I accept your argument vis a vis the trade team. I’m 100% with them and Carney
This guy isn’t part of the team he’s an interloper/subverter/disrupter trying his damndest to turn us over to the US via acquisition.
He’s a traitor Fred. He may not be brandishing a gun but he’s endeavouring to radicalize and weaponize disenfranchised kids using a version of Prosperity Gospel.
I’m heartened by the teams approach to not running to make a deal.
Our strength is in waiting and negotiating. The truly tough part will be dealing with the zero sum transaction strategy of the US and the vicious remarks.
Carney has put together a good cross sectional team. He has my support.
The fact that he sees past the horizon versus the paycheque next week encourages me and tells me good things will come.
What I hate, and I make no excuses for it, are those who choose not to build and better the country for the sake of all but rather look to personal gratification and enrichment for themselves.
My Alberta is part of Canada, the whole of it.
My Alberta and Canada are made for all of us, not some of us
We need to either revamp our legal definition of Traitor, or put in place laws that require governmental approval of any opposition MP wanting to travel to any other country to “meet with their leaders”. NO ONE is supposed to be doing g any of this except elected representatives of the sitting government!
This IS going to cause trouble and I truly believe this iteration of the Conservative Party are actively working FOR THE USA and against Canada!
Alexis... I understand the instinct to tighten things up when something feels off.
But we’ve got to be careful about jumping straight to restricting travel or redefining “traitor.” In a democracy, MPs do meet with foreign officials...
that’s part of diplomacy, even from the opposition side.
The issue here isn’t that conversations happen.
It’s when and how they happen.
During a sensitive, high-stakes negotiation, there has to be discipline around messaging...
one team, one voice.
That’s how you protect leverage.
You don’t fix that by shutting everyone down.
You fix it by making sure the lines are clear… and respected.
While it is true that opposition politicians ARE allowed to meet with foreign heads of state etc.,those meetings are supposed to be governed by constitutional convention, protocol and transparency laws. None of this is happening with the constant flow of opposition MPs travelling to the US to meet with their politicians, while the Opposition Leader continuously says he has no problem with them doing that and it’s
up to them if they want to do so. This is not normal. This IS an extremist right wing group meeting up with another extremist right wing group and planning something! Otherwise there would be no reason for them to go, considering t the country they are continuously visiting is currently treating us like we8re the bloody enemy and threatening our country and our people!
I don't ever remember opposition MPs traveling around trying to "make deals". You have no say. Your job is to stay home and hold the government to account. You're not in the driver seat.
Eric... I get what you’re saying, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Opposition MPs do travel and meet with foreign officials from time to time...
that’s not unusual, and it’s part of broader parliamentary and diplomatic engagement.
But you’ve hit on the part that actually matters…
They’re not the ones negotiating deals.
That’s the government’s job, through its appointed team.
So the issue isn’t “they should never leave the country.”
It’s that during a sensitive negotiation, those conversations need to stay aligned with the official position... or at the very least, not cut across it.
Because once mixed signals start floating around, the other side doesn’t ignore them…
Which is why these rogues need to stay home and keep their mouths shut. Because they are antithetical to what the government is attempting to accomplish. And if they can’t keep their big noses out of it, and stop trying to pretend they have standing.
There is always someone or something that will derail a good thing. For us, we have Smith and Moe and Jovani. The three stooges who can't see beyond their navels, comprehending nothing more than their own, self centered goals. Smith, the American wannabee, Moe the I only know Saskatchewan(what's Canada) and Jovani, I am JD's best friend.
But I try not to reduce it to personalities or labels.
That usually turns the whole thing into noise.
The bigger issue is structure.
When Canada’s heading into something this big, it only works if everyone sticks to the same lane... one message, one negotiating team, no side channels.
Once different voices start pulling in different directions, it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong… it weakens the position.
But they’re doing it without regard for the best interests of all Canadians. They’re doing it for their own narcissistic satisfaction - or however you wanna frame it. Regardless, they are a clear and present danger.
