Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Doctorfever]

If the evidence against the Liberals is overwhelming, it’s the Conservatives fault.

Never change Trudeau fans!

Have a good weekend all!

(I am kidding around here, people hate green text).

[Azure]

I'd imagine there are a variety of MPs from all parties involved.
But to actually lie, and it was a lie unless Singh is full of ####, which he is but I doubt with this, and say that 'oh its no big deal' so literally mind-boggling.

What a loser.

[Ozy_Flame]

Last I checked this was the Federal Politics thread.

So why do these folks keep deflecting to other parties and won't discuss the Cons?

Can we not call out PPs conservatives for terrible politics on this one?

Can there only be one truth and this isn't it?

Is this ignorance? Head in the sand? Inconsolable defense of their shirt color?

Are we just assuming the thread is only for Liberal/NDP gnashing of teeth?

what is it?

[2Stonedbirds]

What it is:

Any member of parliament, regardless of party, who sold out their position and comprised Canada's security and democracy to ANY state, freindly or not, should be charged with ####ing treason.

That's what it is. Miller Time May coming out and saying it's no big deal while voting against transparency is perhaps the biggest red flag going.

I don't care what party you're involved with. Beyond the pale doesn't even begin to describe it. ####ing treason.

[2Stonedbirds]

Staffers and those affiliated with any party as well. Create a backdoor for another states hooks? #### you. Treason.

[Azure]

Its worse than treason if there is such a thing.

Yes its treason, but what do we call it when they intentionally downplay what they did and work to make sure nobody figures out who it is despite everyone already knowing it is actually someone.

[Street Pharmacist]

This can't and won't go away. Someone will leak. It's the Streisand effect and I don't see any way anyone can worm themselves out of this one. Seems politically shortsighted to not come out in front of this one, so I'm interested to see the fallout with May vs Singh vs PP vs Trudeau. Here's how I see the current playing field:


Trudeau - we take this seriously, but have problems with the report's conclusions.

Pollievre - I can't read the report because then I can't do anything about it because rules

May - Everything is fine

Singh - TREASON!



Based on that and the assumption that Pollievre absolutely has been filled in with what's in the report, my reading of the landscape is that there's some "light treason" such as accepting money from foreign entities or secretly and knowingly meeting Chinese/Indian intermediaries with no obvious quid pro quo. Singh is banging the drum to get political points, Pollievre is trying to avoid bad politics by covering eyes and ears, Trudeau is trying to spin the report by dimming the conclusions, and May herself is implicated.

I'm not thinking actual aiding and abetting hostile foreign powers here, but definitely some offside exchanging access for power here. There's some MP's and leaders who need to go after this to ensure the sanctity of office, but I don't think we see and charges

[Mr.Coffee]

But this is pretty ####ing serious in my view and there absolutely should be criminal charges and jail time quite frankly. We are losing our country because we do not take blatant corruption seriously.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

But this is pretty ####ing serious in my view and there absolutely should be criminal charges and jail time quite frankly. We are losing our country because we do not take blatant corruption seriously.

How do you know how serious this is without real details? I definitely agree with you that if any representatives have willingly taken actions that they knew were going to be significantly detrimental to our country then they need to be charged to the fullest extent of the law but right now we don’t have enough evidence to say for certain that there has been a serious crime committed here.

The report we have access to is unfortunately just too vague and so far Singh(the guy you generally always disagree with) is the only person who has read the un-redacted report and said that there was treason, but he hasn’t given any specific details either. How do you call for charges and jail time based on that?

I mean seriously, I can’t comprehend what Singh would have to lose politically by spilling the beans publicly on this if the alleged actions were as serious as he claims they are so to me that’s a bit of a red flag that he’s just trying to score political points with his comments.

It’s frustrating to see Canadians more and more often getting this riled up by politicians and news/social media without even knowing the full facts because of the strong message it sends to the powers that be which is that we can very easily be distracted and manipulated. That’s gonna cost us our country far quicker than anything else.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

This can't and won't go away. Someone will leak. It's the Streisand effect and I don't see any way anyone can worm themselves out of this one. Seems politically shortsighted to not come out in front of this one, so I'm interested to see the fallout with May vs Singh vs PP vs Trudeau. Here's how I see the current playing field:


Trudeau - we take this seriously, but have problems with the report's conclusions.

Pollievre - I can't read the report because then I can't do anything about it because rules

May - Everything is fine

Singh - TREASON!



Based on that and the assumption that Pollievre absolutely has been filled in with what's in the report, my reading of the landscape is that there's some "light treason" such as accepting money from foreign entities or secretly and knowingly meeting Chinese/Indian intermediaries with no obvious quid pro quo. Singh is banging the drum to get political points, Pollievre is trying to avoid bad politics by covering eyes and ears, Trudeau is trying to spin the report by dimming the conclusions, and May herself is implicated.

