Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1663245957947858944

https://twitter.com/user/status/1663246932473413665

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Ultimately, I think it comes down to how much weight people give anonymous intelligence leaks. Personally, I give them almost none, because I'm naturally suspicious of intelligence agencies themselves, never mind random people who have whatever motives for leaking info. Obviously if they were leaking the actual documents, that's another matter. But 2nd and 3rd hand information, some of which doesn't even begin to make sense (I still haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for why the Liberals would want to delay Kovrig and Spavor's release)? That doesn't sound particularly credible to me. And despite any appearances of impropriety, I still give a former Governor General's analysis of these intelligence documents significantly more weight than anonymous leakers and some journalists who apparently haven't even seen the intelligence themselves.

Which part of the leak are you contesting?

Let's say for hypothetical sake, that Han Dong did not actually request for the Michaels.

What does this change? Chong was targeted, that we know. We now know that O'Toole was targeted. we also know that Han Dong was under intense suspicious, so much so that he had a call name "scarecrow". Outside of the bus loads of Chinese students and the Michael question, everything else from the leaks that could be easily validated has been admitted to.

The meeting between Han Dong and the Chinese diplomat did occur, Han Dong was under surveillance by CSIS. The only details put in question are the very same details that are not publicly available, and are not being made available unless CSIS divulges it, or a public inquiry occurs. So until that occurs, it can be denied and you just have to trust Johnston.

This is akin to asking the wolf what happened to the sheep it was guarding, and taking the wolf's word because he was guarding the sheep after all.

Remove the Han Dong related technicalities that cannot be verified without the transcripts and public inquiry, and you are still left with a web of foreign interference that has targeted our democratic system which requires a public inquiry.

A Chinese diplomat was expulsed from our country for their action, something that would not just be done on a whim, it was initially deemed not a concern by Trudeau and apparently that has already been forgotten.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csi...port-1.6831920

The prime minister said Wednesday that the information about Chong was never shared outside of CSIS.

"We asked what happened to that information, was it ever briefed up out of CSIS? It was not. CSIS made the determination that it wasn't something that needed be raised to a higher level because it wasn't a significant enough concern," Trudeau said.

But Chong shared new information during question period on Thursday suggesting that is not true.

The only reason we learned of Chong and O'Toole being targets, of which we know 100% that the PMO was briefed on in regards to Chong, is due to the leaks, and subsequent revelations.

The public inquiry must happen

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

I am talking about this which was also reported by Global News. Seriously, you are deliberately showing a particularly naïve and uninspired partisan stance here unlike you.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9721015/j...gence-sharing/

I'm not partisan at all. I've never once voted Liberal in my entire life, and they remain the only major federal party (other than the Bloc, obviously) that I have never voted for.

And like I said, it's not Johnston's place to rattle off names in his report; that's CSIS's (and the government's) job and it looks like they're finally doing what should have been done 2 years ago. He also didn't name the 7 Liberal and 4 Conservative candidates who the PRC was apparently intending to fund, for much the same reason.

As for the source, this is verbatim what is reported.

Whether that source is a buddy of O'Toole, a CSIS operative, or a fellow MP is not stated at all. What we do not however is that CSIS briefed O'Toole on Friday, after the David Johnston Report, that he was a target in the past and present.

I mean, that clearly states that it's from a source close to O'Toole, so obviously that info was released from his camp and at his behest.

Regardless of how you want to deflect the news, CSIS (whether officially or through a leak) has briefed O'Toole of being targeted on Friday, a shocking revelation that either Johnston deliberately omitted or missed due to gross incompetence. Whether the argument, it's quite clear that CSIS, regardless of the leak, is working contrary to Liberal government wishes if it divulged such a shocking revelation days after the report and at the start of a weekend.

How can you accept his report for face value when it failed to identify a potential PM candidate as target of foreign interference?

The public inquiry must be had.

One of the conclusions of the report was that CSIS and the government were doing a **** job handling intelligence and notifying the people who it concerned:

there are significant governance shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated from security agencies to the various government departments, processed at those departments to decide what should get briefed and recommended to the political levels, and communicated to the Prime Minister, responsible Ministers, and their respective offices for decision-making and action. This became especially clear with respect to the issues relating to Mr. Chong and other MPs. These must be addressed, and I understand the government has already begun to do so.