I didn't like when I heard Jivani was seeing JD Couch Boy and then PP Pants making overtures that they have no place making. It smelled to me like they want to sabotage the negotiations so that Carney comes out looking bad. Carney is eating PP's lunch right now and he'll do anything to try to knock him down a notch.
Absolutely agree 100%!!! I have posted several times this exact thinking and although it seems Carney has taken this calmly by saying there is only one negotiator, my opinion is Jivani should have charges brought against him for something very close to treason. Who knows what inside information he is taking with him and either accidentally or not, divulge a negotiating position to the Americans? Canada could end up losing millions if not billions in negotiating position because of this. At the very least PP should expel him from the party since is now the second time it has happened. He should also be barred from running for public office on the simple grounds he is untrustworthy and most certainly not a team player.
Well, Fred, I admire and enjoy your work and you have seen and replied to my comments before. I simply cannot agree with your reply this time.
I don’t believe anybody would dispute in today’s environment that “war” can mean more than simply going head to head with an adversary on a battlefield. I believe this country is in a fight for our very survival as a sovereign nation in our “trade-war” with the USA. Meaning that, in that same context, the USA becomes the “enemy” or “adversary”. For that reason I believe it is well within reason to substitute the word “Trade-war” each time the simple word “war” is mentioned in the following definitions of the word “Treason”.
Treason is the crime of betraying one's country by attempting to overthrow its government, aiding its enemies, or attempting to kill its leader. It represents a severe violation of allegiance, typically involving acts like spying or armed insurrection. Historically and legally, it is often termed "high treason" to distinguish it from smaller betrayals.
Key Aspects of Treason
Definition: The betrayal of trust or allegiance to a state authority, involving acts that threaten the security of the nation.
Common Acts: Examples include levying war against one's own country, assisting enemy forces during wartime, or attempting to harm or kill the head of state.
Legal Definitions (Canada): Canadian law includes using force to overthrow the government, passing sensitive military/scientific info to a foreign state, and high treason (e.g., harming the monarch).
Origin: The word originates from the Latin traditio (betrayal, "handing over"), sharing a root with "tradition".
Department of Justice Canada:
Common Examples of Treasonous Behavior
Espionage: Passing national secrets to an adversary.
Insurrection: Actively trying to overthrow the government.
Aiding Enemies: Giving comfort or assistance to a nation at war with one's own.
Wikipedia:
Treason is often used in broader contexts, though it generally refers specifically to illegal, subversive actions against the state.
Sometimes when the object is wide and flat and used to shovel earth from the ground, it actually is a spade. Let’s call it what it is.
Ok, I’ll buy that. But if you recall, my first reply said “something very close to treason”. The Canadian ambassador to the USA was supposedly present at those meetings and I would be questioning him very carefully as to the exact content at the meeting, word for word, and likely Carney is getting that information, so he will be in position to decide if and how to proceed.
Because Jivani is too stupid, ignorant and arrogant to have any ability or understanding about stuff he needs to keep to himself. He’s just a loose cannon. So with all due respect, we do need to be talking a lot about the dangers this “opposition team” poses to our national wellbeing. 🇨🇦
Hmm someone speaking out of turn during sensitive negotiations!?!?!? Im not talking about Canada here, im talking about a certain orange bloviator who couldn't find his ass with his hands cuffed behind his back. I fully appreciate the tenets you espoused here. Negotiated settlements need to be strict and regimented and working towards a common goal. Yours is a wayward politician, ours is a wayward toddler.
Deirdre... I’d be careful with the word “treasonous.”
That’s a very specific legal threshold, and based on what’s publicly known, I don’t think we’re anywhere near that territory.
What I do think is fair to say is this...
Side conversations and unofficial messaging during a sensitive negotiation can absolutely be harmful if they create confusion or weaken Canada’s leverage.
And that’s serious enough on its own.
You don’t need to escalate it into “treason” to recognize why people are uncomfortable with it.
