Latest news with #Caucus
Toronto Sun
6 days ago
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
John Rustad accuses former B.C. Conservative MLAs of blackmail
Caucus told former colleagues, staff threatening to release secret phone recordings, text messages Published Jun 16, 2025 • Last updated 44 minutes ago • 3 minute read B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad says the targets are being blackmailed to get them to take jobs or contracts with the former Conservatives. Photo by Arlen Redekop / PNG B.C. Conservative Leader John Rustad is accusing a group of legislators who split from the party of blackmailing his MLAs and staff in a bid to take over and divide the Opposition. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Rustad has confirmed the authenticity of a letter obtained by The Canadian Press in which he tells the Conservative caucus that their former colleagues and staff are threatening to release 'blackmail materials,' including secretly recorded phone conversations and text messages. 'We will not allow ourselves to be lowered by manipulative, dishonest, and malicious actions of people who see fit to, potentially criminally, blackmail others,' Rustad says in the letter. 'This is sociopathic behaviour.' He said in an interview on Monday that the letter was authentic and the party was considering whether to call in the RCMP. The letter says the targets are being blackmailed to get them to take jobs or contracts with the former Conservatives, or to 'do or say certain things' if they want to prevent the materials being leaked. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'From what I have been told, the threat is framed as something like: we will pay you handsomely to join with us, we will damage you if you refuse,' Rustad says in the letter. Rustad doesn't name the former Conservatives, but Dallas Brodie, who was ejected from the caucus in March, said in a statement on Monday that the letter consists of 'wild lies' and 'baseless, false, and defamatory' accusations about the new OneBC party, which she launched with fellow former Conservative Tara Armstrong last week. She said Rustad and his team 'rigged' the Conservatives' March annual general meeting that endorsed his 'Team Rustad' slate of executive candidates, alleging the meeting was stacked stacking the meeting with people paid 'to vote the way Mr. Rustad wanted.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Dallas Brodie (centre) was ejected from the B.C. Conservative caucus in January, and Jordan Kealy (left) and Tara Armstrong quit in solidarity. Photo by Alec Lazenby Rustad's letter denied any that. He said in the letter that some in the party were surprised at a large number of South Asian party members at the AGM, and that 'individuals' had paid for the whole group's transport to the Nanaimo meeting. He said he understood why 'people who have not participated in organized political parties before may be surprised by this.' But he said 'group-based political organizing occurs quite often in politics and is not unique to the South Asian community.' 'I have been advised by our legal counsel and experts, who were present to scrutinize the voting process that our AGM was 100 per cent in line with this party's 2024-25 constitution,' he said. Rustad said in the interview that he could not offer any details about what kinds of jobs were allegedly being offered to the targeted Conservatives. 'I wasn't party to those conversations, so I would be saying it third hand,' he said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The letter says one former Conservative staffer, whom it did not identify, called 'multiple individuals in order to explicitly blackmail them.' Rustad said in the letter that the former colleagues were 'trying to sink our party, sour our caucus, and break apart the powerful movement' that Conservatives have built. Asked about his characterization of their alleged behaviour as sociopathic, Rustad said 'certainly, it is not normal.' Brodie was thrown out of the party over remarks about residential schools, prompting Armstrong and Jordan Kealy to quit the party in sympathy. Armstrong said she won't comment beyond the statement Brodie issued, while Kealy, who still sits as an Independent, said he had no involvement in the alleged blackmail. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Brodie's statement said that there was a 'mountain of evidence' demonstrating the rigging of the annual general meeting, 'including photographs, emails, audio recordings, detailed written statements and public statements and interviews from various AGM attendees' and 'a personal confession by a senior Rustad staff member.' Brodie, Armstrong and Kealy came forward with claims about vote-rigging on May 28. Armstrong said at the time that an unnamed senior member of Rustad's team told her the party paid about $100,000, using that member's personal credit card, to transport more than 100 men to Nanaimo to 'rig the election' in favour of Rustad. She did not name the person or offer any other evidence. Rustad's letter suggested there was nothing unusual about Conservative riding association funds being used to sponsor delegates to attend the meeting. 'Hundreds of people, the vast majority of whom were Caucasian (not that it should matter), were ultimately sponsored by our caucus members via funds from your riding associations — at your specific direction as MLAs,' he told the caucus. Read More