Notifying O'Toole is part of rectifying that (albeit 2 years too late). I'm not sure why that's working contrary to the government's wishes or how that info coming out is somehow more embarrassing to CSIS and the government than if it looked like they were doing nothing to rectify the issues that were identified in the report.

[JohnnyB]

What is "targeting"?

Nobody seems to have received any kind of threat or have even been aware that anything was taking place until CSIS told them, and we don't even know what CSIS told them. Is "targeting" just compiling a dossier on someone or something like that?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1663257766339674130

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Which part of the leak are you contesting?

Based on the report, the following isn't backed by the evidence even though it was alleged in the articles:

-The PRC covertly provided $250K in funds to 11 campaigns
-The PRC would funnel money to people to reimburse them for the net costs of political donations (after the tax deduction)
-The government was explicitly warned that Chinese agents were assisting candidates running for office in the 2019 election
-Dong tried to delay the release of Spavor and Kovrig

Those make up the most explosive of the allegations, but they don't seem have happened.

So what does that leave? They collected information on sitting MPs to see if they could pressure them to benefit China? Yeah, the fact that the MPs weren't notified is an intelligence and government failure.

Let's say for hypothetical sake, that Han Dong did not actually request for the Michaels.

What does this change? Chong was targeted, that we know. We now know that O'Toole was targeted. we also know that Han Dong was under intense suspicious, so much so that he had a call name "scarecrow". Outside of the bus loads of Chinese students and the Michael question, everything else from the leaks that could be easily validated has been admitted to.

The meeting between Han Dong and the Chinese diplomat did occur, Han Dong was under surveillance by CSIS. The only details put in question are the very same details that are not publicly available, and are not being made available unless CSIS divulges it, or a public inquiry occurs. So until that occurs, it can be denied and you just have to trust Johnston.

This is akin to asking the wolf what happened to the sheep it was guarding, and taking the wolf's word because he was guarding the sheep after all.

Remove the Han Dong related technicalities that cannot be verified without the transcripts and public inquiry, and you are still left with a web of foreign interference that has targeted our democratic system which requires a public inquiry.

None of that really matters as it relates to Dong. There's nothing wrong with him talking to Chinese consular officials, and CSIS being suspicious means little to me without any evidence (or even allegations) about what he's doing wrong.

As for the evidence, it's classified so it's unlikely a public inquiry is going to reveal anything either. It's still going to remain under wraps and you're going to just have to trust whoever has security clearance to view and analyze it.

A Chinese diplomat was expulsed from our country for their action, something that would not just be done on a whim, it was initially deemed not a concern by Trudeau and apparently that has already been forgotten.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csi...port-1.6831920

The only reason we learned of Chong and O'Toole being targets, of which we know 100% that the PMO was briefed on in regards to Chong, is due to the leaks, and subsequent revelations.

The public inquiry must happen

I don't know, to me the most likely explanation is what's in the report. If Trudeau knew that his government had been provided with that information, I'm skeptical he would have said it never left CSIS. He's not the brightest person, and he's totally capable of lying through his teeth, but he's not that dumb. Remember, it was his own National Security Advisor that told Chong that it was shared outside CSIS. If Trudeau was aware of that, it would have been extremely easy to throw lower level government staff under the bus and claim it never got to him, rather than looking like an idiot and hurting himself politically by saying it never left CSIS, only to be contradicted by his own Advisor soon after.


Call me naive if you want, but so far this has played out how I thought it probably would based on the original reporting. Some of the allegations simply made no sense if you thought about them critically, and those are the ones that seem to fall apart under scrutiny. Others seemed more plausible, and they're the ones that seem to have real evidence behind them. To me it looks more like a poorly run government where important intelligence slips through the cracks, rather than corruption or malice. That's not to say there shouldn't be a public inquiry, but I just don't share your outrage based on the evidence so far. To me this seems like pretty standard operations; superpowers have always interfered in other countries' internal affairs in order to benefit themselves. That's a pretty far cry from the narrative of Chinese agents being planted in the Canadian government with the willing cooperation of the Liberal party that people were talking about a couple of months ago.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

And like I said, it's not Johnston's place to rattle off names in his report; that's CSIS's (and the government's) job and it looks like they're finally doing what should have been done 2 years ago. He also didn't name the 7 Liberal and 4 Conservative candidates who the PRC was apparently intending to fund, for much the same reason.

So it's not in his place to rattle off names, including a potential PM, yet it is in his place to immediately be the judge of allegations relating to Mr. Dong and judge of his character?

