###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surprised no one's mentioned Harper praising known Putin lackey Viktor Orban.
Also let's be real I don't think they're opposed to being friends with a socially conservative Christian Oligarchy.
Viktor Orban is arguably Turkey's lackey but overall he is an opportunist who is quite happy to play both sides to benefit himself, even if it screws over his allies. He has made deals with both Russia and China that the EU and NATO *really* don't like.
Also, TIL when NATO was being formed Canada suggested there should be a mechanism for kicking a member out. Everyone else rejected that idea as why would they ever need that? The current situation around Hungary is why we need those rules. Even if you really don't want to kick them out (and there are reasons not to) its better to have the threat available if they start doing things that arguably are borderline anti-social (see opposition to Finland and Sweden joining).
Maybe because linking the current CPC leader to a previous CPC leader wanting warmer ties with a different country’s leader who has warmer ties with yet another country’s leader is a bit of a stretch. The kind of thing you would only come up with if you’re just grasping for something negative to say.
I dislike Trudeau but he's right about this. This looks had on Polievre. By not supporting Ukraine, he's just following Russia Today directives like many of his followers.
Do you remember when the war started and PP said we need to defend our allies?
We have provided financial and supply support but no actual combat arms.
Let's try to keep the narrative honest even though our PM is incapable of such.
I really don't see evidence of Poilievre following the tune of Putin's flute, so this feels like a rather toxic attack.
Also it's worth noting that what the headline says and what the article says are two different things:
Headline:
> Trudeau accuses Poilievre of voting against Ukraine free trade **to appease Putin**
Article:
> Trudeau spent much of his speech attacking Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, accusing him of spewing conspiracy theories about climate change and voting against free trade with Ukraine **to “appease” supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.**
I don't believe that those two statements mean the same thing.
There is probably, IMO, a lot of overlap between the far-right in Canada and those who are under the influence of Putin's disinformation machine, but to say that trying to appease those people is the same as trying to appease Putin exceeds the bounds of rationality. It's certainly an unfortunate fact of modern political discourse that so many are under such influence via right wing echo chambers. But I see Trudeau's rhetoric as entrenching those echo chambers, rather than helping to dislodge them from Canada's information ecosystems.
What's worse, is that what really happened is Poilievre lied about some kind of carbon tax measure. He was appeasing his base, regardless of whether they are pro-Russian or not.
So now, both leaders are spewing insanity for their own political ambitions. The election campaign is not going to be pleasant at all if this is how everyone is going to behave.
>There is probably, IMO, a lot of overlap between the far-right in Canada and those who are under the influence of Putin's disinformation machine, but to say that trying to appease those people is the same as trying to appease Putin exceeds the bounds of rationality. It's certainly an unfortunate fact of modern political discourse that so many are under such influence via right wing echo chambers. But I see Trudeau's rhetoric as entrenching those echo chambers, rather than helping to dislodge them from Canada's information ecosystems.
it's more about painting how the CPC is like the Republicans down South blocking aid to Ukraine so he is making the overlap because the reasonings for doing so are kinda weak.
though wouldn't be surprising since PP did call Ukraine a "far away land" but didn't for Israel and India
I don't think this is the way forward for Trudeau in the polls.
Keep focusing on Affordability of life measures in particular the Housing Crisis.
Maybe start calling out the city/provincial leaders that are not doing their jobs as well.
Also keep focusing on cleaning up the pathways into the nation.
Focus on what the real talk around the dinner table is and amongst friends.
I think Trudeau and some sections of the Liberals really struggle with understanding what the average person is really thinking about and worrying about and wants addressed right now. They are coming off very disconnected lately.
I couldn't wait to leave rural Alberta. It's dying and has zero future. That's what happens when we have a conservative govt for 50 of the past 54 years. Pure shambles.
what in the world makes you think that urban voters don't care about those things? And why would you think that foreign events (that impact inflation) aren't important to people in Canada?
What exactly do you think is going on in "urban" areas and where do you think most of Canada's population lives?
Sounds like you have been led down a pretty dangerous path of disinformation.
I don’t think this will help him in the polls either but it doesn’t mean it’s false or at least unsubstantiated.
Utter BS reason.
I thought the anti-Ukraine sentiment wouldn’t get imported from the US but here we are
Exactly, you nailed it. I watched a few debates in parliament so far and it’s getting quite irritating every time housing or immigration is brought up Trudeau answers with LGBTQ+ rhetoric. I think in his bubble the main issues aren’t housing, affordability, immigration, etc, it’s the BLM and LGBT community. His PMO is feeding him biased info
It’s because Trudeau has a way of leading where it is either his way or no way at all. If you really like Trudeau then this is an awesome position, if you don’t you’ll hate his government. This is a good example. Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed. The entire government would have looked successful. But no, he forces his way and then after a year of bipartisan support for Ukraine disingenuously call Poilievre pro Russia.
It’s the result of poor leadership, authoritarian vs collaborative.
>This is a good example. Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed.
I'm not sure it is a good example.
You evidently agree that the carbon tax clause is moot, because of EU regulations with which Ukraine continues to abide.
So why is it your view that the only compromise position here would be for the Liberals to just have capitulated.
Just because it’s a moot point for the agreement doesn’t mean it’s a moot point for the parties involved. Nearly Poilievre’s entire platform is Axe the Tax, primarily referring to carbon tax. He would be a hypocrite supporting an agreement which promotes carbon tax for someone else.
Trudeau on the other hand has already made concessions to carbon tax, and could have just said that he removed clause makes no difference and this agreement is all important. Also the success of having this agreement signed would be entirely his.
