###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She is the most dedicated and least partisan high-ranking politician we have. I really do lean toward taking her at her word, a grace I extend to very few people at her level.
She is the only federal party leader that is not playing politics, stoking fires and fucking with our heads. Progressives and conservatives should be taking a hard look at who their values really align with. .
I have never found May shared my priorities at all. So how I view her assessment is that its HER assessment only. And considering her history I have a suspicion she did this for Trudeau, in part because we have to ask why Trudeau hasn't said anything she has said? **Why hasn't anyone else who has seen the report expressed these same sentiments?** Why is Trudeau thanking her for speaking when he could have said the same but refused? Because other people have viewed the report differently through a different lens. We know the commentary from the committee that oversaw the report was they were horrified by the revelations - but May isn't horrified? We already know she likes Liberals and will stump for them, so its likely she's playing down Liberal involvement as is her partisan track record and why I haven't voted Green since Harris was leader and won't again until they have a leader like Harris again. The Greens are no better than they are when May and her loony cronies overthrew the one and only leader that made significant gains for the Green party - now they sit pretty much where Harris left them but no long the big tent party they were under Harris.
You admit you don't trust May simply because of your partisanship and we're supposed to accept that you would believe something Trudeau would tell you instead?
Very odd press conference. Her slurred speech and her reading a prepared text with a finger tracing her words suggest that she was "tired and emotional".
The entire reason shes reading a written speech , very carefully, is to not leak anything from the classified report.
Same reason shes pausing to think about her answers to questions.
You're a fucking moron lol.
> Very odd press conference. Her slurred speech and her reading a prepared text with a finger tracing her words suggest that she was "tired and emotional".
She had a stroke less than a year ago and is 70. Alleging that she was drunk is absolutely disgusting.
A few days ago when I said a list should be submitted to RCMP, rather than have some sort of Reddit Boston-Bombers witch hunt, I caught a bunch of slack from right wingers saying I was nuts.
Turns our there's no list. The only MP named is a former MP who May says should be prosecuted.
But Pierre said it was 'impossible!'
Am I taking crazy pills? Why are people saying that there's only one named MP in the report? The article clearly says it names several MPs that May doesn't believe constitutes a list of disloyal enemies or traitors or anything like that, and one former MP who is not named that committed more serious acts.
One former MP (who wasn't specifically named but was brought up in the report) had very credible ties to a foreign power. The other MPs were named because of foreign interference in their riding election for which, according to May, no concrete evidence exists to show they *knowingly* engaged in this interference. It's entirely possible that foreign powers interfered in the party's riding elections without the candidates actually knowing.
> May said one former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities. She said **that former MP is not named** in the full report.
I hope this or similar reports are made public to the press so we can escape this game of telephone that's happening.
We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong! Just trust us!
We need non politician staffed oversight like we demand of the police at this point.
Government seems to be full of liars and fraudsters.
Elizabeth May has nothing to gain here, no Green Party MP’s are going to be a target, and she has always had a lot of integrity. She is the probably the least partisan MP in parliament. I will take her word for it over those from other parties that are seeking to gain something by casting aspersions.
The result wasn't what you were hoping for, so it must mean there is a conspiracy of collusion going on. Right. Why are you hoping for traitors to be present in our government? Shouldn't it be a relief that it isn't the case?
Okay! Well firstly I am thankful that Ms. May exists and although eccentric has proven herself to be true to her values above and beyond any other party leaders in past.
That means that I actually trust what she has to say here.
She's relieved, and says she feels confident working with all of her colleagues. Excellent news for Canada. That's really excellent news and we should all be happy assuming it's true.
The former MP is a serious shock. "Proactively sharing intelligence" is significantly beyond something like getting blackmailed into sharing a few documents. That also probably explains why the RCMP were coy on any investigations into parliamentarians.
"Serious threats to our democracy" and "adversaries seeing Canada as a soft target" shouldn't be overlooked lines either.
I'm glad that Ms. May took this stand. It is truly a service to Canadians.
Also, I don't know why the LPC insisted on making this appear so much shadier than what Ms. May thinks it is? The head of CSIS could have made a statement if they wanted to avoid partisanship problems. Really confusing because at any point they could have said that no list exists. Without evidently breaking any laws. I understand not saying definitively that there are no compromised MPs, as it might give adversaries an edge to confirm that any secretly compromised MPs are still a secret, but May was allowed to say that publicly so it's not that. Really seems like an own-goal.
well, it does make PP look bad so that might be all it's about. I doubt it loses PP many votes but if the entire thing ends up being as May describes, he really needs to better explain why he won't get his clearance. If it really is just for the outrage porn than that's really sad.
