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

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

Are you now calling into question the validity of investigation and proof behind who is in the list ?
If this was addressed to me, no I’m not. I don’t believe there’s a single member of this website qualified to assess that, and if there was, they certainly wouldn’t talk about it here. I was simply adding some considerations to inform the discussion.

Just release the names. If they are tainted the public they represent and are employed by deserve to know.

Ok, but that sounds like literally a list of names under a heading “implicated by foreign interference”, with no context, no evidence, no clarification of intent… If you’re fine with that, cool- that’s what I was asking to clarify. I personally don’t think that approach would solve anything politically. It would probably create more questions than it answers

Like I said, I’m not staking out any particular position on this. I just see some of the inherent complexity in trying to warn Canadians of a threat that affects us all, but where knowledge of that threat is probably gleaned in great part from sources that can never be public. I don’t have a solution to offer.
 
And yet…the PM opened the door by smugly and specifically declaring that he knew the names of CPC MPs that were compromised (leaving the implication, unstated, that there were no Liberals/NDPs/Green/Bloc that compromised).

It was an effective short term political attack strategy that, as Matt Gurney and others have pointed out, has a massive long term downside not only for the Liberals, but also for Parliament and the Country as a whole.
 
And yet…the PM opened the door by smugly and specifically declaring that he knew the names of CPC MPs that were compromised (leaving the implication, unstated, that there were no Liberals/NDPs/Green/Bloc that compromised).

It was an effective short term political attack strategy that, as Matt Gurney and others have pointed out, has a massive long term downside not only for the Liberals, but also for Parliament and the Country as a whole.
and don't forget that May supposedly was given the complete briefing as leader of the Green party and said that there was no list. So is there a list and she wasn't shown it, was she lying, is this something that has been added later or was Justin lying? If it is the first choice, there is a serious problem with our security forces (it is not up to them to decide who gets what briefing; your level of security determines the information you receive). I fail to see an advantage to her to have made it all up so that eliminates number 2. Number 3 is possible but the existence of the list should have been made known at some point during the hearings. That leaves number 4.
 

Mr. Trudeau plays the name game on foreign interference​

The Editorial Board - 18 Oct 24

The scandal that began in June with the release of a classified report warning that some names-redacted parliamentarians had collaborated with foreign governments has now fallen to the level of absolute farce.

The person who has pushed it over the brink is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Wednesday, he told the public inquiry into foreign interference that he has “the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada, who are engaged, or at high risk” of, foreign interference.

This calculated partisan act has now taken us beyond the point where releasing the names of the alleged colluders in Parliament would merely be the right thing to do, as we have argued repeatedly. Now, doing so is the only way out of a deepening crisis whose repercussions will be felt in the next federal election and beyond if nothing is done.

Which is to say, once more, release the names.

The allegations that MPs and former MPs wittingly worked to influence their colleagues on India or China’s behalf, or provided confidential information to the Indian state, or accepted support from a foreign state during nomination and election campaigns, were made by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

NSICOP has access to highly classified intelligence, which it used to inform its report. The committee answers to the Prime Minister, whose office received the report in March and released a heavily redacted version of it in June.

The idea that there are MPs violating their pledge to “be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the sovereign was a bombshell that landed while the country was already wrestling with the fact that foreign actors had tried to influence the outcomes in certain ridings in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.

The right thing to do would have been to confront the domestic collaborators with the intelligence behind the allegations, and to publicize their names.

Instead, Mr. Trudeau and others in his government have insisted this is not possible, because the allegations are based on sensitive intelligence, and releasing the names might compromise the source of the information. It’s not even possible to confront the named individuals with the allegations, the government argued.

It’s a preposterous Catch-22 that would raise the question of whether Canada should bother gathering unusable intelligence – if that quandary were real.

But it’s not, as Mr. Trudeau demonstrated on Wednesday when he implicated the Conservative Party directly in the allegations. The redacted NSICOP had studiously avoided naming the political parties involved; Mr. Trudeau took it upon himself to put that information out in the public without concern for the complications he raised in the past.

As we keep saying, Mr. Trudeau has the authority to release the names of the implicated MPs in Parliament and let those facing allegations defend themselves there.

Instead, this week he exploited the intelligence to raise doubts about the Conservatives – but only as a concerned Prime Minister, of course, and not as a Liberal leader fighting for his political life.

We’re not buying it. No one should. The problem, though, is that the allegations are serious and can’t be ignored. The Conservatives need to address the matter.