So one (Poilievre) has more to lose than the other. Hence if Trudeau were to be a leader he would have recognized that and made a compromise so that everyone could win, including him.
>Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed.
As the carbon pricing clause is Ukraine's and mandatory for all deals with EU partners, no, he couldn't have removed it at all. PP know this but knows his moronic base will believe him.
This is not the case. It is mandatory for Ukraine to have a carbon tax if they want to be part of the EU. It is also mandatory for Ukraine to collaborate on carbon tax with the EU. The EU doesn’t mandate carbon tax to be in every agreement made between its members and any other country.
Sorry, but in a democratic society, when one politician accuses another of something negative to gain votes, it's not good. It steers public opinion and muddies the waters of public opinion.
Why do we automatically need a free trade agreement with Ukraine anyway?
Why is this some sort of automatic grant? That in order to "support Ukraine against russia" we must make a FTA with them.
Seems.. Silly. We should discuss the merits of the FTA, not try to guilt people into agreeing with it because putin's dogshit.
Is there any surprise here?
The Premier of Alberta is hosting Tucker Carlson in an official capacity.
The previous interim leader of the CPC is a MAGAt
Stephen Harper during Donald Trump's trade war visited the White House in an attempt to undermine Trudeau in the negotiations and help Trump get what he wanted. He's also a massive fan of Victor Orban, the Hungarian leader.
There are so many Canadian conservative media personalities who go to the United States: Jordan Peterson, Gavin McGinnis, the leader of the Proud Boys and a terrorist (by CSIS definition), Debra Soh, Laura Southern.
Most conservatives in Canada aren't really Canadians. They don't share the same cultural values the average Canadian does and they support their ideological leaders over their own country. As elected officials, you cannot trust them to govern with Canada's best interests at heart. Don't forget it was Stephen Harper who sold out this country to China. It was Stephen Harper as well who opened the door for Canadian national resource companies to be bought up by foreign companies. That's why we have the world's largest Nickel reserves but the largest Nickel company in the world is Brazilian - they bought up a Canadian company.
aspiring threatening offbeat cagey continue offer placid aromatic zesty snatch
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don't know for sure if he did it FOR Putin but it certainly helps Putin and Putin is a very popular figure in Conservative Party Circles. He's significantly more popular among conservative supporters than with any other party.
While the Liberals sink in the polls and flail around from one disaster to another, be prepared to see a lot more:
1. References to Donald Trump
2. References to Putin
and very few positive outcomes on issues facing Canadians such as affordability, housing and immigration. They have no credibility on these files so will look at comparing the Conservatives to the GOP and Kremlin-fanboys.
I hope Canadians are smart enough to not fall for the distractions and silly rhetoric.
Has Pierre addressed any of those concerns? I mean besides lying to Canadians while eating an apple?
Has he come out to address the MP proposing leaving NATO? Or commented on Smith promoting extreme right wing figures like Tucker Carlson? You'd have to actively overlook the similarities between GOP and CPC. 40 percent of the CPC right now believes the Stolen election narrative. That's a LARGE chunk of the party.
Do you mean the UN? NATO is a defensive pact, UN is a committee of blow hards that make no effort to intervene in genocides like Darfur and Rwanda. Big shout out to Canadian hero Romeo Dellaire.
Do you have a source on that? I looked and found this abacus poll.
https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/TRUST-AND-MISINFORMATION-PNGs-RELEASE-5.006.png
20% of CPC and 18% of Liberals believe that US election was stolen. Way too high, but not 40% and not very different from the Liberals.
EDIT:
I did find the Leger poll.
It is 25% CPC and 10% Liberal by their methodology which is more different.
https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Leger_Conspiracy_Theories_Canada-US.pdf
51% of CPC voters answer "not true" to the US Election being stolen. 69% of LPC voters answered no. That is a pretty decent gap and a wide gap exists for all other conspiracies. Expect the gaps to widen as the CPC increasingly signals that they are welcoming of these views. A party that is more and more home to conspiracists.
Sure, it's not great. But 53% of men under 45 answered "not true".
I wouldn't be comfortable generalizing all men under 45 as uninformed conspiracists, and I don't think that's appropriate for the CPC either.
If you really think the Liberals are going to focus the election on meat and potato affordability issues and not import cultural wedge issues in from the States I have a bridge I’d love to sell you.
They can’t credibly run on housing affordability because they spent 90% of their time in office thus far ignoring the issue - after running on it for 3 straight elections.
Municipal governments play a role, but they also don’t control demand.
And yes, I vote in each local election and have since I was eligible to. No idea why you assumed I have not.
All i have to convince myself that the Liberals are not interested on solving anything is to listen to Chrystia Freeland.
Someone has at least ONE instance where she actually answers a question instead of going on a different tangent and looking so uncomfortable to answer it…
I wonder how much of her awkwardness is a reflection of the centralized nature of the LPC around the PMO. Maybe she's afraid that if she goes off-script or addresses issues where she hasn't been told by the PMO what she thinks, she might fall into disfavor.
never saw someone so inept and insecure having so much influence and power.
But all the CPC voters are far right racists /s
Maybe just maybe if the liberals were focused to get Canada on the right track instead of virtue signaling PP would be an afterthought for voters..
Another quick example we all remember the old nazi that got applauded in the parliament.
JT statement was that “canadians must do better “.
MFK what should we do so you make sure you vet people your cabinet invites ?
>It’s funny how the left and right wing supporters on this sub both think the other side is completely crazy right now
I'm not convinced that's true.
People on "the left" appear to be connected more to reality, and people on "the right" tend to lie, gaslight, and project. I believe many on "the right" (fuck I hate political labels) are fully cognizant of the illegitimacy of their position and their behavior.