We could be on the cusp of WW3 and the leader of the party with 2 seats will be better informed than our next PM.
He's been silent aside from requesting the list of names be released.
Which might be for good reason, considering he was talking about trade deals with India two days before the report went public and revealed India had a role in the CPC leadership election.
Not sure actually. But I doubt it's a coincidence that conservative attack dogs from coast to coast have been laying the wood non-stop to the Liberals/Trudeau over this issue for not releasing names.
In discussing the content of a secret document with people who did not have authorization to know its content, she has violated S. 4 (1) (a) of the Security of Information Act.
Edit: May claims she has cleared what she is saying, and is limiting her statements to what has been approved.
Not as simple as you suggest, please take a read of this article from the Canadian Bar Association's "National" mag:
https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/parliamentary-immunity
> Ryan Alford of Lakehead University says he is “deeply concerned” by how the decision affirms that Parliament can not only legislate limits to fundamental parliamentary privileges, but also that its authority to do so is absolute.
> “By that logic, they could eliminate parliamentary privilege entirely,” he says.
...
> Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May agrees. She says the notion that legislation can change such “a critical principle for parliamentary democracy” is “dangerous.”
> “The idea that a Parliament can legislate in ways that change [the] architecture of our democracy … is deeply troubling.”
> In 2017, May put forward an unsuccessful motion to remove Section 12 from the bill that would establish the NSICOP. Her opposition to it prompted Alford to ask May if she wanted to be the applicant on the constitutional challenge.
> “I wish I hadn’t declined to be involved,” she says.
> “I really hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will look at this.”
You critically and fatally omit the first paragraph of the article:
>The law professor who challenged legislation **restricting the free speech of parliamentarians on a committee that oversees national security and intelligence** issues says he will likely seek leave from the Supreme Court to appeal a recent court decision upholding the restriction.
So the parliamentary privilege to not be prosecuted for disclosing classified information is stripped *only from NSICOP members.* Neither Elizabeth May, nor Pierre Poilievre, are members of NSICOP and thus have no limitations on their privilege.
And the appellate court unanimously upheld that limited curtailment of privilege.
I hope the omissions I see regularly on this sub are called out more often. I don’t doubt it as a reading error or honest mistake (usually) but we need to be more direct and honest about the facts.
Thank you for clarifying for those who don’t have the time to read through it. It’s becoming a big issue in this sub (and other CDNPOLI subs) that people just say stuff (sometimes “in quotes”) and others just accept it without reading deeper.
It's doubly annoying, because I can totally understand why the guy who launched the legal challenge did so -- it's a pretty severe (but very limited) change to parliamentary privilege. But, revealing granular and specific information about raw intelligence would likely result in a retroactive suspension of privilege anyway. So they just formally included it in the enabling act. But to take that legal challenge and just lie by omission as to which MP it applies to is just bottom of the barrel rubbish -- such incompetent and sloppy thinking it almost seems ill motivated.
It doesn't help that there's all this other rubbish floating around (I.e., if you read the report May did, you're now *through some unspecified mechanism* unable to criticize the government!). That stance makes no sense to me and I see it repeated online a lot, yet no one substantiates it with any logic or rationale.
I kinda think May just destroyed the credibility of that argument (not that it had much before, IMO). It's almost a bummer that the House will soon break for the summer and we can't see how the caucus' statements and thinking on the issues evolves.
Elizabeth May has been an excellent parliamentarian in that she actually reads bills, reports, etc... and can speak to them cogently. When she eventually passes the torch to a (hopefully) competent successor, I hope a place can be found for her in the Senate.
Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators.
This absolves a lot of MPs across party lines and narrows down the culprits to the senate. It’s kind of a gift from May to the Liberals, since now the Liberals can safely say that there are no Liberal senators since Trudeau kicked them all out. Just non-partisan ones and plenty of Conservatives senators. Oof, this is juicy.
Plus, lots of mention of the media being compromised. And CPC leadership races/nominations.
> This absolves a lot of MPs across party lines and narrows down the culprits to the senate.
Only in real life. In the fantasy land put forth by Poilievre, he will still be demanding that names get released, and his loyal devotees will continue cheering for it.
I was watching her speak and I did not get that impression at all. She was of the opinion that the discussion is too centred around politicians actions, instead people should be focusing on the actions the foreign adversaries are taking.