Mr. Trudeau says Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre should get the required security clearance and read the NSICOP report, then deal with the issue internally. But that would be done out of sight of the public, which gets us nowhere.

Mr. Trudeau has boxed himself, and the country, into a corner. If the names remain hidden, Canadians can have no faith that the next election will be untainted by foreign interference, or that none of the winning candidates will collude with other states.

It will also show the malign forces trying to undermine Canada’s democracy that, when faced with allegations that MPs are working against their own country, our politicians take no action and instead descend into partisan bluffing games. A defenceless, vulnerable country, in other words.

Parliament, and through it all Canadians, must learn the truth. Those involved must be held accountable. Thanks to Mr. Trudeau’s actions this week, naming names is the only way out of this mess.
 
Miscellaneous thoughts...

Our parliamentary system evolved over centuries during which no-one could have foreseen modern security requirements and ordinary people expected to be permitted to stand for office without burdensome conditions.

The party controlling parliament routinely conceals all sorts of stuff from the Opposition and public.

The party controlling parliament controls government, and therefore is responsible for dealing with foreign election interference and can only delegate parts of that if it first finds ways to release relevant information. Not everyone in Canada can be cleared, so get on with it and stop whining about the people who choose not to be cleared.

[Add: haven't been paying close attention to Trudeau's remarks, but this is a wide-open statement which ought be carefully parsed: "the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada, who are engaged, or at high risk". Two sets of people in there composed of three and two sub-sets, and no indication of where the sub-sets overlap. Clarification is needed: does the set of parliamentarians or set of candidates overlap with the set of people who are engaged? I'm not much fussed if the "engaged" people are former parliamentarians, or the current parliamentarians/candidates are merely at risk.]
 
Miscellaneous thoughts...

Our parliamentary system evolved over centuries during which no-one could have foreseen modern security requirements and ordinary people expected to be permitted to stand for office without burdensome conditions.

The party controlling parliament routinely conceals all sorts of stuff from the Opposition and public.

The party controlling parliament controls government, and therefore is responsible for dealing with foreign election interference and can only delegate parts of that if it first finds ways to release relevant information. Not everyone in Canada can be cleared, so get on with it and stop whining about the people who choose not to be cleared.

[Add: haven't been paying close attention to Trudeau's remarks, but this is a wide-open statement which ought be carefully parsed: "the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada, who are engaged, or at high risk". Two sets of people in there composed of three and two sub-sets, and no indication of where the sub-sets overlap. Clarification is needed: does the set of parliamentarians or set of candidates overlap with the set of people who are engaged? I'm not much fussed if the "engaged" people are former parliamentarians, or the current parliamentarians/candidates are merely at risk.]
....and there is still zero confidence that trudeau is even capable of telling the truth.

Mr Post National State has been colluding with the outside forces at the UN, WEF and likely China to change Canada. He is the best example of a Canadian politician, being influenced by outside forces, we have. Political interference is not just the purview of sovereign countries.
 
and don't forget that May supposedly was given the complete briefing as leader of the Green party and said that there was no list. So is there a list and she wasn't shown it, was she lying, is this something that has been added later or was Justin lying? I
Considering much of the environmental issues are exaggerated by her and the Greens this is a very pertinent question.
 
Because, again from the article:



As an analogy, imagine that I accuse you of something on a Facebook post.

Technically that is intelligence that you may have did something wrong, but it’s not proof. Should your CoC be publicly naming you to the CAF and the public? I’d hope not. What I’d hope is that the CoC investigates this quietly and then goes through the Admin / Disciplinary measures as appropriate.



It’s also possible that CSIS said this before Bill C-70 was approved. The first reading was in early May. Had they testified after, the answer may have been different.

Canadian intelligence services aren't passing along unanalyzed Int data, so nobody's name is going to be seriously tied to foreign interference based on hesay. That's a partisan talking point being parroted as if it's fact. Unless people genuinely think the multiple Int agencies in Canada are filled with idiots who can't do their jobs..
 
Because, again from the article:



As an analogy, imagine that I accuse you of something on a Facebook post.

Technically that is intelligence that you may have did something wrong, but it’s not proof. Should your CoC be publicly naming you to the CAF and the public? I’d hope not. What I’d hope is that the CoC investigates this quietly and then goes through the Admin / Disciplinary measures as appropriate.



It’s also possible that CSIS said this before Bill C-70 was approved. The first reading was in early May. Had they testified after, the answer may have been different.