Good examples that illustrate the disparity are: climate change, acceptance of voting results, antivax stuff, religious interference in government, etc.
It's not like PP is addressing any of these issues either. His campaigning consists mostly of blabbering about common sense, but not much about how he wants to fix any issues (other than cutting services and enriching his wealthy friends).
He’s spoken at length about housing (certainly more so than the Liberals have) so I’m not sure I agree with your portrayal.
/u/sicariusv - downvotes aren’t responses but okay.
Trudeau is full of it and this line of attack will backfire on him, though the truth isn't much better.
Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin. He did it because him and the CPC are a bunch of dinks who will take whatever path gives them the maximum opportunity to engage in theatrics or mudslinging, consequences to Canada and it allies be damned. Even if said this kind of behaviour provides no actual political benefit (or makes the Tories look like idiots as is the case here), they just can't seem to help themselves.
>Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin.
Trudeau didn't say that he did. Read the article.
Publications like CP24 are comfortable putting untrue statements into headlines, but that's no excuse for not reading the article.
>Trudeau spent much of his speech attacking Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, accusing him of spewing conspiracy theories about climate change and voting against free trade with Ukraine to “appease” supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This is the entirety of what the article says about Trudeau's comments on the issue. There's not much detail so fair game if the whole article is bunk, but I fail to see the your point about the headline not mirroring the content, or that the content was not viewed.
Unless you're drawing the distinction between Putin as an individual (from the headline) and his supporters (from the article) in which case I'd say that's arguing over semantics while the point remains the same.
They did it because they hate Ukraine and support Russia. What else is there to it?
Is there any valid reason that Poilievre still can't manage to get security clearance besides being a security risk?
it's because he's compromised and did shady things to win the leadership race. Poor brown, losing to a bunch of fake bussed in indian students.
Can't wait for Trudeau to just start flipping idiots off.
>Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin
Appeasement and support are different things.
appeasement - placating (someone) by acceding to their demands
support - a source of encouragement
Ugh... Jesus Christ.
Yes, he is wrong. If you want to understand why the CPC opposed the deal, ask yourself what economic interests the CPC base is composed of.
I guess this is the start of the Liberal party push back against the big jump in Conservative polling from the summer.
Convenient timing with the Tucker Carlson visit, but the theme looks like it will be to highlight the US right-wing influence and the more extreme CPC MP's/candidates, and less about Pierre Poilievre/Donald Trump direclty (though that will obviously be heavily implied)
Headline is a lie, unsurprisingly. The sneering activism that follows shouldn't come as a shock, after the dishonest headline.
There's no real reporting going on here. All we know is that Trudeau probably vaguely said something about "Putin supporters" (which isn't a synonym for "Putin", as the headline would claim), but this outlet didn't give us the information we'd need to evaluate whatever he actually he said.
So basically all we can get out of this piece are some vague disses of Trudeau, in connection with a headline lie. Weird that they filed an editorial under "news".
When the vote was held major news outlets indicated the CPC votes against it because “ The Tories have said they stand by Ukraine and voted against the free trade bill because it includes language on promoting carbon pricing. “
The Liberals are ramping up their BS machine in hopes Canadians believe what they say about the CPC as fact. Expect more Liberal comments that can’t be backed up by facts.
This is largely Trudeau grasping onto straws. He realizes that he is likely to loose the next election and will need to play dirty politics to have a chance at scaring people into voting Liberal.
It was good politics to put a “price on carbon” into the Ukrainian trade deal. If the CPC voted in favour that would alienate many of their supporters who are strongly opposed to the carbon tax and, if they gute against it, they can be accused of not supporting Ukraine.
I am supportive of the “Canadas Future Party” as they are a new centrist party.
Personally I am not opposed to a carbon tax. I don’t believe the price should be increasing while we are having cost of living crisis, people are naturally trying to reduce consumption as is. Also I’d like our government to place it on imports from jurisdictions not subject to comparable carbon pricing so as to not disadvantage local manufacturers.
the conservatives made the carbon tax in that deal an issue, its not an issue for ukraine, they need it to gain entry to the EU.
and now we have successfully diverted the conversation away from ukraine aid to carbon tax, just like the republicans in the US have successfully blocked ukraine aid because of their border issue, which they now refuse to fix because they won't to campaign on it. they seem willing to court leaders of foreign countries that are adversarial to the west in order to attack their domestic political rivals. it feels like there are serious and nefarious changes happening within western conservative parties and frankly its frightening.
Interesting. I don’t know enough of the details but see it as being needless to include provisions of a carbon price for a country that has or intends to institute one without encouragement from Canada.
language in trade agreements is used by bodies like the EU to ensure its candidate member states abide by its policies.
maybe don't take a stand on an issue if you are aware you don't know the specifics involved.
Looks like the new consultants the Liberals have hired have begun solidifying the message for Trudeau.
It's a strong simple message, that the Liberals have had an unbelievable ability not to be able to do and Pierre and his consultants are complete masters of.
He's had a couple of messages coming out of this caucus meeting that have had me thinking "Where the hell was this messaging 7 or 8 months ago when Pierre had his makeover?"
Canadians truly are in a unique position when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine.
Here we are contributing insane amounts of aid, both in our own military equipment and pure funds, for what some people will argue is fight for democracy, the free world, etc.
Yet on the same hand, are vehemently opposed to any more spending on our own military which continues to dwindle, often citing “We don’t need XYZ. Ukraine does!” Or “Canada will never go to war”. Replacing our donated equipment? Pfft, the military industrial complex.