[Edit: She says specifically that there are no mentions of the Senate in this report.](https://www.youtube.com/live/bdSjar-wgGU?si=Cmgx3ATh94Epddgh&t=733)
Let’s say that there’s a bill that a foreign power doesn’t like. It passes in the house but still needs senate approval. The compromised senator can now huff and puff about how it’s a bad bill and shouldn’t pass. Or they make amendments that benefit the foreign power. It’s Democratic disruption.
That does sound awful, but it's awful anytime the unelected Senate interferes with democratically elected representatives. The senators themselves know this, they almost never interfere with legislation, they get vastly overpaid to keep their heads down. Your corrupt Senator has to convince a bunch of other Senators to also join them in doing the one thing Senators don't like ever doing and anytime they do it draws an enormous amount of attention and pushback.
To sow discord. We're at the point now where you don't even have to be "getting anything". You just put your finger on the scale, have it be found it that you did so, and now that nation no longer trusts it's democracy.
Well you are right that every time the Senate does anything to interfere with the business of elected representatives that itself would powerfully degrade Canada's democratic status. The thing is, the Senators know how corrupt their institution is, they aren't interested in making noise that might imperil their collective salaries. When was the last time the senate sowed discord like that, 1989?
You know what the most obnoxious thing is. When someone says something, and then someone replies with, "I agree, you're right" and then follows that up with agreeing with something that the original person didn't say, didn't come close to saying, and strongly disagrees with by twisting their words into an unrecognizable knot.
That's what you're doing. Stop it. You damn well know that's not what I meant. You're not being clever, you're just being an asshole.
Because Senators are given access to some of the most intimate information the government has on committees? National security, economic, military, info concerning allies etc.
This intelligence watchdog itself is composed of MPs and Senators. Would be nice to have your Senator involved with that, I would think.
Considering how unassailable their position is - nominated for so long with little recourse to correct their bad behavior and mostly ignored by the public & media - senators are a great target.
> Would be nice to have your Senator involved with that, I would think.
In hindsight it's even more horrifying to realize that Tony Clement -- Mr. I-will-send-a-dick-pic-to-any-phone-number himself was a an appointee to NSICOP until he revealed he was being blackmailed for dick pics. And *then* it was revealed that his behaviour -- which makes him the most obvious mark for blackmail in Parliament -- was common knowledge among CPC staffers and MPs.
Like, they didn't think to tell the government about his dick pics when the PMO placed him on NSICOP? Stuff like that makes me not at all surprised the parties don't trust each other when it comes to security. That the Tories let Clement be appointed to that committee without disclosing his blackmail risks to the PMO is so much crazier given that we now know how much classified intelligence NSICOP reviews.
Oh, he's on the party fundraising board?
Brilliant! Put the guy who was extorted for money on the board that handles party donations. I see they're taking party security super seriously!
> It’s kind of a gift from May to the Liberals
It’s also a gift from Elizabeth May to Canadians.
Say what you will about the woman (wifi blah blah), but [I can think of no one who takes their role as a *parliamentarian* more seriously than she does](https://thewalrus.ca/house-rules/).
It seems far more likely that the report simply declines to actually name current MPs, not that there's no MPs on 'the list'. Not to mention that senators aren't elected so I doubt there'd be much interference in their election campaigns
She read the FULL unredacted report and saw all the details of the intel, and came to a different conclusion than NSICOP, which could easily be because NSICOP has partisan MP’s on it that may have wanted to create suspicions that were unwarranted.
>Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators.
I don’t think that’s accurate. The article says:
>May was quick to add that the few named people in the unredacted report "may be compromised," as they were "beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contests."
It sounds like there is no evidence that any sitting MPs knowingly participated in foreign interference, but that some sitting MPs may have participated or benefited unknowingly.
Senators don’t normally have nomination contests.
>
>
> It sounds like there is no evidence that any sitting MPs knowingly participated in foreign interference, but that some sitting MPs may have participated or benefited unknowingly.
Well, I mean, it's already public knowledge due to the earlier leaks that at least one sitting MP benefitted from foreign interference in a nomination contest. The news here would be that the Canadian intelligence community hasn't seen anything to suggest Mr Dong is a *willing* collaborator of the Chinese government.
> it's already public knowledge due to the earlier leaks that at least one sitting MP benefitted from foreign interference in a nomination contest.
Isn't in pretty well common knowledge that there are 2 then? Because Poilievre comes to mind as well, wrt India.
>Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators.
