• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sikh & India (Alleged) Shenanigans in Canada (split fm Non-Muslim terr thread)

… but not be allowed to share with the boss. How does a boss make informed decisions while staying ignorant of relevant information?
Well, they could let the boss know if there were MPs who were compromised, just not give specifics or names. Since PP has been briefed by his staff that none of his people are on the list, that either means that all of his people that got the brief are compromised, or none of them are... I'll let you decide which is more likely.

Edit: As people who are fond of disparaging PP love to point out, he has been in Ottawa politics most of his adult life. Which likely means that he has seen the security briefings as a political tool to prevent the opposition from talking about something embarrassing to the government.
 
Well, they could let the boss know if there were MPs who were compromised, just not give specifics or names. Since PP has been briefed by his staff that none of his people are on the list, that either means that all of his people that got the brief are compromised, or none of them are... I'll let you decide which is more likely.
That logical fallacy is a false dichotomy. We cannot know the level of detail and nuance provided in the briefings, but we can know that it does not boil down to a ridiculous binary possibility of implication for the CPC.

Edit: As people who are fond of disparaging PP love to point out, he has been in Ottawa politics most of his adult life. Which likely means that he has seen the security briefings as a political tool to prevent the opposition from talking about something embarrassing to the government.
Yes, I accept he is choosing his actions for partisan political purposes.
 
So if the names of those threatened by, or those implicated in collusion with, a foreign state are classified, then what overt action can be taken in support of, or against some, that wouldn’t otherwise represent a contravention of the Official
Secrets Act? 🤷🏻‍♂️
 
... Since PP has been briefed by his staff that none of his people are on the list ...
I haven't been reading as closely as I could - do you have a link to that? I haven't seen that anywhere, but I can't say I've ready EVERYTHING out there. An interesting tile in the info-mosaic that ....
 
I haven't been reading as closely as I could - do you have a link to that? I haven't seen that anywhere, but I can't say I've ready EVERYTHING out there. An interesting tile in the info-mosaic that ....
If this were the case, would his staff not get in trouble for telling the boss information he is not authorized to know?
 
I haven't been reading as closely as I could - do you have a link to that? I haven't seen that anywhere, but I can't say I've ready EVERYTHING out there. An interesting tile in the info-mosaic that ....

Trudeau says he has list of Conservatives vulnerable to, or engaged in foreign interference

Poilievre has previously defended his choice not to try to obtain a high-level security clearance.

He has said it would prevent him from speaking out about what he has learned in secret briefings.

In response to Trudeau's comments on Wednesday, Poilievre released a statement calling on the prime minister to publicly release the names.

"But he won't. Because Justin Trudeau is doing what he always does: he is lying," Poilievre said.

The Conservative leader also said his chief of staff receives confidential briefings, and has not been told about any past or present member of the party being involved in foreign interference.

"If Justin Trudeau has evidence to the contrary, he should share it with the public. Now that he has blurted it out in general terms at a commission of inquiry — he should release the facts. But he won't — because he's making it up,"
Poilievre said in the statement.

The latter statement indicates to me that PP has some awareness of which party(s) are on the list, and isn't too worried about it. I suspect if he thought the CPC would be heavily implicated, he wouldn't be daring the PM to push for it to be made public.

I don't trust politicians, but I trust that politicians will not openly push for something they know is going to go poorly for them.
 
….especially with all the cots and messing available in the QRA facilities across from Iqaluit’s airport terminal… 😉
I'm guessing part of it may be a little 'water in the wine' due to our ongoing squabbles. I'll betcha if it were an AC flight or probably most other carriers, they would be expected to find their own charter.
 
Is

I get where your head is at, but Is being able to pass the security checks required for a clearance even a requirement to be leader of any of the political parties? I don’t think it is and don’t see how that could even be incorporated into the process of choosing leaders of parties.
No, but it could be if there was legislative will. The Supreme Court has ruled that the actions or political parties are beyond their reach, so legislation to govern the 'fruits of their labours' would seem beneficial. A political party could choose a non-Canadian citizen to be party leader. He might not be able to be elected to sit in the House, but he could still be party leader.

Even for elected members (a party leader, if sitting, is still just an MP), the Canada Elections Act has rules that put boundaries on the will of the people. I don't think one more regarding security clearance is inappropriate.
 
The PM's comments insinuate that the Cons benefited from interference. I'll leave this article as an example of where that might not be wholly true.

Trudeau was deliberately economical with contextually clarifying words with his statement. He no doubt thinks himself smart enough that most would take his words to mean that CPC MPs were the collaborators with the unnamed state actors. *Poilievre rightly called him on it, “Okay, provide the names…” Trudeau today will try to double down on accusing Poilievre of not taking the nation’s security serious, while using his acting skills to ignore the call to name names.
 
Last edited:
Trudeau was deliberately economical with contextually clarifying words with his statement. He no doubt thinks himself smart enough that most would take his words to mean that CPC MPs were the collaborators with the unnamed state actors. Oliver rightly called him on it, “Okay, provide the names…” Trudeau today will try to double down on accusing Poilievre of not taking the nation’s security serious, while using his acting skills to ignore the call to name names.

The electoral campaign is underway. You're just watching a part of it.
 
The electoral campaign is underway. You're just watching a part of it.
And Trudeau thinks himself smarter by a half, and that people will lap up his wisdom and vote him in again. The clapping seals beside him in Question Period only reinforce his hubris.

Telling that up until Trudeau implied that the CPC is compromised with foreign state collaborators this week, he ‘had no idea’ that there was such a thing in Canada as foreign interference, nor did any of his senior advisors feel duty bound to tell him, for fear he hadn’t asked about it…
 
Trudeau says he has list of Conservatives vulnerable to, or engaged in foreign interference



The latter statement indicates to me that PP has some awareness of which party(s) are on the list, and isn't too worried about it. I suspect if he thought the CPC would be heavily implicated, he wouldn't be daring the PM to push for it to be made public.

I don't trust politicians, but I trust that politicians will not openly push for something they know is going to go poorly for them.
Thx for this!
 
If individuals here take a step back from their personal feelings about the individuals and the parties involved, and look at the actual political gamesmanship being used, this would be a much more profound discussion.

Trudeau doesn't want to release the names because the populace not knowing sows doubt in the electorate, and gets them to question their local MP. Releasing the names opens him up to now having to "prove" the accusations are true and shifts the focus of voters.

PP, while pushing for the names to be released publicly, probably would rather they stay unnamed, because it gives him talking points, and doesn't require him to actually do anything publicly about anyone on the list from his party. He can also keep the talking points about the list, and not about the interference itself, and the repercussions (like he being the party leader perhaps).

The remaining leaders are happy to get a quick sound bite in, but not be too vocal, because again, they also likely have internal questions to be answered about MPs colluding with external actors.

What we should all be doing now is looking to see if MPs that have or will decide to not run, or recently have stepped down have reasons linked to this list. Also, maybe the Media should keep tabs on how many previously selected riding nominees are quietly replaced across all parties in the next several months, as maybe an indicator of parties quietly cleaning house.
 
Back
Top