Fred, just for clarity -- you did mean JJ here, right? That's not who's in the picture that heads your message, though (and to whom your arrow points). Well, unless he's had a whole bunch of reconstructive surgery and is wearing a toupee.
Agreed. In fact, PP literally said as such, when asked about Jivani’s latest “trade mission”: something along the lines of politicians, provinces, and businesses are always crossing the border to arrange deals, etc.
I’m pretty sure Jivani is nowhere near source material. He is a traitorous tRunt
Bill... I get the frustration, but I try not to go down the “traitor” road.
That’s a heavy word, and once it’s out there, the conversation usually stops being useful.
The concern here isn’t motive... it’s discipline.
When you’ve got a formal negotiating team handling something this big, anyone operating outside that lane...
even with good intentions... can muddy the waters.
And in negotiations, confusion is leverage… just not for us.
That’s the part I’m focused on.
I accept your argument vis a vis the trade team. I’m 100% with them and Carney
This guy isn’t part of the team he’s an interloper/subverter/disrupter trying his damndest to turn us over to the US via acquisition.
He’s a traitor Fred. He may not be brandishing a gun but he’s endeavouring to radicalize and weaponize disenfranchised kids using a version of Prosperity Gospel.
Sorry no apologies for that.
Bill... I hear you, and I appreciate you sticking with the core point about backing the negotiating team.
Where I draw the line is the “traitor” label.
That’s a serious charge, and once we go there, the conversation usually stops being about what actually matters.
For me, this comes down to discipline and roles.
If you’re not part of the negotiating team, you shouldn’t be freelancing conversations that could be interpreted as Canada’s position... full stop.
You don’t need to assume the worst motives to see the risk.
Mixed signals alone are enough to weaken a deal this big… and that’s what I’m focused on.
I’m heartened by the teams approach to not running to make a deal.
Our strength is in waiting and negotiating. The truly tough part will be dealing with the zero sum transaction strategy of the US and the vicious remarks.
Carney has put together a good cross sectional team. He has my support.
The fact that he sees past the horizon versus the paycheque next week encourages me and tells me good things will come.
What I hate, and I make no excuses for it, are those who choose not to build and better the country for the sake of all but rather look to personal gratification and enrichment for themselves.
My Alberta is part of Canada, the whole of it.
My Alberta and Canada are made for all of us, not some of us
He’s a treasonous prick and circus ugly!
We need to either revamp our legal definition of Traitor, or put in place laws that require governmental approval of any opposition MP wanting to travel to any other country to “meet with their leaders”. NO ONE is supposed to be doing g any of this except elected representatives of the sitting government!
This IS going to cause trouble and I truly believe this iteration of the Conservative Party are actively working FOR THE USA and against Canada!
Alexis... I understand the instinct to tighten things up when something feels off.
But we’ve got to be careful about jumping straight to restricting travel or redefining “traitor.” In a democracy, MPs do meet with foreign officials...
that’s part of diplomacy, even from the opposition side.
The issue here isn’t that conversations happen.
It’s when and how they happen.
During a sensitive, high-stakes negotiation, there has to be discipline around messaging...
one team, one voice.
That’s how you protect leverage.
You don’t fix that by shutting everyone down.
You fix it by making sure the lines are clear… and respected.
While it is true that opposition politicians ARE allowed to meet with foreign heads of state etc.,those meetings are supposed to be governed by constitutional convention, protocol and transparency laws. None of this is happening with the constant flow of opposition MPs travelling to the US to meet with their politicians, while the Opposition Leader continuously says he has no problem with them doing that and it’s
up to them if they want to do so. This is not normal. This IS an extremist right wing group meeting up with another extremist right wing group and planning something! Otherwise there would be no reason for them to go, considering t the country they are continuously visiting is currently treating us like we8re the bloody enemy and threatening our country and our people!
Problem Fred, is that it appears that an opposition MP is not respecting the rules, in any sense of the word.