Most elections are fought in the court of public opinion where information and allegations often have weak provenance. Sometimes the allegations rise to the levels of slander and libel.

Do the allegations against Walz demand evidence?

What happens when 51 security agents take sides?

NSICOP is a committee of parliametarians. I believe it is within the remit of parliamentarians to eject members for conduct unbecoming.
 
If this was addressed to me, no I’m not. I don’t believe there’s a single member of this website qualified to assess that, and if there was, they certainly wouldn’t talk about it here. I was simply adding some considerations to inform the discussion.



Ok, but that sounds like literally a list of names under a heading “implicated by foreign interference”, with no context, no evidence, no clarification of intent… If you’re fine with that, cool- that’s what I was asking to clarify. I personally don’t think that approach would solve anything politically. It would probably create more questions than it answers

Like I said, I’m not staking out any particular position on this. I just see some of the inherent complexity in trying to warn Canadians of a threat that affects us all, but where knowledge of that threat is probably gleaned in great part from sources that can never be public. I don’t have a solution to offer.

I can't be any more clear:

Release the names.
 
Because, again from the article:



As an analogy, imagine that I accuse you of something on a Facebook post.

Technically that is intelligence that you may have did something wrong, but it’s not proof. Should your CoC be publicly naming you to the CAF and the public? I’d hope not. What I’d hope is that the CoC investigates this quietly and then goes through the Admin / Disciplinary measures as appropriate.



It’s also possible that CSIS said this before Bill C-70 was approved. The first reading was in early May. Had they testified after, the answer may have been different.


They can fight it in court if they want too after the fact.

Release the names.
 
Or, as I was suggesting - have parliament at large eject any sitting members for conduct unbecoming on the advice of NSICOP. And then have NSICOP, as a standing committee, vet all incoming members.

PS - WRT Tom Mulcair

I really like this new post-partisan Mulcair. I think he would make a great Governor General.
 
Or, as I was suggesting - have parliament at large eject any sitting members for conduct unbecoming on the advice of NSICOP. And then have NSICOP, as a standing committee, vet all incoming members.

PS - WRT Tom Mulcair

I really like this new post-partisan Mulcair. I think he would make a great Governor General.

I love the new Mulcair, but he is partisan.
 
... May supposedly was given the complete briefing as leader of the Green party and said that there was no list ...
Hate to be pedantic, but she seems to have said that there's no list of bad guys, which isn't the same as no list.
"Green Leader Elizabeth May says there's no list of disloyal current MPs in unredacted NSICOP report"
Yeah, I know, picking fly poop from ground pepper, but still ...
... As an analogy, imagine that I accuse you of something on a Facebook post ...
Although I like the idea of media & others keeping track of who's staying and who's going from Cabinet/caucus, this is also a good point to remember when going over such lists developed from leaving MPs/Senators.
 
Hate to be pedantic, but she seems to have said that there's no list of bad guys, which isn't the same as no list.
"Green Leader Elizabeth May says there's no list of disloyal current MPs in unredacted NSICOP report"
Yeah, I know, picking fly poop from ground pepper, but still ...

Although I like the idea of media & others keeping track of who's staying and who's going from Cabinet/caucus, this is also a good point to remember when going over such lists developed from leaving MPs/Senators.
More precisely she said there’s no list in the NSICOP report. That could simply mean some information about specific individuals was not included. Also the report was only classified Top Secret, so almost certainly did not include all known relevant intelligence.
 
In no world can I see any Gov't regardless of stripes, release just a list of names. That would open them up to a myriad of law suits from those named, and then unless the information leading to having their name put on this list is released, the Gov't would be forced to settle.

If, as a concerned CAF mbr, I asked to have the list of all currently serving senior officers and NCM's that have been investigated for harassment and at least one accusation to be deemed to have met the definition, would everyone support that as well?

I think you're playing reindeer games.

Are we not trusting these investigations and organizations that brought all this forward ?
 
Most elections are fought in the court of public opinion where information and allegations often have weak provenance. Sometimes the allegations rise to the levels of slander and libel.

Do the allegations against Walz demand evidence?

What happens when 51 security agents take sides?

NSICOP is a committee of parliametarians. I believe it is within the remit of parliamentarians to eject members for conduct unbecoming.
Most allegations have come with explanations as to why they were made.

The 51 security agent gambit has been shown to be a lie.

I'm trying to figure out what any of this has to do with trudeau.
 
Back
Top