Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

watch the PM's testimony from the public hearing on the matter (was also discussed here in length several months ago) and read the report I posted from the Hogue report. (easier to find a coles notes as the report is like 300 pages long.)

I have.. and from what I see they are not that divergent, so what specifically are you seeing that doesn't line up?

Trudeau

"engaged, or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference."

Hogue

“There are legitimate concerns about parliamentarians potentially having problematic relationships with foreign officials, exercising poor judgment, behaving naively and perhaps displaying questionable ethics,”

And they both followed up with cautions about taking intelligence 100% at its word.

Trudeau

the intelligence about Conservative activities could be "shoddy or incomplete or just allegations from a single source"

Hogue

"strongly worded and unequivocally stated allegations against individual parliamentarians," based on intelligence documents.

"intelligence can be extremely valuable in informing government and enabling it to develop policy … the frailties of intelligence make it dangerous to rely on"

At worst, JT has sensationalized it, but he hasn't been contradictory to what was released. So again, where do you see this big divergence between the two?

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I agree, When he becomes the leader of the country he for sure should have the security clearance. He will need to get it, and likely in short order. I would imagine as soon as a election is called he will get it and this all will have been a big nothing burger. Maybe im wrong, maybe he is a secret spy... unlikely. but maybe.

No he won't. Prime Ministers don't require security clearance to take office or to undertake any part of their job, including accessing classified materials. So I imagine Poilievre is trying to wait out the clock so he never has to get it.

As for why Poilievre is so hesitant to get it, who knows; his "I can't criticize the government if I have a security clearance" is a pretty flimsy excuse. But his own MP Michael Chong suggested it may have something to do with information from his personal life he may not want to share which could be used against him politically.

Mr. Chong said security clearances involve a rigorous process that includes background checks on family members, credit and criminal checks and intrusive questions about one’s sexual partners or whether they ever used drugs. The Conservatives fear any personal and family information obtained through this process could be used by the government for politically motivated purposes against Mr. Poilievre.

“I don’t trust this Prime Minister,” he said. “It is a sign of a desperate Prime Minister who is willing to go to any lengths to stay in power.”

Which of course is not true, because the details of the investigation are not normally shared with the government by CSIS:

But former CSIS director Ward Elcock said that security-clearance information from a political rival would be kept from the Prime Minister by officials – who would object if he asked to see it.

“It would set so many alarm bells ringing. I can’t imagine anyone in the PCO [Privy Council Office] saying to the Prime Minister that’s a good thing,” Mr. Elcock said. “There are so many checks and balances that that information would never be provided to the Prime Minister.”

He said whatever its faults, “Canada is not a police state” and he doesn’t understand why Mr. Poilievre would not seek to be briefed on intelligence about his party. “I can’t really think of a good reason for why not to do it.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...e-by-refusing/

[Locke]

The CSIS Director's name is Ward ElCock? Really?

Thats unfortunate.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Locke

The CSIS Director's name is Ward ElCock? Really?

Thats unfortunate.

I once knew a Chief Warrant Officer Woodcock.

Stiffest CWO I ever knew...

(but seriously, he was a great guy)

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

If this was the case, would this not have come to light in the FI investigation? I have a hard time believing we dont vet candidates well before the candidate requesting clearance. That seems like it would be a strange order of operations in itself.

I agree with you. This needs to be improved for all parties that don’t have it as a requirement (like the conservatives)

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I once knew a Chief Warrant Officer Woodcock.

Stiffest CWO I ever knew...

(but seriously, he was a great guy)

I just...at first glance it sounded like a Spaceballs gag.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I have.. and from what I see they are not that divergent, so what specifically are you seeing that doesn't line up?

Trudeau


Hogue


And they both followed up with cautions about taking intelligence 100% at its word.

Trudeau


Hogue



At worst, JT has sensationalized it, but he hasn't been contradictory to what was released. So again, where do you see this big divergence between the two?