I don't ever remember opposition MPs traveling around trying to "make deals". You have no say. Your job is to stay home and hold the government to account. You're not in the driver seat.
Eric... I get what you’re saying, but it’s a bit more nuanced than that.
Opposition MPs do travel and meet with foreign officials from time to time...
that’s not unusual, and it’s part of broader parliamentary and diplomatic engagement.
But you’ve hit on the part that actually matters…
They’re not the ones negotiating deals.
That’s the government’s job, through its appointed team.
So the issue isn’t “they should never leave the country.”
It’s that during a sensitive negotiation, those conversations need to stay aligned with the official position... or at the very least, not cut across it.
Because once mixed signals start floating around, the other side doesn’t ignore them…
they use them.
Which is why these rogues need to stay home and keep their mouths shut. Because they are antithetical to what the government is attempting to accomplish. And if they can’t keep their big noses out of it, and stop trying to pretend they have standing.
That is disgusting and I wish Carney could do something about it. I also hope Carney has very good security
Lb... I understand the reaction.
But I wouldn’t jump to thinking this is a security issue or something out of control.
There are protocols in place, and the negotiating team isn’t operating blind.
They know how this works, and they factor in noise, side comments, and political theatre on both sides.
The real concern isn’t safety... it’s clarity.
The stronger and more consistent Canada’s official position is, the harder it is for anything on the sidelines to matter.
That’s where the focus needs to stay.
There is always someone or something that will derail a good thing. For us, we have Smith and Moe and Jovani. The three stooges who can't see beyond their navels, comprehending nothing more than their own, self centered goals. Smith, the American wannabee, Moe the I only know Saskatchewan(what's Canada) and Jovani, I am JD's best friend.
Ron... I get the frustration.
But I try not to reduce it to personalities or labels.
That usually turns the whole thing into noise.
The bigger issue is structure.
When Canada’s heading into something this big, it only works if everyone sticks to the same lane... one message, one negotiating team, no side channels.
Once different voices start pulling in different directions, it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong… it weakens the position.
That’s the part that concerns me.
But they’re doing it without regard for the best interests of all Canadians. They’re doing it for their own narcissistic satisfaction - or however you wanna frame it. Regardless, they are a clear and present danger.
Follow the money. Who will gain if Canada is weakened in the negotiations?
Joanna... “follow the money” is never a bad instinct.
There are always interests on both sides...
industries, regions, companies...
all trying to tilt outcomes their way.
But zooming out a bit…
This isn’t just about who might gain if Canada is weakened.
It’s about how easily leverage gets handed away when the message isn’t tight.
Negotiations don’t usually fall apart because of one big betrayal.
They erode through small leaks, mixed signals, and competing agendas.
That’s why the discipline matters more than the personalities.
I didn't like when I heard Jivani was seeing JD Couch Boy and then PP Pants making overtures that they have no place making. It smelled to me like they want to sabotage the negotiations so that Carney comes out looking bad. Carney is eating PP's lunch right now and he'll do anything to try to knock him down a notch.
Frank... I get why it comes across that way.
Anytime there are side conversations during something this big, people start wondering what the angle is.
I try not to jump straight to motives though.
What I do see clearly is that mixed messaging...
whatever the reason behind it...
weakens the overall position.
And in a negotiation like this, that’s the last thing you want.
If there’s one thing that matters here, it’s keeping the approach tight and coordinated.
Everything else just becomes noise the other side can use.
Absolutely agree 100%!!! I have posted several times this exact thinking and although it seems Carney has taken this calmly by saying there is only one negotiator, my opinion is Jivani should have charges brought against him for something very close to treason. Who knows what inside information he is taking with him and either accidentally or not, divulge a negotiating position to the Americans? Canada could end up losing millions if not billions in negotiating position because of this. At the very least PP should expel him from the party since is now the second time it has happened. He should also be barred from running for public office on the simple grounds he is untrustworthy and most certainly not a team player.
David... I get where the frustration is coming from.