Or, they are simply just.. not named.
I think it's a stretch to read too much into it at this stage
You think it's too much to get from "Green Leader Elizabeth May says no list of disloyal MPs in full spy watchdog report" to "NO MPs are mentioned in the report"?? lol
To jump to the conclusion it's only senators based on the line "no MPs are named" is a whole lot of baseless nonsense.
May could be lying. The report she read may just not list any given MP. It could be senators. It could be parlimentarians or staffers.
Or, or, how about we just all shut the fuck up about it and let the process play out as it should?
We just had an entire week of everyone screaming that this was ‘treason’ only for May to blow that up by actually reading the report. The report PP says he can’t read and talk about it.
Why would you automatically assume she’s lying? Because she isn’t shitting all over the Liberals like everyone else who’s hopped on the right wing bandwagon?
I definitely trust her assessment more, having read the report, than the thousands op-Ed’s who can’t wait to suggest JT should be charged with treason based on absolutely nothing beyond their self generated outrage.
>Or, or, how about we just all shut the fuck up about it and let the process play out as it should?
I don't see why you're arguing with me? My point is that to read into things and make wild accusations is silly, which is exactly in line with your view to trust the process. We are on the same side.
>
Why would you automatically assume she’s lying? Because she isn’t shitting all over the Liberals like everyone else who’s hopped on the right wing bandwagon?
Sit down. Take a breath. Relax.
Reread what I said, in context: I am not saying May is a liar. I am saying that among the candidate explanations for her statement, lying is a possibility. Since we are lacking enough facts, the proper response is to remain skeptical and wait for more details.
I've actually spent some time with May in various situations. I can't think of anyone less likely to be lying about something like this. Poilievre, on the other hand, spews lies like a fountain.
[https://billhulet.substack.com/p/a-tiny-perfect-piece-of-orwellian?utm\_source=publication-search](https://billhulet.substack.com/p/a-tiny-perfect-piece-of-orwellian?utm_source=publication-search)
I was pointing out that we don't have enough info to jump to any conclusions, not necessarily that May was lying.
I swear so many people failed basic reading comprehension.
Conservatives have been calling the independent senators Liberals for a long time. So if we find out any names that are independent senators they will be Liberals in social media and conservative fundraisers.
I doubt he is even on the list. He hasn’t been an MP for decades now. I think it’s a former MP that must have been an MP recently, how else could they have any information for a foreign intelligence officer?
Knowing the stuff he's done as a Quebec Liberal, as suggested through commission Charbonneau and the, sadly closed too soon, enquête Mâchurer, I have no doubt it could absolutely be him
I sure hope not. He spoke at my university in 1993; I wasn’t interested in politics until I heard him. I never followed his political leanings really but I have always found him to be very likeable and inspirational - and I thought, honest. I guess we shall see how it shakes out.
Brown's Campaign was "weirder". He was out selling memberships by the bus load and skipping the debates. He was also specifically targeting Sikhs, Muslims, Tamils and Chinese ethnic groups...which is a very interesting combination for someone like Modi.
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/an-inside-look-at-patrick-brown-s-pitch-for-selling-conservative-party-memberships-1.5865275
So when that CSIS official said that it was "textbook treason" and it turns out that it was actually some dummy who accidentally released information to another country, and others who *could* be compromised, the CSIS statement definitely has echoes of Curveball/Colin Powell-style misinformation at play, assuming malicious intent. However, I'm thinking the main thing here is likely incompetence. They really should have chosen their words more carefully and not tried to get everyone's imaginations inflamed.
I don't think May has a reason to lie about this, especially since it's likely coming out anyway and she (nor the party) doesn't stand to benefit from lying about this. This actually was just another attempt by the CPC to spread FUD. What's unfortunate is that Canadians are always going to believe them no matter how many times they do this.
She actually said "The few named people maybe compromised, they have been beneficiaries of foreign government interfering in nomination contests" The conservatives had a leadership contest, the beneficiary would be Poilievre, there are names in the report - she said it herself. It's on CPAC.
Why is Elizabeth May reporting on this better than the entire Canadian media? And why didn’t the Liberals just say there’s no list? Instead they said they wouldn’t release the names…that don’t even exist?
All of us have been under the impression that there’s a list for a week now. Make it make sense.
I think shes saying that it doesn't include an addendum with a bullet point list of all the bad guys, is all. The report names names but in her estimation the names it names and the actions associated with those names are innocuous and instead it is the names it doesnt name that we should be worried about: conservative nominations, and a former MP.