I'm not thinking actual aiding and abetting hostile foreign powers here, but definitely some offside exchanging access for power here. There's some MP's and leaders who need to go after this to ensure the sanctity of office, but I don't think we see and charges

So this is the problem.

All of them should be together demanding a public inquiry and suspending anyone named in the report from parliament with pay until the investigation is complete.

But instead all are just looking for political wins out of this.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I mean seriously, I can’t comprehend what Singh would have to lose politically by spilling the beans publicly on this if the alleged actions were as serious as he claims they are so to me that’s a bit of a red flag that he’s just trying to score political points with his comments.

You can't comprehend? Singh can literally go to jail for up to 14 years...

https://nationalpost.com/news/lawsui...ut%20authority.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/col...ute-court-says

May, Singh, Poilievre, Blanchet cannot act on the information received from the unredacted report. Tom Mulcair specifically explained that as an opposition leader he would absolutely do the same as Poilievre and refuse security clearance for the exact reasons that Poilievre gives.

Likewise members of NSICOP also cannot divulge the information and would go to jail if they do.

The only one that can legitimately divulge the information is the governing party which is lead by Trudeau, or the RCMP if it's actually investigating and had the confidential info referred to them. So far we know only that they are investigating foreign interference in general and will not comment on specifics involving MPs.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Firebot

The only one that can legitimately divulge the information is the governing party which is lead by Trudeau, or the RCMP if it's actually investigating and had the confidential info referred to them. So far we know only that they are investigating foreign interference in general and will not comment on specifics involving MPs.

You make it sounds like Trudeau can just snap his fingers and poof, unredacted report for everyone to see. There is far more nuance than that. And I'm sure you're aware of that.

As reviews are based on classified information, the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to prepare a revised version of its report to protect sensitive information prior to its tabling in Parliament. The information, which may be revised is set out clearly in the Act: it is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations, or that is protected by litigation privilege, solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries.

The redaction process is analogous to the one used by the government when determining what information can be released in court proceedings under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Redactions are noted in the text of the reports by asterisks, and summaries of the redacted information are provided where readability would otherwise be affected.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You make it sounds like Trudeau can just snap his fingers and poof, unredacted report for everyone to see. There is far more nuance than that. And I'm sure you're aware of that.

As reviews are based on classified information, the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to prepare a revised version of its report to protect sensitive information prior to its tabling in Parliament. The information, which may be revised is set out clearly in the Act: it is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations, or that is protected by litigation privilege, solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries.

The redaction process is analogous to the one used by the government when determining what information can be released in court proceedings under Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Redactions are noted in the text of the reports by asterisks, and summaries of the redacted information are provided where readability would otherwise be affected.

Did you literally just quote the NSICOP FAQ page as an attempted argument? Why the heck do you think we have this redacted report publicly released to begin with? This report cannot be released without the government revising first (Trudeau was aware of this NSICOP report since March 22)

The unanimous report includes eight findings and six recommendations. The government agreed with all of NSICOP’s recommendations.

The classified version of the report was delivered to the Prime Minister on March 22, 2024.

Trudeau has stated today he has issues with the conclusions made and questions the report.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trud...port-1.6928257

Who's talking about publicly providing an unredacted report here? Only you are. Stop trolling and deflecting

[Ozy_Flame]

Yeah, you're just being a dope. The government may have issues but redactions are subject to due process and protocol under parameters established within the NSICP Act.

You're framing this like Trudeau is personally holding back classified information he can review and share.

My point remains well, well intact.

I invite you to communicate more transparently and gaslight less. It will work more in your favor.

.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

You can't comprehend? Singh can literally go to jail for up to 14 years...

https://nationalpost.com/news/lawsui...ut%20authority.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/col...ute-court-says

May, Singh, Poilievre, Blanchet cannot act on the information received from the unredacted report. Tom Mulcair specifically explained that as an opposition leader he would absolutely do the same as Poilievre and refuse security clearance for the exact reasons that Poilievre gives.

Likewise members of NSICOP also cannot divulge the information and would go to jail if they do.

Imagine hypothetically that there were very serious acts of treason committed(not just something that is treason by technicality) as he claims by one or a number of MPs and that he did give some details, do you really think he’s going to end up in jail? Yes or no?

Personally I would say in that case it would be highly unlikely he ever ends up in jail regardless of any legal precedent as it would be political suicide for all other MPs to not do everything they could to protect him from that.

Note that a Supreme Court appeal of the case you’re referring to also hasn’t been heard yet.