When the stakes are this high, even the appearance of mixed messaging makes people uneasy.
And that’s the real issue here...
not just what’s said, but what the other side thinks they’re hearing.
That said, throwing around words like “treason” probably takes us off track more than it helps.
This isn’t about criminal intent...
it’s about discipline and structure during a high-stakes negotiation.
There’s a clear lane here...
If you’re on the negotiating team, you speak.
If you’re not, you don’t freelance the message.
Because like you said...
even a small slip, even an offhand comment, can get used as leverage.
That’s how these deals are won or lost…
quietly, long before anyone signs anything.
And that’s why “Team Canada” only works if everyone actually plays as a team.
Well, Fred, I admire and enjoy your work and you have seen and replied to my comments before. I simply cannot agree with your reply this time.
I don’t believe anybody would dispute in today’s environment that “war” can mean more than simply going head to head with an adversary on a battlefield. I believe this country is in a fight for our very survival as a sovereign nation in our “trade-war” with the USA. Meaning that, in that same context, the USA becomes the “enemy” or “adversary”. For that reason I believe it is well within reason to substitute the word “Trade-war” each time the simple word “war” is mentioned in the following definitions of the word “Treason”.
Treason is the crime of betraying one's country by attempting to overthrow its government, aiding its enemies, or attempting to kill its leader. It represents a severe violation of allegiance, typically involving acts like spying or armed insurrection. Historically and legally, it is often termed "high treason" to distinguish it from smaller betrayals.
Key Aspects of Treason
Definition: The betrayal of trust or allegiance to a state authority, involving acts that threaten the security of the nation.
Common Acts: Examples include levying war against one's own country, assisting enemy forces during wartime, or attempting to harm or kill the head of state.
Legal Definitions (Canada): Canadian law includes using force to overthrow the government, passing sensitive military/scientific info to a foreign state, and high treason (e.g., harming the monarch).
Origin: The word originates from the Latin traditio (betrayal, "handing over"), sharing a root with "tradition".
Department of Justice Canada:
Common Examples of Treasonous Behavior
Espionage: Passing national secrets to an adversary.
Insurrection: Actively trying to overthrow the government.
Aiding Enemies: Giving comfort or assistance to a nation at war with one's own.
Wikipedia:
Treason is often used in broader contexts, though it generally refers specifically to illegal, subversive actions against the state.
Sometimes when the object is wide and flat and used to shovel earth from the ground, it actually is a spade. Let’s call it what it is.
David... I appreciate the thought you put into that. Seriously.
And you’re right about one thing...
conflict today doesn’t always look like tanks and soldiers.
Economic pressure, trade leverage, political influence...
that’s all part of the modern landscape.
Where we part ways is on the word treason.
Not because I don’t understand the definition...
you laid that out clearly...
but because applying it here skips a few critical steps.
Canada is not at war with the United States.
We’re in a hard negotiation with our biggest trading partner.
That distinction matters... legally and practically.
Treason, under Canadian law, is tied to very specific actions...
use of force, aiding an enemy in a state of war,
or passing sensitive information in ways that threaten national security.
What we’re seeing here... at least based on what’s publicly known...
is political freelancing during a sensitive negotiation.
That’s not nothing.
But it’s not the same as espionage or actively working against the state in a legal sense.
And here’s why I stay in that lane…
You don’t need the word “treason” to make the case that this is a problem.
If someone outside the negotiating team is creating mixed signals, even unintentionally, that alone can weaken Canada’s position.
That’s enough to criticize... and fix...
without escalating it into something it legally isn’t.
Because once we move into labels that strong, the conversation shifts from what’s happening… to arguing about the label itself.
And then we lose the plot.
For me, the focus stays simple...
High-stakes negotiation → one team → one message → no side channels.
Everything else just muddies the water…
and the other side will happily use that.
Ok, I’ll buy that. But if you recall, my first reply said “something very close to treason”. The Canadian ambassador to the USA was supposedly present at those meetings and I would be questioning him very carefully as to the exact content at the meeting, word for word, and likely Carney is getting that information, so he will be in position to decide if and how to proceed.