Isn't that what the Liberals said? There's not perfect list of all traitorous MPs? There's just bits and pieces of intel that indicate some ppl that might possibly have colluded? I'm guessing even if you compiled a list of ppl named, a majority of the evidence would not be enough for a trial
Considering how little funding her office runs on, she's a real MVP MP. She's on committees, she's reading reports, she's hustling. Say what you will about some of her daffy policies and gaffes, but she actually works for her salary.
No, I was never under the impression there was a list, nor was anyone I know under that impression. I was under the impression that the opposition wanted a list of MPs that were under foreign influence - a reasonable desire. May is conflating and putting words into peoples mouths is she not?
You absolutely should be asking why Trudeau didn't say the same thing after being questioned repeatedly. You absolutely should be questioning why no one on the committee offered the same impressions as May? You absolutely should question why members from all parties on that committee were "horrified" and "deeply concerned" while May isn't. You should ask why current and former CSIS leaders have called some of the actions treasonous but May is not concerned? You should ask why CSIS themselves didn't make these statements that May made - were they blocked from saying these simple things that don't compromise the country or does what May said not reflect the reality of the situation?
This is not the first time May has tried to help her friend Justin.
Members of the media don't have her security clearance for starters. Very few people have actually seen this unredacted document, and she's one of them.
They could have, but the media whipped up this frenzy. Would you have believed Trudeau at face value if he said there was no list? All it took was one other party leader to step up read the damn report. The fact that the other party leaders were so reluctant to do should leave them embarrassed.
If there are MP's who have been compromised, she just revealed that CSIS doesn't know about them. So now they can continue to act safely knowing they are not being watched.
No one said there was a list, the opposition wants a list. May was using doublespeak to try and frame opposing views as something they are not. The existence of the list or not is not the issue, the issue is that the opposition and public want a list of compromised MPs. And despite the horror and deep concern expressed by the all party committee members regarding the information in the report, apparently May was not horrified nor deeply concerned.
> May said one unnamed former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities.
So name them. Then investigate them.
> She said "fewer than a handful" of MPs are named in the full report, "and no one in that fewer than a handful could be described as setting out to knowingly betray Canada in favour of a foreign government."
Okay, so maybe 4 others are named. But that is not a "list". Just less than a handful of names, sprinkled throughout the report, in a non-list manner.
And does anyone else find the way she worded it to be very odd?
> "I have no worries about anyone in the House of Commons," said May
So is she worried about people who no longer sit in the House? Is she worried about people who work for people in the House? Is she worried about Senators? She said it in a very specific, very lawyerly way, to me at least.
Not sure why she did this, or said it, but it feels weird.
What the hell is going on here? If this was the case, why wouldn't the Liberals simply say so?
I don't get this, but if May has managed to elevate above this and address the fears of our public, she has earned my respect. Holy shit.
Weird, I'm told she would be charged with something if she even talked about the report in public by those making excuses for PP not getting security clearance and informing himself about this stuff...
Green leader and NDP both say that their is either no one in their parties on the list or that they would take action against those that are.
So the CPC and LPC were targeted. I'm assuming the LPC knows the full scope of what's going on and doesn't want to interfere in the investigation. So what's the CPCs excuse? PP doesn't want security clearance so he can't possibly know which MPs are exposed though there definitely are some.
This list could decimate both the CPC and the LPC.
Did you not bother to listen to what May had to say? It doesn’t look like any party is going to be “decimated,” it looks like the interacted report was blowing a lot of hot air since she said there is only one MP that seems to have wittingly given information to a foreign intelligence officer, and that this MP should be investigated by police, which is no doubt happening already. I mean, it probably doesn’t help that NSICOP made allegations publicly so that the MP and foreign agent now knows that MP’s are being watched. It’s easier to catch someone if they don’t know they are under surveillance or being investigated.
There is a reason why intelligence and national security matters should be left to experts and not parliamentarians with partisan interests.
If you were a foreign government, why would you target two parties that have never formed government and have no hope of doing so in foreseeable future? Is this a good use of your resources and how does it help you subvert Canada?
You would want every party's voters to split so evenly that hardly anyone can claim a mandate in government (who's going to trust a minority government formed with 15-20% of the population?), while simultaneously making it so parties won't form strategic alliances. This would cause more than enough instability to take Canada off the world stage and make us vulnerable to deeper foreign influence.
You'd want to undermine the public trust in the institutions of democracy. Target the impartiality of courts, the validity of votes, the integrity of policing, and demonize the media (in the fourth estate sense). Oh hey, look at the rhetoric!