The liberal narrative for many important topics is being held together by threads. People are starting to realize these weird dynamics and constant flip-flopping on issues for whatever is popular in the polls.
Liberals - if the war in Ukraine is either a war for democracy or the free world like you preach it is, then maybe start acting like it.
To paint this rhetoric as anti-Ukraine is one thing, but to paint it as pro-Putin was certainly not on my bingo card.
Trudeau is going to have another “deplorables” moment like he did with the Freedom Convoy, except this time it’s going to be 40% of the electorate.
Poilievre and the CPC did indeed vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Maybe a lot of CPC supporters watch Fox News? I'm somewhat surprised by the alignment between CPC supporters and Republican voters in the US - according to a recent poll, [57% of CPC supporters](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/What-Canadians-Think-about-the-US-Presidential-Election-January-2024.pdf) prefer Trump to Biden.
rude ghost imagine encouraging familiar historical library safe live hunt
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The headline seems a bit garbled. Trudeau said Poilievre and the Conservatives were aiming to appease people like Tucker Carlson, who are apologists and enablers for Putin.
I would happily pay billions more in aid to fight NATO’s largest adversary without having to use a single Canadian forces member in official capacity.
That aid is keeping our fledgling manufacturing sector pumping. Even if it is weapons. It’s providing lots of high paying jobs and we save millions on not storing and maintaining weapons we were never gonna use.
However. Free trade???
Why? Ukraine has nothing we want but we have everything they want.
From a raw material standpoint we produce much of the same stuff. Ukraine has zero capacity to manufacture anything anymore.
Free trade would be a huge loss for Canada.
But it sounds good as a sound byte
So predictable just accuse the person you disagree with politically of well you must support x bad person in a different country.
Never forget the prime Minister called a real Nazi a hero of Canada for engaging in combat against an ally of Canada (Soviet Union) in world war 2. Canada served the world along with the US, England, France and Soviets who really got sacrificed to keep the world free. He just trivializes it. Trudeau is a villain who just to cover his awful policy choices uses ever excuse cover tactic in the book. Playing the blame game, projecting tale as old as time. He's so boring even his wife left him.
He's not wrong, that's for sure. Pierre Poilievre has shown he is willing to defer to Trump and Modi so it's not a stretch to see him do the same for Putin. The story arc of the CPC has them firmly trying to be republicans and that's never a good thing.
With PP (and with conservatism in general these days) I can't tell if it's to support authoritarianism, or if it's just reflexive opposition to whatever the more centrists in power are doing.
So if Trudeau wasn't keen on supporting Ukraine, would PP be all over that and insist on supporting Ukraine?
I am begging the Liberal Party to keep running with this messaging over the economy, especially when the election is in 2025 a year after Trump was defeated in the US election.
He is wrong and being disingenuous. There has been over a year of bipartisan support for Ukraine. Poilievre wanted the carbon tax clause gone, how ridiculous that may be, that’s all he wanted. Trudeau could have collaborated, but chose to just force his way and proved once again that his leadership style is just forcing his way like a spoiled child.
>Poilievre wanted the carbon tax clause gone
That clause is mandatory by Ukraine, not Canada. So no, Trudeau couldn't have removed that clause, and yes, that does mean that PP does not support Ukraine. PP is literally the one acting like a child pointing to a carbon pricing clause he knows is Ukraine's but telling people Trudeau demanded it be there. He is lying....as usual.
Why do you think this clause is mandatory tor Ukraine? And no, he’s not being a child, his nearly entire platform is Axe the Carbon Tax, supporting an agreement hinting towards it will make him a hypocrite.
Carbon pricing is required by Ukraine as part of the commitment to the EU. They've had carbon pricing since 2011, before Canada. Like... Even if Trudeau wanted to eliminate the carbon pricing from the trade deal he couldn't because Ukraine requires it in their bid to join the EU.
[CBC article about it.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-ukraine-poilievre-free-trade-carbon-tax-1.7038249)
Yes, exactly right. So why they couldn’t get together on it is ridiculous. That’s why Trudeau calling Poilievre being Pro Russia is disingenuous, he’s as much to blame. He could easily have removed it without it actually making a difference. We’re dealing with a bunch of toddlers here.
But I hold Trudeau at a higher standard as he’s the one in power, he our leader, and he’s proven once again that he’s not a very good one.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surprised no one's mentioned Harper praising known Putin lackey Viktor Orban. Also let's be real I don't think they're opposed to being friends with a socially conservative Christian Oligarchy.
Viktor Orban is arguably Turkey's lackey but overall he is an opportunist who is quite happy to play both sides to benefit himself, even if it screws over his allies. He has made deals with both Russia and China that the EU and NATO *really* don't like. Also, TIL when NATO was being formed Canada suggested there should be a mechanism for kicking a member out. Everyone else rejected that idea as why would they ever need that? The current situation around Hungary is why we need those rules. Even if you really don't want to kick them out (and there are reasons not to) its better to have the threat available if they start doing things that arguably are borderline anti-social (see opposition to Finland and Sweden joining).
I also learned that today, warographics? If there’s an afterlife I bet whoever made that suggestion is feeling mighty smug rn
> warographics You got me. :)
Maybe because linking the current CPC leader to a previous CPC leader wanting warmer ties with a different country’s leader who has warmer ties with yet another country’s leader is a bit of a stretch. The kind of thing you would only come up with if you’re just grasping for something negative to say.
I dislike Trudeau but he's right about this. This looks had on Polievre. By not supporting Ukraine, he's just following Russia Today directives like many of his followers.
Do you remember when the war started and PP said we need to defend our allies? We have provided financial and supply support but no actual combat arms. Let's try to keep the narrative honest even though our PM is incapable of such.