The allegation is false. Mr. Dong discussed the “two Michaels” with a PRC official, but did not suggest to the official that the PRC extend their detention. The allegation that he did make that suggestion has had a very adverse effect on Mr. Dong. He continued to maintain close relationships with PRC consular officials at least through the 2021 Election.

Ministers and the Prime Minister went out of their way to defend Mr. Dong, whom they believe has been badly harmed by the reporting. They did not believe the media reports when they came out, as they found Mr. Dong to be a loyal and helpful member of caucus. They received no recommendations about this allegation, as it is false.

Also is it in his place to make this judgement?

The PRC’s intention appears to be focused on assisting pro-China candidates and marginalizing anti-China candidates, not party preferences.

Do you see the word Chinese diplomat, Trudeau foundation, Zhao Wei (Zhao or Wei) or Zhang Bin (Zhang or Bin) or the 2016 donation anywhere in the report? We have a chinese diplomat expelled and he is not even mentioned?

This is the only blurb loosely relating to the Zhao Wei incident, and it's a reference note!

If the intelligence relates to foreign interference, GAC could engage in a démarche (i.e., a discussion with a diplomatic official), which could lead to the expulsion of a diplomat, as we saw recently.17

Quite literally, the only blurb that started this whole thing with the donation is this:

In 2016, concerns were raised about wealthy Chinese businessmen with close connections to China’s Communist party making political donations in Canada

I mean that is quite literally one of the main CSIS leak source allegations and it's not mentioned at all.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...liott-trudeau/

How does that not go into the report? How does a potential PM being targetted not make it into the report, but the Han Dong allegation is specifically chosen to be refuted even to the point to comment on his character?

Please explain your reasoning.

[Firebot]

And now Jenny Kwan has stepped forward after being briefed by CSIS. How deep is this thing, and we have some here who still accept David Johnston's report and recommendation?

[curves2000]

It does sound like Trudeau and Johnson might be on the wrong side of things here now and in the future. I don't know exactly what the answer may need to be but allowing this to continue and fester is only a problem that will continue.

The government now and in the future will need to come up with a security, cyber, political and policing policy on how to deal with this in the future.

This whole game of "nothing to see here, no conflicts" "Somebody somewhere made an error in delivering information to the proper people" "The media really did a poor job and wasn't aware of the full picture" Isn't going to fly in the future.

We need this government to take this seriously and I don't think they are. We have enough of a problem with enough people thinking everything is corrupt, elections are rigged, the political class are getting handouts etc etc.

When we have documented evidence to show pressure from abroad, I would assume it would be dealt with in a serious matter.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Firebot

And now Jenny Kwan has stepped forward after being briefed by CSIS. How deep is this thing, and we have some here who still accept David Johnston's report and recommendation?

Stepped forward to say what, that she has been "targeted"?

What does that actually mean? Does anyone know? I haven't actually seen anyone say what it means, but it's kind of an essential term to clearly understand for this. Genuinely asking, is there an explanation of this anywhere?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Stepped forward to say what, that she has been "targeted"?

What does that actually mean? Does anyone know? I haven't actually seen anyone say what it means, but it's kind of an essential term to clearly understand for this. Genuinely asking, is there an explanation of this anywhere?

Given that none of the people involved were aware of it, that would presumably rule out any kind of direct contact. So presumably it was information gathering and looking for something they could exploit in the future.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

And now Jenny Kwan has stepped forward after being briefed by CSIS. How deep is this thing, and we have some here who still accept David Johnston's report and recommendation?

That was known weeks ago and her being briefed is likely due to new policy where MPs are told of any threat, regardless of credibility of severity:

The prime minister has since instructed CSIS to change its processes around informing MPs about any threats to them, regardless of the seriousness or credibility of it, and is looking into why this information apparently didn't reach the desks of the relevant ministers.

"CSIS and our intelligence services receive massive amounts of information every day from sources and signals intelligence around the world highlighting various pieces of information that they have to classify… and they are professionals at determining which information needs to be elevated, which information needs to be acted on," Trudeau told reporters on Parliament Hill on Wednesday.


Seemingly already acting on the prime minister's orders, on Wednesday afternoon, NDP MP Jenny Kwan told CTV News that CSIS contacted her on Tuesday to arrange a "more in depth" briefing with her.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mps-...hong-1.6392766

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1663288949899423750

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Given that none of the people involved were aware of it, that would presumably rule out any kind of direct contact. So presumably it was information gathering and looking for something they could exploit in the future.