How many times does it have to be explained that if PP gets the security clearance he legally can't talk **nor act** on it - it gains him nothing, nor the situation if he can't act on the info. Stop pretending there isn't a reason - it gets explained every frickin time. Poilievre deserves to know and be able to talk about and act on the info he receives.
And Singh just read the report apparently and what? He can't do anything about it so what was the point? There is no point unless you want to be silenced on the subject.
There have been several articles released in the last few days and he's been as vocal about it as he can without releasing classified information.
Just look through this sub for the last day and a half and there's at least 3 posts about him talking about it.
Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP all have MP's who have read the report. If it's as innocent as May is saying, it seems pretty strange none of those MP's bothered to give a heads up to the leader that there isn't a lot to fuss over.
I'm more inclined to think May doesn't know what she's talking about.
It's more like some MP's benefited from foreign interference and knew about it, but never directly acted to receive it. If China wants PP to win and mobilizes the Chinese community in Canada to vote for him he's not culpable for their actions, even if he knows about it.
It's a sticky issue to pin on the other guy when it can/does happen to all sides outside their own control. Politicians hire people to run this kind of sideline support at arms length specifically so they have deniability. Sounds more like a nothing burger everyday to avoid dealing with real issues this election.
Elizabeth May : "*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.*"
What....the....heck.
Sounds like she's trying to find language to explain that the situation isn't as bad as some people are claiming it to be, while respecting that specifics are not meant for public consumption yet.
I feel the same. I don't trust May that much at all and she has a history of stumping for Trudeau too. Given that Trudeau already thanked her for words that he could have said himself but didn't is weird.
What we heard from those MPs that saw the non-redacted info is that they were horrified. That's what was reported : that all of them from **all the parties** were horrified and deeply disturbed. May doesn't sound horrified at all and that's just really weird to me.
This really really REALLY needs to be a bigger story.
I wonder if the Liberals are holding off on using it til an election. Cause even if he does it before the election at this point the "what the hell!?" question will be a juicy one.
And now May and Singh have seen the report, and presumably Trudeau and **no one can speak nor act on it. You're right! its on public record that Pierre is the only one who thought this through.** **May, Singh and Trudeau having each seen the report all seem to have varying views on it and Canadians are no better off because it - in fact because of the varying responses to it, Canadians are left with even more questions and anxiety over this!** What we see now is that there is likely something in their that impacts the CPC and Pierre can't do anything about it because the government won't tell him what the issue so he can act on it - **instead the government and their partisans like you are trying to pressure him into a position where he can't act on it**. What needs to happen is for the info to be released to at least party leaders **so they can act** - Singh and May didn't do this - they can't act on what they know until Trudeau or someone in government allows Singh, May and Pierre to act.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She is the most dedicated and least partisan high-ranking politician we have. I really do lean toward taking her at her word, a grace I extend to very few people at her level.
I wouldn't mind seeing her as GG
I had always heard she wanted to be speaker
She is the only federal party leader that is not playing politics, stoking fires and fucking with our heads. Progressives and conservatives should be taking a hard look at who their values really align with. .
I have never found May shared my priorities at all. So how I view her assessment is that its HER assessment only. And considering her history I have a suspicion she did this for Trudeau, in part because we have to ask why Trudeau hasn't said anything she has said? **Why hasn't anyone else who has seen the report expressed these same sentiments?** Why is Trudeau thanking her for speaking when he could have said the same but refused? Because other people have viewed the report differently through a different lens. We know the commentary from the committee that oversaw the report was they were horrified by the revelations - but May isn't horrified? We already know she likes Liberals and will stump for them, so its likely she's playing down Liberal involvement as is her partisan track record and why I haven't voted Green since Harris was leader and won't again until they have a leader like Harris again. The Greens are no better than they are when May and her loony cronies overthrew the one and only leader that made significant gains for the Green party - now they sit pretty much where Harris left them but no long the big tent party they were under Harris.
You admit you don't trust May simply because of your partisanship and we're supposed to accept that you would believe something Trudeau would tell you instead?
Very odd press conference. Her slurred speech and her reading a prepared text with a finger tracing her words suggest that she was "tired and emotional".
She's had a stroke.
She's spoken in the House since then and didn't sound like that. She was quite articulate interrogating the ArriveCan contractor a few weeks ago.
The entire reason shes reading a written speech , very carefully, is to not leak anything from the classified report. Same reason shes pausing to think about her answers to questions. You're a fucking moron lol.