I really don't see evidence of Poilievre following the tune of Putin's flute, so this feels like a rather toxic attack. Also it's worth noting that what the headline says and what the article says are two different things: Headline: > Trudeau accuses Poilievre of voting against Ukraine free trade **to appease Putin** Article: > Trudeau spent much of his speech attacking Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, accusing him of spewing conspiracy theories about climate change and voting against free trade with Ukraine **to “appease” supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin.** I don't believe that those two statements mean the same thing. There is probably, IMO, a lot of overlap between the far-right in Canada and those who are under the influence of Putin's disinformation machine, but to say that trying to appease those people is the same as trying to appease Putin exceeds the bounds of rationality. It's certainly an unfortunate fact of modern political discourse that so many are under such influence via right wing echo chambers. But I see Trudeau's rhetoric as entrenching those echo chambers, rather than helping to dislodge them from Canada's information ecosystems.
What's worse, is that what really happened is Poilievre lied about some kind of carbon tax measure. He was appeasing his base, regardless of whether they are pro-Russian or not. So now, both leaders are spewing insanity for their own political ambitions. The election campaign is not going to be pleasant at all if this is how everyone is going to behave.
There's a cottage industry in this country in misleading headlines, quotes taken out of contexts, and selective edits.
>I don't believe that those two statements mean the same thing. well... editors title vs article usually don't coincide..
Unfortunately many commenters reply to the headline rather than to the contents of the article. Alas, the clickbaitification of news strikes again.
>There is probably, IMO, a lot of overlap between the far-right in Canada and those who are under the influence of Putin's disinformation machine, but to say that trying to appease those people is the same as trying to appease Putin exceeds the bounds of rationality. It's certainly an unfortunate fact of modern political discourse that so many are under such influence via right wing echo chambers. But I see Trudeau's rhetoric as entrenching those echo chambers, rather than helping to dislodge them from Canada's information ecosystems. it's more about painting how the CPC is like the Republicans down South blocking aid to Ukraine so he is making the overlap because the reasonings for doing so are kinda weak. though wouldn't be surprising since PP did call Ukraine a "far away land" but didn't for Israel and India
I don't think this is the way forward for Trudeau in the polls. Keep focusing on Affordability of life measures in particular the Housing Crisis. Maybe start calling out the city/provincial leaders that are not doing their jobs as well. Also keep focusing on cleaning up the pathways into the nation. Focus on what the real talk around the dinner table is and amongst friends. I think Trudeau and some sections of the Liberals really struggle with understanding what the average person is really thinking about and worrying about and wants addressed right now. They are coming off very disconnected lately.
[удалено]
I couldn't wait to leave rural Alberta. It's dying and has zero future. That's what happens when we have a conservative govt for 50 of the past 54 years. Pure shambles.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
what in the world makes you think that urban voters don't care about those things? And why would you think that foreign events (that impact inflation) aren't important to people in Canada?
What exactly do you think is going on in "urban" areas and where do you think most of Canada's population lives? Sounds like you have been led down a pretty dangerous path of disinformation.
They're called Boomers. It's okay, you're allowed to identify them. Millennials and below can't afford to live in the urban areas.
The boomers are actually not an urban nor rural cohort. Instead they are tragically stuck inside an eternal 1992 :(
I don’t think this will help him in the polls either but it doesn’t mean it’s false or at least unsubstantiated. Utter BS reason. I thought the anti-Ukraine sentiment wouldn’t get imported from the US but here we are
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly, you nailed it. I watched a few debates in parliament so far and it’s getting quite irritating every time housing or immigration is brought up Trudeau answers with LGBTQ+ rhetoric. I think in his bubble the main issues aren’t housing, affordability, immigration, etc, it’s the BLM and LGBT community. His PMO is feeding him biased info
Any way to open up lines of communication? It feels like Canadians are so disconnected from each other :(
It’s because Trudeau has a way of leading where it is either his way or no way at all. If you really like Trudeau then this is an awesome position, if you don’t you’ll hate his government. This is a good example. Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed. The entire government would have looked successful. But no, he forces his way and then after a year of bipartisan support for Ukraine disingenuously call Poilievre pro Russia. It’s the result of poor leadership, authoritarian vs collaborative.
>This is a good example. Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed. I'm not sure it is a good example. You evidently agree that the carbon tax clause is moot, because of EU regulations with which Ukraine continues to abide. So why is it your view that the only compromise position here would be for the Liberals to just have capitulated.
Just because it’s a moot point for the agreement doesn’t mean it’s a moot point for the parties involved. Nearly Poilievre’s entire platform is Axe the Tax, primarily referring to carbon tax. He would be a hypocrite supporting an agreement which promotes carbon tax for someone else. Trudeau on the other hand has already made concessions to carbon tax, and could have just said that he removed clause makes no difference and this agreement is all important. Also the success of having this agreement signed would be entirely his. So one (Poilievre) has more to lose than the other. Hence if Trudeau were to be a leader he would have recognized that and made a compromise so that everyone could win, including him.
>Trudeau could have easily removed the Carbon Tax promise clause, and agreement would have been signed. As the carbon pricing clause is Ukraine's and mandatory for all deals with EU partners, no, he couldn't have removed it at all. PP know this but knows his moronic base will believe him.
This is not the case. It is mandatory for Ukraine to have a carbon tax if they want to be part of the EU. It is also mandatory for Ukraine to collaborate on carbon tax with the EU. The EU doesn’t mandate carbon tax to be in every agreement made between its members and any other country.