While I can appreciate that Tom and Pierre agree on how to best avoid actually dealing with the situation while still being able to use it to try and score additional political points, I guess I just wouldn’t mind seeing a politician actually step up and do the right thing for the people they’re claiming to represent. As naive as that may be to hope for.

The only one that can legitimately divulge the information is the governing party which is lead by Trudeau, or the RCMP if it's actually investigating and had the confidential info referred to them. So far we know only that they are investigating foreign interference in general and will not comment on specifics involving MPs.

Man for some reason I just had a sneaking suspicion when I started reading your post that Trudeau would get brought up.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Yeah, you're just being a dope. The government may have issues but redactions are subject to due process and protocol under parameters established within the NSICP Act.

You're framing this like Trudeau is personally holding back classified information he can review and share.

My point remains well, well intact.

I invite you to communicate more transparently and gaslight less. It will work more in your favor.

.

This whole apologist garbage talk of how Trudeau cannot name names on the pretext of national security and foreign relations falls completely flat when Trudeau just a few months ago called out a foreign government of an assassination without providing evidence, which is an infinitely more serious allegation. This statement occurred without revealing any classified information or providing an unredacted report.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...20of%20Commons.

Ironically, this is your your post at the time

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

There's no way Justin brings this up in the House without getting sufficient evidence from CSIS and Minister of Public Safety to talk about it publicly. The Director of CSIS follows in accordance with the CSIS act and with the direction of Minister of Public Safety, and there are certain thresholds that must be followed for accountability to the sitting government in terms of threats, particularly on a case-by-case basis. Hell, this service even has to notify the MoPS before engaging in any activities deemed as high risk, including foreign policy risks that might damage Canada's reputation abroad.

To think this is anything of Justin going into business for himself is ludicrous and laughable at best. It's government process in its most standardized form, no matter if it's JT or angry Milhouse.

This is infuriating to see people wear their bias before even doing the most basic of research.

Yet here you are defending the exact opposite. Trudeau could do it a few months ago, yet now can't? And this is by your claim one of the most damning scandal in Liberal's 9 year tenure.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Man for some reason I just had a sneaking suspicion when I started reading your post that Trudeau would get brought up.

Who's the PM of Canada and our current government, and who can actually divulge the information?

Of course he would be brought up, he's the PM! Poilievre can't say anything even if he wished, even if he had the list in front of him after getting security clearance, the same way Singh could not name names, and May could not name names.

So by process of elimination and considering how our parliamentary system works, who in government can act?

The level of absurdity and lengths you go to stick within your blind bias is insane.

[Manhattanboy]

Ottawa. What a cesspool.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Firebot

This whole apologist garbage talk of how Trudeau cannot name names on the pretext of national security and foreign relations falls completely flat when Trudeau just a few months ago called out a foreign government of an assassination without providing evidence, which is an infinitely more serious allegation. This statement occurred without revealing any classified information or providing an unredacted report.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tru...20of%20Commons.

Ironically, this is your your post at the time



Yet here you are defending the exact opposite. Trudeau could do it a few months ago, yet now can't? And this is by your claim one of the most damning scandal in Liberal's 9 year tenure.

Actually, this earlier statement says the same thing. Trudeau cannot act unilaterally, nor can he do so without the compilation of other ministries and agencies who compiled the report, and intelligence is subject to national security thresholds.

And yes, this is one of the most serious scandals in nine years of liberal tenure - but not for the reasons you twist to believe.Trudeau is operating within his role, the government is following security protocol, and your beef was with who was compromised. So glad to see you came back full circle, son!

Keep fighting that good fight! And just a reminder, PP looks like a complete chud in this entire process.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Who's the PM of Canada and our current government, and who can actually divulge the information?

Of course he would be brought up, he's the PM! Poilievre can't say anything even if he wished, even if he had the list in front of him after getting security clearance, the same way Singh could not name names, and May could not name names.

So by process of elimination and considering how our parliamentary system works, who in government can act?

Bringing up his name was actually completely unnecessary in the context of your response but I get it man, you clearly have an (unhealthy?) obsession with the guy. No judgement though, I was just poking fun.

If you’re not too busy with wanting to bring him up again, would you mind responding to the rest of my post where I actually asked you specific questions to try and engage in a productive discussion?

The level of absurdity and lengths you go to stick within your blind bias is insane.

We get it man, you think that I have a blind bias to support a politician and his party, both of whom I’ve never voted for in any of the elections that either brought them into office or kept them there in a minority since. Even though it’s good for a chuckle every time I read it you don’t have to keep reminding us.

I’m not sure whether you’re just delusional or if you’re some sort of paid shill/troll/bot who’s just really bad at trying to twist other people’s statements and/or put words in their mouths but man I really hope it’s not the latter because as I’ve probably said on here before I really hate being put in a position to say that an employee is being way overpaid.