Trudeau " Engaged in, Clear intelligence " reports from CSIS and Nsicop " Semi witting or witting participants"

Hogue " no witting or even semi witting"



Trudeau answered unequivocally. Hogue "no evidence"

To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. Anyone involved needs to be out of politics at the least.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by opendoor

No he won't. Prime Ministers don't require security clearance to take office or to undertake any part of their job, including accessing classified materials. So I imagine Poilievre is trying to wait out the clock so he never has to get it.

As for why Poilievre is so hesitant to get it, who knows; his "I can't criticize the government if I have a security clearance" is a pretty flimsy excuse. But his own MP Michael Chong suggested it may have something to do with information from his personal life he may not want to share which could be used against him politically.



Which of course is not true, because the details of the investigation are not normally shared with the government by CSIS:



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/poli...e-by-refusing/

Thank you for the response. The bold Italicized portion, not normally, so it does happen? why the discrepancy.
Edit: Should it come out (should not if he is cleared either way) What would the repercussions be? Should any of the other candidates for PM also be released to level the playing field? (all hypothetical)

[Yamer]

It's absolutely terrifying that some of you have the ability to vote.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Trudeau " Engaged in, Clear intelligence " reports from CSIS " Semi witting or witting participants"

Hogue " no witting or even semi witting"



Trudeau answered unequivocally. Hogue "no evidence"

To be clear, this is not a partisan issue. Anyone involved needs to be out of politics at the least.

I don't think the differences there are black and white difference. Trudeau's "witting or semi witting" was originated by NSICOP, not himself, so he is repeating the language used by the committee. And Hogue doesn't say "no evidence", she says "the NSICOP Report regarding the “witting” participation of Canadian parliamentarians in foreign interference activities were more definitive than the underlying intelligence could support."

One of the places where NSICOP uses unwittingly is in interference through the spread of disinformation. And Hogue very much identifies this disinformation as a serious threat.

As in, there is evidence and concerning conduct that occurred, but in her opinion it didn't rise to the level that the findings of NSICOP raised.

So while I will totally agree that the committee and the government overstated some of the threat, Hogue hasn't gone against the fact that poor conduct existed. She just gave her opinion that the level of intelligence didn't fit the level of threat that the NSICOP report indicated.

Honestly, we should have all just listened to Elizabeth May in June

She said reactions to the report since it was tabled last week have triggered a "totally understandable media firestorm, which in my view is overblown."

May described the contents of the report as "not as bad as a John le Carré novel but a bit more worrying than Miss Marple."

"So I am very glad I read the full report. I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues," said the veteran parliamentarian.

[shotinthebacklund]

If we are to leave the PM out of the conversation then, as his information would have come from the NSICOP reports. Does it distill down simply to NSICOP was wrong and misled by our own intelligence entities? Or did Hogue perceive the threat different then the NSICOP committee?

Why would CSIS agents risk everything in providing these leaks in the first place. Pretty bold. I tend to give those who risk losing everything the benefit of the doubt.

[shotinthebacklund]

Originally Posted by Yamer

It's absolutely terrifying that some of you have the ability to vote.

It's absolutely terrifying that some of you believe you have more democratic rights then others.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

who is gaslighting anything around the issue? (kinda rich coming from the biggest gaslighter on the forum.) Transparency and FI are very important to me, you are correct. Should PP not qualify for his security clearance there will 100% be a issue. Are you assuming he will not be able to get clearance? PP is unique to the other parties as he is part of the official OPPOSITION. If he get clearance, he cant oppose or even speak on the topic correct?

First, know what gaslighting is before you ask “who is gaslighting” (you are, by attempting to paint the security clearance issue as government-led red herring when it is clear to anyone with minimal understanding of the issue that isn’t the case, and by trying to frame Trudeau as a liar when the comments were made based on the information at the time, which the probe acknowledges was the information at the time) and then accuse me of being the biggest gaslighter, makes you look dumb.

Second, as has been pointed out, no, PP is not unique. He’s the leader of a party and should have the clearance like everyone else. It does not stop him from speaking on the issue any more than it’s stopped May, or Singh, or even the release of these findings. What does is allow him be aware of the specifics (who, what, or when) and address any potential issues within his own party. It also allows him to speak honestly about the issue, like basically everyone with security clearance has already done.