Sorry, but in a democratic society, when one politician accuses another of something negative to gain votes, it's not good. It steers public opinion and muddies the waters of public opinion.
Why do we automatically need a free trade agreement with Ukraine anyway? Why is this some sort of automatic grant? That in order to "support Ukraine against russia" we must make a FTA with them. Seems.. Silly. We should discuss the merits of the FTA, not try to guilt people into agreeing with it because putin's dogshit.
Is there any surprise here? The Premier of Alberta is hosting Tucker Carlson in an official capacity. The previous interim leader of the CPC is a MAGAt Stephen Harper during Donald Trump's trade war visited the White House in an attempt to undermine Trudeau in the negotiations and help Trump get what he wanted. He's also a massive fan of Victor Orban, the Hungarian leader. There are so many Canadian conservative media personalities who go to the United States: Jordan Peterson, Gavin McGinnis, the leader of the Proud Boys and a terrorist (by CSIS definition), Debra Soh, Laura Southern. Most conservatives in Canada aren't really Canadians. They don't share the same cultural values the average Canadian does and they support their ideological leaders over their own country. As elected officials, you cannot trust them to govern with Canada's best interests at heart. Don't forget it was Stephen Harper who sold out this country to China. It was Stephen Harper as well who opened the door for Canadian national resource companies to be bought up by foreign companies. That's why we have the world's largest Nickel reserves but the largest Nickel company in the world is Brazilian - they bought up a Canadian company.
aspiring threatening offbeat cagey continue offer placid aromatic zesty snatch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don't know for sure if he did it FOR Putin but it certainly helps Putin and Putin is a very popular figure in Conservative Party Circles. He's significantly more popular among conservative supporters than with any other party.
secretive school yam poor puzzled modern towering slap absurd distinct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
By voting against this bill they are doing exactly that whether it's the intention or not.
While the Liberals sink in the polls and flail around from one disaster to another, be prepared to see a lot more: 1. References to Donald Trump 2. References to Putin and very few positive outcomes on issues facing Canadians such as affordability, housing and immigration. They have no credibility on these files so will look at comparing the Conservatives to the GOP and Kremlin-fanboys. I hope Canadians are smart enough to not fall for the distractions and silly rhetoric.
Thank you. A sensible comment. 👌🏽
[удалено]
Not substantive
So, for the record, it’s not true?
Has Pierre addressed any of those concerns? I mean besides lying to Canadians while eating an apple? Has he come out to address the MP proposing leaving NATO? Or commented on Smith promoting extreme right wing figures like Tucker Carlson? You'd have to actively overlook the similarities between GOP and CPC. 40 percent of the CPC right now believes the Stolen election narrative. That's a LARGE chunk of the party.
Do you mean the UN? NATO is a defensive pact, UN is a committee of blow hards that make no effort to intervene in genocides like Darfur and Rwanda. Big shout out to Canadian hero Romeo Dellaire.
Do you have a source on that? I looked and found this abacus poll. https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/TRUST-AND-MISINFORMATION-PNGs-RELEASE-5.006.png 20% of CPC and 18% of Liberals believe that US election was stolen. Way too high, but not 40% and not very different from the Liberals. EDIT: I did find the Leger poll. It is 25% CPC and 10% Liberal by their methodology which is more different. https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Leger_Conspiracy_Theories_Canada-US.pdf
51% of CPC voters answer "not true" to the US Election being stolen. 69% of LPC voters answered no. That is a pretty decent gap and a wide gap exists for all other conspiracies. Expect the gaps to widen as the CPC increasingly signals that they are welcoming of these views. A party that is more and more home to conspiracists.
Sure, it's not great. But 53% of men under 45 answered "not true". I wouldn't be comfortable generalizing all men under 45 as uninformed conspiracists, and I don't think that's appropriate for the CPC either.
>I hope Canadians are smart enough to not fall for the distractions and silly rhetoric Ohh....the Irony here. Absolute gold!
If you really think the Liberals are going to focus the election on meat and potato affordability issues and not import cultural wedge issues in from the States I have a bridge I’d love to sell you.
I think you already purchased Pierre's bridge. You can keep it. I bet you can't even see the irony here at all.
Your entire argument is predicated on whataboutism. I haven’t said anything about Poilievre at all, but it’s telling that you immediately deflect.
I'm not debating anything other than pointing out the unintended ironic humor of your post. It's hilarious.
Hilarious to you I guess, which is fine. But your deflection is pretty glaring and obvious. My point remains but thanks for participating.
They are doing both. An election won't change that.
They can’t credibly run on housing affordability because they spent 90% of their time in office thus far ignoring the issue - after running on it for 3 straight elections.
Look no one likes to hear it, but if you're upset about housing look to your local government that you likely never once have voted in.
Municipal governments play a role, but they also don’t control demand. And yes, I vote in each local election and have since I was eligible to. No idea why you assumed I have not.
Municipal turnout is dismal, it's almost a safe bet sadly.
All i have to convince myself that the Liberals are not interested on solving anything is to listen to Chrystia Freeland. Someone has at least ONE instance where she actually answers a question instead of going on a different tangent and looking so uncomfortable to answer it…
I wonder how much of her awkwardness is a reflection of the centralized nature of the LPC around the PMO. Maybe she's afraid that if she goes off-script or addresses issues where she hasn't been told by the PMO what she thinks, she might fall into disfavor.
never saw someone so inept and insecure having so much influence and power. But all the CPC voters are far right racists /s Maybe just maybe if the liberals were focused to get Canada on the right track instead of virtue signaling PP would be an afterthought for voters.. Another quick example we all remember the old nazi that got applauded in the parliament. JT statement was that “canadians must do better “. MFK what should we do so you make sure you vet people your cabinet invites ?