Because Jivani is too stupid, ignorant and arrogant to have any ability or understanding about stuff he needs to keep to himself. He’s just a loose cannon. So with all due respect, we do need to be talking a lot about the dangers this “opposition team” poses to our national wellbeing. 🇨🇦
Hmm someone speaking out of turn during sensitive negotiations!?!?!? Im not talking about Canada here, im talking about a certain orange bloviator who couldn't find his ass with his hands cuffed behind his back. I fully appreciate the tenets you espoused here. Negotiated settlements need to be strict and regimented and working towards a common goal. Yours is a wayward politician, ours is a wayward toddler.
I hear you... and yeah, loose lips in any country can complicate things fast.
But that’s kind of the point I’m making here…
This isn’t about who’s louder or more chaotic.
It’s about keeping your own side tight when the stakes are high.
You can’t control what the other team does.
You can control how disciplined your own team is.
And when you’re heading into a trillion-dollar negotiation, discipline isn’t optional...
it’s the whole game.
I hear you... and yeah, loose lips in any country can complicate things fast.
But that’s kind of the point I’m making here…
This isn’t about who’s louder or more chaotic.
It’s about keeping your own side tight when the stakes are high.
You can’t control what the other team does.
You can control how disciplined your own team is.
And when you’re heading into a trillion-dollar negotiation, discipline isn’t optional...
it’s the whole game.
Agreed Fred, a cohesive, tight confrontation is what it will take to make a deal that works for Canada.
Great post Fred!!!! The losers should stand aside, shut their mouths & let the winner do his job, that they cannot do with 1000 helpers!!!!
Patsy... appreciate that.
I wouldn’t frame it as “winners and losers,” but I do agree on the core point…
When something this big is on the table, it works best when the negotiating team has the space to do their job without extra noise.
Too many voices pulling in different directions doesn’t strengthen a position... it weakens it.
That’s the part that matters.
Absolutely Fred!!!!
Thank you for an eye opening article.
I imagine it might be Ford, Smith talking on their own but who else.
Sandi... there are always multiple players in the mix.
Premiers like Doug Ford and Danielle Smith have their own economic priorities, so they’ll naturally be active...
especially when it affects their provinces directly.
Same goes for industry groups, trade reps, and yes, even MPs having conversations.
But again, that’s not unusual.
What matters is whether all those moving parts stay aligned with the national strategy when it counts.
Because once that alignment slips, even a little…
That’s when the other side starts finding leverage.
Very insightful
Could this sort of quasi negotiation with US be treasonous??
Deirdre... I’d be careful with the word “treasonous.”
That’s a very specific legal threshold, and based on what’s publicly known, I don’t think we’re anywhere near that territory.
What I do think is fair to say is this...
Side conversations and unofficial messaging during a sensitive negotiation can absolutely be harmful if they create confusion or weaken Canada’s leverage.
And that’s serious enough on its own.
You don’t need to escalate it into “treason” to recognize why people are uncomfortable with it.
Thank you for the clarification, Fred.
Not helpful would be a more appropriate term.
Who cares what Jivanni does he is just a goof.
Fred, just for clarity -- you did mean JJ here, right? That's not who's in the picture that heads your message, though (and to whom your arrow points). Well, unless he's had a whole bunch of reconstructive surgery and is wearing a toupee.
Grant... fair catch on the image.
I’m not trying to suggest that’s Jamil Jivani in the picture.
It’s a symbolic header, not a lineup photo.
The bigger point stands though…
He’s not the only Conservative who’s been heading south to meddle in Canada’s business during a sensitive negotiation window.
And that’s the part people should be paying attention to... not the haircut.
Agreed. In fact, PP literally said as such, when asked about Jivani’s latest “trade mission”: something along the lines of politicians, provinces, and businesses are always crossing the border to arrange deals, etc.