West Australian
14-06-2025
- Business
- West Australian
Important first State Budget following landslide election for ambitious Rita Saffioti
It's a no-brainer to suggest Thursday's State Budget is important for the re-elected Cook Labor Government. Every Budget is important. But this is the first Budget after Labor's smashing of the Liberals at the March State election. So: people who voted for Labor — and that's the majority of West Aussies — will be eagerly awaiting their 'post-election dividend' on Thursday. But equally, this is an important Budget for the hard-nosed and driven Rita Saffioti, who will deliver her second Budget and, as Treasurer, has been a driving force behind how the Government's billions in royalties and GST payments are divvied up for next financial year. So, these days, where's Saffioti at in terms of future ambitions? I'm reliably told Saffioti still harbours a burning desire to be Labor's next premier. The size of Roger Cook's win in March — for mine, Labor's greatest victory since it won power in 2017 — has made the likelihood of the Kwinana MP retiring before the next election less than it would otherwise have been. Nevertheless, despite Cook's line that he is 'only just getting started' in terms of his premiership, I am unconvinced he will recontest the 2029 poll. I'm told Saffioti is still hoping to lead Labor to the next election. Her main rival is Energy Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson. I can confidently predict that should Sanderson get the nod to be Premier — if Cook resigns before the next poll — Saffioti will retire from politics quicker than an Italian Nonna can knock up a plate of spaghetti bolognaise. If Saffioti is to become Labor's next leader, she needs to be an outstanding Treasurer. Thursday is a big day for her. There's a few things for her to achieve this Budget. Saffioti needs to make sure WA's AAA credit rating remains intact; she needs to appease the business community; she needs to appease the general community; and she needs to appease Caucus. It's Caucus — under instructions from unions — that will vote for Labor's next leader. And my mail (from senior Labor sources) is that a number of backbenchers are getting a bit testy about where the Government's billions are being spent. Hands up who remembers Colin Barnett's Emperor's Palace? Barnett's $26 million decision to relocate his office and the Cabinet room from rented accommodation in Governor Stirling Tower to the heritage-listed Hale House — instead of joining his ministers at Dumas House — was lambasted by Labor in opposition, in which Saffioti was finance spokesperson. Barnett moved into Hale House in 2012, at a time state debt had climbed from $3.6 billion to $19b under his rein. Labor pointed to the Hale House project as further proof of Barnett's and the Liberals' arrogance. Saffioti is the driving force behind a $217 million 'world-class motorsport street circuit.' That's what Labor called the project when it first publicly floated it in The Sunday Times in June last year. 'Imagine the noise, atmosphere and crowds as V8s fly around a new and specially designed racetrack in Burswood Park, just a stone's throw from the city. It'll be incredible,' Saffioti said at the time. These days, Saffioti calls it an entertainment precinct, because it includes a 20,000-seat amphitheatre for concerts and the like. Regardless of what you call it, backbenchers — and I'm sure members of the public who aren't revheads, are questioning whether that $217m could be better spent elsewhere. Will people think spending $65m on basing a new NRL side to Perth is a justifiable expense? Roger Cook might, but what about if you are one of 22,000 West Australians currently waiting, on average, 154 weeks for social housing? Labor's Budget will be inked in black — not red, like the Budgets of governments across the Nullarbor. The quarterly financial results released just a few weeks ago already show an operating surplus of $2.8b for the first nine months of this financial year. Saffioti will, on Budget day, detail spending on hundreds of millions of dollars in health, education and social housing. Great. But sometimes it takes just one project, one example of wasteful spending, to smear an administration. And mud sticks. Just ask The Emperor.
