long run, they all have the same objective...serving Canadians.

For those of us who are a bit dim, you are going to have to spell that out. Trans-portation?, trans-literation, trans-gender, trans-Canada? What the heck are you talking about and what has it got to do with security clearance? Everyone seems to be missing the real question. Yes, China has been trying to interfere in Canadian elections. So have the Americans and the Russians. It is nothing new. Everybody does it. It is not right, but that is the way it is. The real danger is to have CSIS interfering in Canadian politics. Military, intelligence agencies and police must always be non-political. These leaks violate that rule. CSIS is tasked with collecting, analyzing intelligence and advising the government. What the government does with it is beyond the limits of CSIS's mandate. What appears to be happening in this case, is a third party with access to classified material is leaking selected files to damage the government. That is tantamont to an attemped coup. Traditionally, intelligence agencies are the worst investment by governments. They are universally incompetent. The exception are the agencies that collect and analyze communications such as the NSA, GCHQ, and Canada's CSE. If you want a picture of the level of abilities of spies, look at Philby, Donovan, Angleton, the two GRU clowns that poisoned the Skripals, William Stephenson, and Best and Stevens of the Venlo Incident (read clown circus). Every German spy sent to England in the War, was captured and either turned or executed. I am not that familiar with China's intelligence agencies but I see no reason to believe their thugs are anymore reliable or competant than anyone else's. I am not advocating abolishing CSIS. I advocate that we keep their importance in perspective and give their knuckles a good hard whack for their mis-handling their product and allowing their members and contractors from using their priveledged access to dabble in politics.

In a rare moment of unity, the At Issue panel all condemned Mr. Poilievre's dive to the bottom in that exchange. On another hand, I was just looking at the 338 site which gives the CPC 143 seats to the Grits 131. To form a government, the CPC will need the support of either the Bloc or the NDP. What will the CPC have to give to acquire and maintain that support? Does PP cozy up the the separatists or the socialists?

Most countries separate political power from constitutional authority. As the great Charles Lynch pointed out, the PM doesn't own the power, he just rents it. Germany and Israel are examples of presidents who don't exersize political power but have the authority. The King (GG) has the authority to declare war, but if Parliament doesn't vote the taxes to pay for it, we ain't going. What part of constitutional authority and power are you not getting? Again, how is it you are missing the distinction between power and authority? Prime Ministers have recommended the King (GG) declare war but the PM has no constitutional standing. We have a King who is better equipped to govern than any politician. He costs the Canadian taxpayer nothing except for his personal protection detail. Name me one Canadian politician with 60 years of training for the leadership. Pierre Polievre? What qualifies him? Trudeau, not up to the job, but he has nice hair. I would prefer to be governed by someone elected by God than anyone elected by someone like me. You have all read my posts. Do you seriously think anyone I would vote for is qualified to be the personification of Canada? Our King's predecessors have been doing this job, here and in England, for thousands of years. They have done a far better job than politicians like Biden, Xi or Putin? Because the work load already on the King's shoulders, we need to have a Governor General, but someone of the King's choosing, based on merit and experience. Or, we could have a PM, but one who serves at HM's pleasure. Monarchy gives us continuity, stability and tradition. Canada has been a monarchy since the settlement of Quebec. Unlike every other country under the reign of King Charles, Queen Elizabeth was only our second longest reigning monarch. Canada had the longest serving Monarch in history, anywhere. King Louis XIV. Sorry about this. I need to cut back on my coffee. ? Now, that is a good point.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy. You are confusing power with authority. King Charles has more authority that a President of the US. He has the authority to declare war, which the President of the US does not have. (not that that has stopped them.) Authority is the right to make decisions. Power is the ability to cary out the decisions. The Prime Minister has the power, but, not the authority. He has no constitutional standing. The King of Canada does not have the authority to vote taxation. That is the authority reserved to Parliament and that is where the leverage is. Constitutional Monarchy is the best system of government ever devised. You only have to look ate the quality of life in Norway, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands. In Canada, we have a King who is well educated and has had 60 years of training. In the 1000 years just since the ascention of William I, there have been over 40 monarchs, of whom, seven have been disappointing. Seven out of 43, over the last thousand years. I can't think of 7 Presidents of the US in the last 240 years who were any good.

Of course, being the devil's advocate, if an opposition member has a better solution to a problem, it could be argued that they have a duty to pass it on the the government to implement it, unless winning an election is more important than helping the country. That is how we got old age pensions and the CBC, both borrowed from other parties by the Conservative Party. Waiting until after a future election delays solutions. On the other hand, winning elections is fun.

If Mr. Poilievre wins as expected, it will mean he gains support from a lot of Red Tories in the GTA. Their political views are different from the core supporters in the west. Finding a middle ground that won't alienate both camps is never easy.

I have no doubt that Mr. Poilievre will win the next election. He is very good with the one liner. I wonder if he has the skill to get himself out of the corners he has painted himself into with some of his more bizarre ideas. He has been very good at describing what he doesn't like, but getting him to even hint at what his solutions are, is seemingly impossible. Last winter, I asked a simple question about a couple of files he will need to deal with when he forms a government. When I received no response, I followed up, with no results so far. I did get a note saying they would respond soon. Please send money. That was in April. Recently I received a request to renew my membership...and please send money. I replied that I would, after I get a reply to my emails from last winter. I did get a response of sorts. Please send money. I have to hope he will follow normal practice of consulting with the senior public service and his ministry will govern accordingly, but that will be a difficult climb down from his pre-election rhetoric. But then, we have the famous words of the Rt. Hon. John Crosby: "If we told you what we were going to do, you wouldn't have voted for us." My sense is, he is reluctant to say anything that will cost him votes. That is a good strategy for a first election, but it will not work for the re-election bid when voters challenge him on all those things he was expected to do, but didn't. Kinda like "sunny ways." ?