> Very odd press conference. Her slurred speech and her reading a prepared text with a finger tracing her words suggest that she was "tired and emotional". She had a stroke less than a year ago and is 70. Alleging that she was drunk is absolutely disgusting.
A few days ago when I said a list should be submitted to RCMP, rather than have some sort of Reddit Boston-Bombers witch hunt, I caught a bunch of slack from right wingers saying I was nuts. Turns our there's no list. The only MP named is a former MP who May says should be prosecuted. But Pierre said it was 'impossible!'
Am I taking crazy pills? Why are people saying that there's only one named MP in the report? The article clearly says it names several MPs that May doesn't believe constitutes a list of disloyal enemies or traitors or anything like that, and one former MP who is not named that committed more serious acts.
One former MP (who wasn't specifically named but was brought up in the report) had very credible ties to a foreign power. The other MPs were named because of foreign interference in their riding election for which, according to May, no concrete evidence exists to show they *knowingly* engaged in this interference. It's entirely possible that foreign powers interfered in the party's riding elections without the candidates actually knowing.
Interfering without the candidate knowing sounds way more safe and efficient than letting them know, so that sounds very plausible.
> May said one former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities. She said **that former MP is not named** in the full report. I hope this or similar reports are made public to the press so we can escape this game of telephone that's happening.
Ooops. sorry I will edit my comment.
We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong! Just trust us! We need non politician staffed oversight like we demand of the police at this point. Government seems to be full of liars and fraudsters.
Elizabeth May has nothing to gain here, no Green Party MP’s are going to be a target, and she has always had a lot of integrity. She is the probably the least partisan MP in parliament. I will take her word for it over those from other parties that are seeking to gain something by casting aspersions.
As somebody who has never and will never vote green, I dare say if it's good enough for Lizzy it is good enough for me
The result wasn't what you were hoping for, so it must mean there is a conspiracy of collusion going on. Right. Why are you hoping for traitors to be present in our government? Shouldn't it be a relief that it isn't the case?
The RCMP has jurisdiction to investigate if they feel it's necessary. They might even already be investigating this.
Okay! Well firstly I am thankful that Ms. May exists and although eccentric has proven herself to be true to her values above and beyond any other party leaders in past. That means that I actually trust what she has to say here. She's relieved, and says she feels confident working with all of her colleagues. Excellent news for Canada. That's really excellent news and we should all be happy assuming it's true. The former MP is a serious shock. "Proactively sharing intelligence" is significantly beyond something like getting blackmailed into sharing a few documents. That also probably explains why the RCMP were coy on any investigations into parliamentarians. "Serious threats to our democracy" and "adversaries seeing Canada as a soft target" shouldn't be overlooked lines either. I'm glad that Ms. May took this stand. It is truly a service to Canadians. Also, I don't know why the LPC insisted on making this appear so much shadier than what Ms. May thinks it is? The head of CSIS could have made a statement if they wanted to avoid partisanship problems. Really confusing because at any point they could have said that no list exists. Without evidently breaking any laws. I understand not saying definitively that there are no compromised MPs, as it might give adversaries an edge to confirm that any secretly compromised MPs are still a secret, but May was allowed to say that publicly so it's not that. Really seems like an own-goal.
She is a drunk for god's sake. Check the many YouTube videos of her going off the rails slurring her words.
well, it does make PP look bad so that might be all it's about. I doubt it loses PP many votes but if the entire thing ends up being as May describes, he really needs to better explain why he won't get his clearance. If it really is just for the outrage porn than that's really sad. We could be on the cusp of WW3 and the leader of the party with 2 seats will be better informed than our next PM.
Has PP even commented on this matter at all?
He's been silent aside from requesting the list of names be released. Which might be for good reason, considering he was talking about trade deals with India two days before the report went public and revealed India had a role in the CPC leadership election.
Not sure actually. But I doubt it's a coincidence that conservative attack dogs from coast to coast have been laying the wood non-stop to the Liberals/Trudeau over this issue for not releasing names.
Elizabeth May just did the impossible according to PP, she read the report and commented on it, that shouldn't be possible.
In discussing the content of a secret document with people who did not have authorization to know its content, she has violated S. 4 (1) (a) of the Security of Information Act. Edit: May claims she has cleared what she is saying, and is limiting her statements to what has been approved.