If that turns out to be the case, then who cares that it even happened? If that's all it is, then it's nothing more than a byline being treated as big news and a political scandal.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1663259228612509707

[opendoor]

Michael Chan is now suing basically everyone:

A former Ontario cabinet minister is suing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and unidentified employees who he alleges leaked classified information with the intent of harming his reputation.

Michael Chan alleges the anonymous employees' actions were influenced by "a stereotypical type-casting of immigrants born in China as being somehow untrustworthy."

Chan, a former cabinet minister in the former Ontario Liberal government and now a deputy mayor in Markham, Ont., is also suing the Crown, the attorney general of Canada, the CSIS director, and two journalists who have written stories on Chan based on leaked classified information.

Chan says the stories inaccurately implicated him in allegations of election interference and he is seeking a total of $10 million in damages.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/michael-c...ters-1.6418642

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

If that turns out to be the case, then who cares that it even happened? If that's all it is, then it's nothing more than a byline being treated as big news and a political scandal.

Well it depends on the details. If CSIS had good reason to believe that whatever info Chinese intelligence was collecting would eventually escalate to something that could cause harm to the MPs' families, then there would be good reason to be concerned. But yeah, it's also possible that it's also relatively standard international intrigue.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by opendoor

That was known weeks ago and her being briefed is likely due to new policy where MPs are told of any threat, regardless of credibility of severity:


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mps-...hong-1.6392766

We know that these occurred in 2021 and we just had Johnston report stating no public inquiry. These revelations about O'Toole and Kwan didn't occur after Trudeau's comments, they happened after Johnston's report, clearly timed as an effort to undermine the report. Trudeau was simply providing lip service to avoid a full fledged inquiry after being caught, and only after Chong was revealed to have been targeted and after Chong revealed CSIS had warned the PMO prior, contrary to Trudeau's denial.

Again, short term memory here.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9670449/c...ustin-trudeau/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csi...port-1.6831920

New questions about how the federal government handled a reported Chinese government plot to target MPs are being raised after Conservative MP Michael Chong said Thursday that a 2021 intelligence report on the matter was shared with the prime minister's national security and intelligence adviser.

The news contradicts comments Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made Wednesday.

And how did we first learn that Chong was targeted in the first place? Do you remember? This is from an unidentified CSIS source who went to the Globe, the same anonymous sources you were blasting just hours earlier for being useless and not worth the weight

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...gets-mps-csis/

The nine-page document, seen by The Globe and Mail, is the latest example of the warnings published by Canada’s security service in recent years that lay out a problem – and a solution. It’s marked top secret and for Canadian eyes only.

A national-security source, whom The Globe is not naming because they risk prosecution under the Security of Information Act, said the MP targeted was Conservative MP Michael Chong and that Zhao Wei, a Chinese diplomat in Canada, was working on this matter.

Really don't understand the shameless defending here. If not for these leaks and anonymous sources you claim to be non-credible, we would still be fully blind to what was occurring due to our government covering up / ignoring critical foreign interference. So far everything that has been tangible and leaked and validated by an unbiased source has proven to be true, with the only question marks being those allegations only verifiable with unleaked confidential transcripts that are kept under wraps, with Johnston telling us to trust him.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Stepped forward to say what, that she has been "targeted"?

What does that actually mean? Does anyone know? I haven't actually seen anyone say what it means, but it's kind of an essential term to clearly understand for this. Genuinely asking, is there an explanation of this anywhere?

I'm sure it's all pretty innocent and China was looking out for the MP's best interests.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Firebot

We know that these occurred in 2021 and we just had Johnston report stating no public inquiry. These revelations about O'Toole and Kwan didn't occur after Trudeau's comments, they happened after Johnston's report, clearly timed as an effort to undermine the report. Trudeau was simply providing lip service to avoid a full fledged inquiry after being caught, and only after Chong was revealed to have been targeted and after Chong revealed CSIS had warned the PMO prior, contrary to Trudeau's denial.

You think CSIS leadership is deliberately timing their briefings of MPs to make the government look bad (even though, as the story I linked clearly states, they contacted Kwan 3 weeks ago)? OK...

Yeah, that's much more plausible than the government changing CSIS policy in response to the leaks so that the threshold for notifying MPs is significantly lower.