Globe and Mail
12-06-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Mark Carney's early moves are making the Conservatives look like waterboys
Ever since the election, the Conservative Party has been giving off strong 'loser energy' vibes. It's not simply that the party failed to form government, or even that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre lost his own seat (though it certainly doesn't help that he's forced to press his nose up against the House's stained glass windows). It's more so the air of flailing insecurity: selecting one of the safest Conservative seats in the country for Mr. Poilievre to run in a by-election; appointing a shadow cabinet of a whopping 74 MPs to keep caucus content, and thus less likely to call for the Leader's head; calling for 'severe limits' on population growth but running away when asked to elaborate. It seems like the Conservatives, humbled and humiliated, have no idea what to do with themselves now. Robyn Urback: Mark Carney is making himself the moonshot Prime Minister – for better or for worse What's worse for the party is that Mark Carney is making big moves on many of the files on which the Conservatives have long demanded action. Last week, the Carney government tabled its 'One Canadian Economy' bill that provides a framework for fast-tracking major infrastructure projects that promises to 'substantially reduce the burden of federal rules that apply to trade across provincial and territorial borders.' The bill alone does not eliminate interprovincial trade barriers by July 1, as Mr. Carney promised, but even Mr. Poilievre acknowledged it is a 'small step,' before insisting that the government must go even further. Then the Carney government tabled a border bill that, among other things, significantly narrows the window during which refugees are eligible to claim asylum in Canada and allows the government to cancel the processing of immigration applications en masse in certain circumstances. It's precisely the type of bill that the Conservatives would have introduced had they won a plurality of seats in April, instead of the Liberals. On that one, Mr. Poilievre didn't muster much of a response at all. This week, Mr. Carney announced that he was accelerating his government's plan to reach NATO's target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence, promising that Canada will reach the target this fiscal year – five years earlier than planned. He said the government would move ahead with purchasing new equipment such as submarines and icebreakers, but added that much of the new spending will be in operational expenses, for a bigger, better-funded military. Mr. Poilievre, who promised during the campaign that his government would reach NATO's spending target by 2030, had no choice but to offer his support for the plan. What else could he say? That he didn't like the look of Mr. Carney's tie during the announcement? There will certainly be more talk about dumping Mr. Poilievre as Leader, particularly if the party's numbers continue to tank post-election (the latest Nanos poll has the Liberals 10 points ahead of the Conservatives). And while Mr. Poilievre shoulders much of the blame for his party's loss, its current predicament is just as much, or perhaps even more, about actions by the Prime Minister as it is about the Conservative Leader. Mr. Carney, unlike his predecessor, is actually making big moves on major files, and unfortunately for the Conservatives' narrow political interests, many of those moves happen to come from their own playbook. That necessarily makes the Conservatives look like waterboys, trying to sheepishly call out suggestions to the quarterback. Sometimes the party will have something important and substantial to oppose, such as the new powers of surveillance granted to authorities that the Liberals have embedded in their border-security bill. But it's hard to get anyone to pay attention to guys handing out cups of Gatorade on the bench while the actual players are on the field. The Conservatives are in a tough spot right now, and that would likely be the case with anyone at the helm. But there are ways for the Conservatives to tamp down on their 'loser energy.' They can, for example, give the government genuine credit where it is due, as many Canadians who didn't vote for Mr. Carney already seem to be doing. That would make them look like grown-ups – actual players – instead of sore losers trained to reflexively oppose. They can resist the urge to fall back on lazy talking points about Liberal waste and instead focus on a few narrow but important issues specific to the Carney government. And they can continue to talk about big ideas, so long as they actually stick around to explain them. But regardless of how the party navigates the next few months, it seems likely that the Conservatives will be a largely peripheral political force for the next little while. That's the problem with having a quarterback who actually marches downfield: no one pays attention to who is sitting on the bench.