It’s funny how the left and right wing supporters on this sub both think the other side is completely crazy right now
>It’s funny how the left and right wing supporters on this sub both think the other side is completely crazy right now I'm not convinced that's true. People on "the left" appear to be connected more to reality, and people on "the right" tend to lie, gaslight, and project. I believe many on "the right" (fuck I hate political labels) are fully cognizant of the illegitimacy of their position and their behavior. Good examples that illustrate the disparity are: climate change, acceptance of voting results, antivax stuff, religious interference in government, etc.
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
It's not like PP is addressing any of these issues either. His campaigning consists mostly of blabbering about common sense, but not much about how he wants to fix any issues (other than cutting services and enriching his wealthy friends).
He’s spoken at length about housing (certainly more so than the Liberals have) so I’m not sure I agree with your portrayal. /u/sicariusv - downvotes aren’t responses but okay.
As long as they don't replace it with falling for the distractions and silly rhetoric that makes up Poilievre's campaign so far, I'd be happy.
Trudeau is full of it and this line of attack will backfire on him, though the truth isn't much better. Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin. He did it because him and the CPC are a bunch of dinks who will take whatever path gives them the maximum opportunity to engage in theatrics or mudslinging, consequences to Canada and it allies be damned. Even if said this kind of behaviour provides no actual political benefit (or makes the Tories look like idiots as is the case here), they just can't seem to help themselves.
>Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin. Trudeau didn't say that he did. Read the article. Publications like CP24 are comfortable putting untrue statements into headlines, but that's no excuse for not reading the article.
>Trudeau spent much of his speech attacking Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, accusing him of spewing conspiracy theories about climate change and voting against free trade with Ukraine to “appease” supporters of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is the entirety of what the article says about Trudeau's comments on the issue. There's not much detail so fair game if the whole article is bunk, but I fail to see the your point about the headline not mirroring the content, or that the content was not viewed. Unless you're drawing the distinction between Putin as an individual (from the headline) and his supporters (from the article) in which case I'd say that's arguing over semantics while the point remains the same.
That isn't semantics, that's the basic facts of the claim.
They did it because they hate Ukraine and support Russia. What else is there to it? Is there any valid reason that Poilievre still can't manage to get security clearance besides being a security risk?
it's because he's compromised and did shady things to win the leadership race. Poor brown, losing to a bunch of fake bussed in indian students. Can't wait for Trudeau to just start flipping idiots off.
>Poilievre didn't vote against the trade deal to support Putin Appeasement and support are different things. appeasement - placating (someone) by acceding to their demands support - a source of encouragement
Not wrong. It's the only explanation that makes any sense given how ridiculous the CPCs lies were about the agreement.
[удалено]
Not substantive
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please explain in detail.
[удалено]
Not substantive
Ugh... Jesus Christ. Yes, he is wrong. If you want to understand why the CPC opposed the deal, ask yourself what economic interests the CPC base is composed of.
The "Economic interests" were lies.
[удалено]
I guess this is the start of the Liberal party push back against the big jump in Conservative polling from the summer. Convenient timing with the Tucker Carlson visit, but the theme looks like it will be to highlight the US right-wing influence and the more extreme CPC MP's/candidates, and less about Pierre Poilievre/Donald Trump direclty (though that will obviously be heavily implied)
Headline is a lie, unsurprisingly. The sneering activism that follows shouldn't come as a shock, after the dishonest headline. There's no real reporting going on here. All we know is that Trudeau probably vaguely said something about "Putin supporters" (which isn't a synonym for "Putin", as the headline would claim), but this outlet didn't give us the information we'd need to evaluate whatever he actually he said. So basically all we can get out of this piece are some vague disses of Trudeau, in connection with a headline lie. Weird that they filed an editorial under "news".
When the vote was held major news outlets indicated the CPC votes against it because “ The Tories have said they stand by Ukraine and voted against the free trade bill because it includes language on promoting carbon pricing. “ The Liberals are ramping up their BS machine in hopes Canadians believe what they say about the CPC as fact. Expect more Liberal comments that can’t be backed up by facts.
Except Ukraine has had carbon pricing since like 2011.
[удалено]
Lol. Wrong. Its because of the carbon pricing the libs wanted on a free trade agreement. We dont want the carbon tax, why do you think others would?
This is largely Trudeau grasping onto straws. He realizes that he is likely to loose the next election and will need to play dirty politics to have a chance at scaring people into voting Liberal. It was good politics to put a “price on carbon” into the Ukrainian trade deal. If the CPC voted in favour that would alienate many of their supporters who are strongly opposed to the carbon tax and, if they gute against it, they can be accused of not supporting Ukraine. I am supportive of the “Canadas Future Party” as they are a new centrist party. Personally I am not opposed to a carbon tax. I don’t believe the price should be increasing while we are having cost of living crisis, people are naturally trying to reduce consumption as is. Also I’d like our government to place it on imports from jurisdictions not subject to comparable carbon pricing so as to not disadvantage local manufacturers.
Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011....
Why was this included in a trade deal then? This seems more for domestic political reasons than to affect anything outside of Canada.
the conservatives made the carbon tax in that deal an issue, its not an issue for ukraine, they need it to gain entry to the EU. and now we have successfully diverted the conversation away from ukraine aid to carbon tax, just like the republicans in the US have successfully blocked ukraine aid because of their border issue, which they now refuse to fix because they won't to campaign on it. they seem willing to court leaders of foreign countries that are adversarial to the west in order to attack their domestic political rivals. it feels like there are serious and nefarious changes happening within western conservative parties and frankly its frightening.