For the life of me I cannot understand why someone to whom transparency and foreign interference are “very important” would vote for some purposefully avoiding transparency and choosing ignorance so that he doesn’t have to address foreign interference issues. My guess is that those things are important so long as they can be used as criticisms against politicians you don’t like, and become wildly unimportant if used as criticisms against politicians you do.

Otherwise, no honest person would be supporting PP’s actions around this file.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

It's absolutely terrifying that some of you believe you have more democratic rights then others.

Nobody believes they have more democratic rights than others, that’s not even close to what was said.

Why quote the post and lie?

[shotinthebacklund]

Did some Googling just for you Pepsi. One of us fits this statement, and it sure as hell is not me.



- Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse that involves a person repeatedly manipulating another person into questioning their reality. The goal is to make the victim doubt their own thoughts, feelings, and memories, which can lead to dependency and isolation.


-
How to tell if you're being gaslit?





You'll know if you're being gaslighted if...

• 1) You're being very obviously lied to.
• 2) They tell you that you're crazy / overreacting / hearing things.
• 3) They make you feel like your issues aren't important.
• 4) They wear you down until you believe your always wrong and what they say goes.

Im sorry Pepsi, I did not realize you were the victim here. Im sorry I made you doubt your own feelings and did not mean to isolate you.



- I believe PP security clearance is a red herring fallacy by liberals to draw attention away from their handling of the FI account. Better? now its a opinion and not gaslighting you into victim hood.



for the record, I believe PP should get his clearance and put this to bed.

[shotinthebacklund]

Nobody believes they have more democratic rights than others, that’s not even close to what was said.

Why quote the post and lie?

The inflection on the statement is that some here should not be allowed to vote. Yamer made a statement, so did I.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

It's absolutely terrifying that some of you believe you have more democratic rights then others.

Just braincells, mostly.

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

The inflection on the statement is that some here should not be allowed to vote. Yamer made a statement, so did I.

That's on your own reading comprehension, friend-o.

And I don't think that word means what you think it does.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

If we are to leave the PM out of the conversation then, as his information would have come from the NSICOP reports. Does it distill down simply to NSICOP was wrong and misled by our own intelligence entities? Or did Hogue perceive the threat different then the NSICOP committee?

Why would CSIS agents risk everything in providing these leaks in the first place. Pretty bold. I tend to give those who risk losing everything the benefit of the doubt.

How I see it, is that NSICOP is made up of parliamentarians who are reading these intelligence reports on their peers and seeing the worst. I haven't gone through the whole list to see their respective careers, but I doubt they were all lawyers and judges. They are looking at the information from a jaded lenses, looking at peers and jumping at partial intelligence. Much like the public was crying for when it wanted to "name the members!"

Hogue and her team however provides a more nuanced and balanced approach. She is looking at the evidence from a judiciary slant, and not jumping to conclusions without full evidential support. She needs to be beyond a doubt to make the same accusations. Something I seriously doubt a group of MPs and Senators did to the same extent.

I also tend to have trouble with leakers, especially in intelligence because they won't have a full picture. Especially if we don't know who they are or what their motives are. Based on the Hogue report, they were leaking sensational info that didn't provide full clarity or enough evidence to be as damning as they seemed.

Even looking at the differences in May's and Singh's impression of the report. She was very forgiving and saying it isn't as bad as it is being represented (much like Hogue), where Singh was "more convinced than ever" that some MPs were willing participants.

This is why it is important to have auditors and independent reviews. Everyone reading the intelligence, from a low level CSIS agent, to their boss, to the MP to the Hogue Commission sees it a little differently. In the end I trust the final report released the most, but that doesn't discredit the other viewpoints - it puts them into their proper perspectives.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

Why would CSIS agents risk everything in providing these leaks in the first place. Pretty bold. I tend to give those who risk losing everything the benefit of the doubt.

Didnt you just say that theres more leaks than your 30 year old canoe?

[Fuzz]

Just addendum to the gaslighting post, it isn't gaslighting if people are informing you you are wrong, and showing why.