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Extremely rewarding day meeting U.S. congressmen, senators at Capitol Hill: Tharoor
The multi-party delegation of Indian parliamentarians had an 'extremely rewarding' day meeting U.S. Congressmen and Senators at Capitol Hill, briefing them about Operation Sindoor and India's fight against terrorism, leader Shashi Tharoor said. 'Spending a day on Capitol Hill has been extremely rewarding because we were able to meet many Congressmen, Senators,' Mr. Tharoor said during a conversation at The National Press Club here on Wednesday. The delegation, which arrived from India on May 24, travelled to Guyana, Panama, Colombia, and Brazil before visiting Washington for the final leg of the tour. 'Broadly, what we are seeking to do in every country is to explain our version of events, our experience over the last few weeks, to seek the solidarity and understanding of those we meet. And I'm very pleased to say that so far, our batting average is over 100,' Mr. Tharoor said. He said every single person the delegation met so far immediately not only condemned resolutely the terrorist attack upon India, expressed their outrage and sympathy, but also explicitly endorsed India's right to defend itself against terrorism. 'This kind of understanding has been most welcome,' he said, adding that "we left the Hill very pleased with the quality of the conversations, the level of interest". 'There is tremendous interest in every country and on the Hill in strengthening relations with India across the board. It's not just a question of standing with us against terror. They are also thinking positively about economic development cooperation, trade, investment." Later, addressing a press conference at the Indian Embassy, Mr. Tharoor said that in the delegation's meeting with US lawmakers and Congressmen at Capitol Hill, 'we didn't have a single sceptical or negative voice". "What we got was a very, very positive response,' he said. "We had a very good session." He said the two key lines he would use were total support and solidarity for India in its fight against terrorism, and complete understanding of India's right to defend itself against terrorism. On both these points, 'very, very clear'. The delegation met bipartisan co-chairs of the India Caucus in the House of Representatives, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Rich McCormick, and vice co-chairs Congressman Andy Barr and Marc Veasey. The parliamentary delegation briefed the Caucus members "on the cross-border terrorism faced by India and India's strong and resolute stance in the fight against terror". "The congressmen expressed unequivocal and bipartisan condemnation for the terror attack in Pahalgam. They expressed support for India's right to respond to terrorism in the spirit of zero tolerance against terrorism. The Caucus members also hailed the strong strategic partnership between India and the U.S.,' the Indian Embassy said on X. The team held a 'candid and fruitful exchange' with House Foreign Affairs Committee leadership, including chair representative Brian Mast, ranking member representative Gregory Meeks, South and Central Asia subcommittee chair Rep. Bill Huizenga, ranking member congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, ranking member representative Ami Bera and East Asia and Pacific subcommittee representative Young Kim. 'The parliamentary delegation briefed the committee members on the success of Operation Sindoor in defining a new normal in India's fight against cross-border terrorism. The committee leadership condemned the Pahalgam attack unequivocally. India and the US stand together in their unwavering resolve and fight against terrorism in all its forms,' the Embassy said on X. Responding to a question about Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick recently saying there were certain things the Indian government did that generally rubbed the United States the wrong way, for instance buying its military gear from Russia, Mr. Tharoor said there had been a 'steady change' in the pattern of dependence on certain weapon suppliers. He said India still needs a lot of Russian spare parts, but "it's come down a lot from the peak", adding that by comparison, 81% of Pakistan's weapon systems and imports were from China. 'We don't have that kind of dependence. We've diversified, we have American weaponry, we're very much in the market for more, whatever the Americans are prepared to discuss with us and sell us, we certainly hope we'll move forward,' he said. Responding to a similar question during the press briefing at the Indian Embassy, delegation member Tejasvi Surya said the issue surfaced in a couple of discussions the delegation had. 'But we made it very clear to the Americans that, unlike Pakistan, whose bulk of armament and military hardware - 81% comes from China, India's military hardware is not only growing indigenously, but is also very diverse,' Mr. Surya said, adding India purchased military hardware from the United States, France, and Israel.