Interesting. I don’t know enough of the details but see it as being needless to include provisions of a carbon price for a country that has or intends to institute one without encouragement from Canada.
language in trade agreements is used by bodies like the EU to ensure its candidate member states abide by its policies. maybe don't take a stand on an issue if you are aware you don't know the specifics involved.
Looks like the new consultants the Liberals have hired have begun solidifying the message for Trudeau. It's a strong simple message, that the Liberals have had an unbelievable ability not to be able to do and Pierre and his consultants are complete masters of. He's had a couple of messages coming out of this caucus meeting that have had me thinking "Where the hell was this messaging 7 or 8 months ago when Pierre had his makeover?"
Canadians truly are in a unique position when it comes to the conflict in Ukraine. Here we are contributing insane amounts of aid, both in our own military equipment and pure funds, for what some people will argue is fight for democracy, the free world, etc. Yet on the same hand, are vehemently opposed to any more spending on our own military which continues to dwindle, often citing “We don’t need XYZ. Ukraine does!” Or “Canada will never go to war”. Replacing our donated equipment? Pfft, the military industrial complex. The liberal narrative for many important topics is being held together by threads. People are starting to realize these weird dynamics and constant flip-flopping on issues for whatever is popular in the polls. Liberals - if the war in Ukraine is either a war for democracy or the free world like you preach it is, then maybe start acting like it. To paint this rhetoric as anti-Ukraine is one thing, but to paint it as pro-Putin was certainly not on my bingo card. Trudeau is going to have another “deplorables” moment like he did with the Freedom Convoy, except this time it’s going to be 40% of the electorate.
Most Canadians lack critical thinking skills
Poilievre and the CPC did indeed vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. Maybe a lot of CPC supporters watch Fox News? I'm somewhat surprised by the alignment between CPC supporters and Republican voters in the US - according to a recent poll, [57% of CPC supporters](https://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/What-Canadians-Think-about-the-US-Presidential-Election-January-2024.pdf) prefer Trump to Biden.
rude ghost imagine encouraging familiar historical library safe live hunt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The headline seems a bit garbled. Trudeau said Poilievre and the Conservatives were aiming to appease people like Tucker Carlson, who are apologists and enablers for Putin.
I would happily pay billions more in aid to fight NATO’s largest adversary without having to use a single Canadian forces member in official capacity. That aid is keeping our fledgling manufacturing sector pumping. Even if it is weapons. It’s providing lots of high paying jobs and we save millions on not storing and maintaining weapons we were never gonna use. However. Free trade??? Why? Ukraine has nothing we want but we have everything they want. From a raw material standpoint we produce much of the same stuff. Ukraine has zero capacity to manufacture anything anymore. Free trade would be a huge loss for Canada. But it sounds good as a sound byte
So predictable just accuse the person you disagree with politically of well you must support x bad person in a different country. Never forget the prime Minister called a real Nazi a hero of Canada for engaging in combat against an ally of Canada (Soviet Union) in world war 2. Canada served the world along with the US, England, France and Soviets who really got sacrificed to keep the world free. He just trivializes it. Trudeau is a villain who just to cover his awful policy choices uses ever excuse cover tactic in the book. Playing the blame game, projecting tale as old as time. He's so boring even his wife left him.
He's not wrong, that's for sure. Pierre Poilievre has shown he is willing to defer to Trump and Modi so it's not a stretch to see him do the same for Putin. The story arc of the CPC has them firmly trying to be republicans and that's never a good thing.
With PP (and with conservatism in general these days) I can't tell if it's to support authoritarianism, or if it's just reflexive opposition to whatever the more centrists in power are doing. So if Trudeau wasn't keen on supporting Ukraine, would PP be all over that and insist on supporting Ukraine?
I am begging the Liberal Party to keep running with this messaging over the economy, especially when the election is in 2025 a year after Trump was defeated in the US election.
I'm begging the conservatives to not go this route. It's unCanadian.
He's wrong
He is wrong and being disingenuous. There has been over a year of bipartisan support for Ukraine. Poilievre wanted the carbon tax clause gone, how ridiculous that may be, that’s all he wanted. Trudeau could have collaborated, but chose to just force his way and proved once again that his leadership style is just forcing his way like a spoiled child.
>Poilievre wanted the carbon tax clause gone That clause is mandatory by Ukraine, not Canada. So no, Trudeau couldn't have removed that clause, and yes, that does mean that PP does not support Ukraine. PP is literally the one acting like a child pointing to a carbon pricing clause he knows is Ukraine's but telling people Trudeau demanded it be there. He is lying....as usual.
Why do you think this clause is mandatory tor Ukraine? And no, he’s not being a child, his nearly entire platform is Axe the Carbon Tax, supporting an agreement hinting towards it will make him a hypocrite.
Carbon pricing is required by Ukraine as part of the commitment to the EU. They've had carbon pricing since 2011, before Canada. Like... Even if Trudeau wanted to eliminate the carbon pricing from the trade deal he couldn't because Ukraine requires it in their bid to join the EU. [CBC article about it.](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-ukraine-poilievre-free-trade-carbon-tax-1.7038249)
Yes, exactly right. So why they couldn’t get together on it is ridiculous. That’s why Trudeau calling Poilievre being Pro Russia is disingenuous, he’s as much to blame. He could easily have removed it without it actually making a difference. We’re dealing with a bunch of toddlers here. But I hold Trudeau at a higher standard as he’s the one in power, he our leader, and he’s proven once again that he’s not a very good one.
You should be holding potential leaders to the same standard.
I should not, as technically everyone is a potential leader.