Unsecure and duplicitious disinformationist magaman says terrorists are burning down churches while blocking funds to help Ukrainians stop the terrorists burning down churches.
@NMBA because he voted against a free trade deal?
That's not exactly blocking funds.
@volkris
Just one example.
"And yet, just weeks after voting against the renewal of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, the CPC voted to cut funding to Operation Unifier. Clearly, the 1.36 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community see it for what it is: A vote against Ukraine’s victory, and a vote for Putin’s victory. If the Conservative Party of Canada is going to continue to make decisions that abandon Ukraine in its most desperate hour of need, they should tell their constituents as much."
But that letter is meant to be PR, persuasive, not solid reporting of what happened.
I see accounts like this, though:
"The spending estimates for the Department of National Defence include funding for Operation Unifier, an armed forces training mission for Ukrainian soldiers. The Conservatives voted against approving that estimate." [1]
Voting against etimates that included spending for the program may not have been the vote against the program that is being portrayed. I was looking for more solid evidence of that.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/late-night-house-of-commons-carbon-tax-1.7052741
@volkris
Conservatives: employ putin-maga lies to attack providing aid to Ukrainians:
"I really think it speaks to how pathologically obsessed Trudeau is with the carbon tax that, while the knife is at the throat of Ukrainians, he would use that to impose his carbon tax ideology on those poor people," Poilievre said in November.
Fact: The trade agreement imposes no obligation on the Ukrainian government to introduce a carbon tax and an EU trade agreement requires carbon taxes.
I don't know how things are in day to day politics in Canada, but in the US at least it's really clear that votes matter far more than what rhetoric some bloviating politician squawks out to a microphone.
That's why I was looking at specific voting. Talk is cheap, so I tend to dismiss whatever Poilievre may say, personally, maybe on behalf of a large group to engage with the even larger group of constituents.