The Hill
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
House Republicans warn Senate not to touch SALT deal
Moderate House Republicans from high-tax blue states are warning senators that they will not give the 'big, beautiful bill' a final stamp of approval if they change their proposal for the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap. The shot across the Capitol came shortly after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters the upper chamber would likely tweak the SALT provision in the mammoth measure, one of several alterations. The House bill raises the SALT deduction cap to $40,000 — quadruple the $10,000 deduction cap in current law. A group of moderates in the House from New York, New Jersey and California has said they would not support the package unless it included substantial SALT relief. Those members are now warning that any changes to the provision could prevent the bill from passing the House once it is sent back from the Senate. 'If the Senate unwinds the House's $40K SALT deal, it's like digging up buried radioactive waste—reckless and sure to contaminate the whole One Big Beautiful Bill,' Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) wrote on X. 'Best to leave it alone.' He elaborated on his comments later, telling reporters he would encourage the Senate to keep their deal in place. 'The reason I've chosen that analogy is because the House took four months to get to where we could finally compromise, negotiate and settle on bill language as it relates to SALT and other interlocking and related provisions. So the Senate to disrupt that is to undo a lot of that painful work, to rip off some scabs, and to essentially restart the very painful process that we went through for four months,' he said. 'I would advise them to keep the bill intact. I respect the senators' prerogatives to exercise their constituents' priorities, but we worked really hard to get to the compromise bill that we got to, and it'd be a shame to have to restart.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), another member of the group, was more concise: 'Let's be clear — no SALT, no deal.' 'If the Senate changes the negotiated number of $40,000 — it will derail final passage of the bill,' Lawler wrote on X. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was a key player in brokering a SALT deal in the House, said he spoke with members of the Caucus on Wednesday, shortly after Thune signaled changes to their provision, and plans to make their case to the Senate. 'I just talked to my SALT Caucus on the floor and I'm gonna go communicate to the Senate, again, it's a very delicate thing, we have to maintain the equilibrium point that we reached in the House,' Johnson told reporters. 'And it took almost a year to get to that point so I don't think we can toss that off.' Asked if there is wiggle room around the $40,000 deduction cap, the Speaker was coy: 'I'm about to find out; we'll see.' The SALT deduction cap was always expected to be a battle in the Senate. While a number of vulnerable Republicans in the House care deeply about SALT, Senate Republicans don't even have members from New York, New Jersey or California. The issue came up for Senate Republicans at a conference-wide meeting on Wednesday, where some were itching to lower the cap but wary of gumming things up for Johnson. 'Our goal isn't to create a problem for the House, but we also know the Senate will put its mark on the bill,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). One Senate Republican indicated that some senators favor forcing the House SALT backers into supporting a lower ceiling. But they believe the easiest path is for the upper chamber to swallow its pride and defer to Johnson. 'It may be easier to say than do,' the Senate GOP member said. 'It would just screw the whole bill.' This senator said even lowering the ceiling from $40,000 to $30,000 could be risky since it might lead some of the House Republicans to vote against the bill. But the senator also suggested the SALT Republicans in the House could be bluffing. 'Is that enough to get you, because otherwise you say, 'I'm going to vote against the bill and for a $4 trillion tax increase as a Republican,'' the member continued. 'That's original sin there.' While Thune is signaling that the chamber will likely change the SALT provision, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) — a former House member and key liaison between the two chambers — is saying the opposite. 'It was a hard fight over there,' Mullin said, pointing to its roughly $300 billion cost. 'It's a big number, but it was something they had to do to try to get the bill passed. We don't want to do something that would cause it not to pass.' 'The body here is going to work its will,' he continued. 'I would be a little [skeptical] about doing too much with SALT.' House Republicans in the SALT Caucus are warning they aren't bluffing. 'I wouldn't bet against a couple of salty Republicans, including a couple of salty New Yorkers,' LaLota said. 'I wouldn't bet against us.' Pressed on if the Senate should take the SALT Caucus' comments as a signal that the House will not pass a bill with a lower deduction cap, LaLota responded: 'That would be reasonable for them to consider that.' Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), another member of the SALT Caucus, expressed confidence. 'The leadership is working and talking to the Senate on a regular basis and I'm very confident much of what we passed in the House will still be there,' Kim said. 'So I'm not gonna comment on how I'll be voting for it till I see the package that comes back to us.' 'We're already working to ensure that everything that we pass in the House is still kept in the Senate version,' she added. Asked if there was any wiggle room on their SALT deal, LaLota said: 'I'm eager to see what they actually come back with. I don't know why anybody would logically want to disrupt something that was the result of a lot of hard work, pain, heartache and ultimately compromise,' he added. When a reporter pointed out that his comments were not a firm no, he responded: 'I would love them to increase it. That would be a great idea if they came to us with $50,000, I would endorse it right away.'