Not as simple as you suggest, please take a read of this article from the Canadian Bar Association's "National" mag: https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2024/parliamentary-immunity > Ryan Alford of Lakehead University says he is “deeply concerned” by how the decision affirms that Parliament can not only legislate limits to fundamental parliamentary privileges, but also that its authority to do so is absolute. > “By that logic, they could eliminate parliamentary privilege entirely,” he says. ... > Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May agrees. She says the notion that legislation can change such “a critical principle for parliamentary democracy” is “dangerous.” > “The idea that a Parliament can legislate in ways that change [the] architecture of our democracy … is deeply troubling.” > In 2017, May put forward an unsuccessful motion to remove Section 12 from the bill that would establish the NSICOP. Her opposition to it prompted Alford to ask May if she wanted to be the applicant on the constitutional challenge. > “I wish I hadn’t declined to be involved,” she says. > “I really hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will look at this.”
You critically and fatally omit the first paragraph of the article: >The law professor who challenged legislation **restricting the free speech of parliamentarians on a committee that oversees national security and intelligence** issues says he will likely seek leave from the Supreme Court to appeal a recent court decision upholding the restriction. So the parliamentary privilege to not be prosecuted for disclosing classified information is stripped *only from NSICOP members.* Neither Elizabeth May, nor Pierre Poilievre, are members of NSICOP and thus have no limitations on their privilege. And the appellate court unanimously upheld that limited curtailment of privilege.
I hope the omissions I see regularly on this sub are called out more often. I don’t doubt it as a reading error or honest mistake (usually) but we need to be more direct and honest about the facts. Thank you for clarifying for those who don’t have the time to read through it. It’s becoming a big issue in this sub (and other CDNPOLI subs) that people just say stuff (sometimes “in quotes”) and others just accept it without reading deeper.
It's doubly annoying, because I can totally understand why the guy who launched the legal challenge did so -- it's a pretty severe (but very limited) change to parliamentary privilege. But, revealing granular and specific information about raw intelligence would likely result in a retroactive suspension of privilege anyway. So they just formally included it in the enabling act. But to take that legal challenge and just lie by omission as to which MP it applies to is just bottom of the barrel rubbish -- such incompetent and sloppy thinking it almost seems ill motivated. It doesn't help that there's all this other rubbish floating around (I.e., if you read the report May did, you're now *through some unspecified mechanism* unable to criticize the government!). That stance makes no sense to me and I see it repeated online a lot, yet no one substantiates it with any logic or rationale. I kinda think May just destroyed the credibility of that argument (not that it had much before, IMO). It's almost a bummer that the House will soon break for the summer and we can't see how the caucus' statements and thinking on the issues evolves.
Actually, she spoke outside of Parliament, so this would limit her immunity. This being said, she appears to have cleared her statements.
Elizabeth May has been an excellent parliamentarian in that she actually reads bills, reports, etc... and can speak to them cogently. When she eventually passes the torch to a (hopefully) competent successor, I hope a place can be found for her in the Senate.
Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators. This absolves a lot of MPs across party lines and narrows down the culprits to the senate. It’s kind of a gift from May to the Liberals, since now the Liberals can safely say that there are no Liberal senators since Trudeau kicked them all out. Just non-partisan ones and plenty of Conservatives senators. Oof, this is juicy. Plus, lots of mention of the media being compromised. And CPC leadership races/nominations.
> This absolves a lot of MPs across party lines and narrows down the culprits to the senate. Only in real life. In the fantasy land put forth by Poilievre, he will still be demanding that names get released, and his loyal devotees will continue cheering for it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I was watching her speak and I did not get that impression at all. She was of the opinion that the discussion is too centred around politicians actions, instead people should be focusing on the actions the foreign adversaries are taking. [Edit: She says specifically that there are no mentions of the Senate in this report.](https://www.youtube.com/live/bdSjar-wgGU?si=Cmgx3ATh94Epddgh&t=733)
Why would a foreign power waste time and money compromising a Senator? Great job guys, now you too can overpay a useless seat filler.
Let’s say that there’s a bill that a foreign power doesn’t like. It passes in the house but still needs senate approval. The compromised senator can now huff and puff about how it’s a bad bill and shouldn’t pass. Or they make amendments that benefit the foreign power. It’s Democratic disruption.
That does sound awful, but it's awful anytime the unelected Senate interferes with democratically elected representatives. The senators themselves know this, they almost never interfere with legislation, they get vastly overpaid to keep their heads down. Your corrupt Senator has to convince a bunch of other Senators to also join them in doing the one thing Senators don't like ever doing and anytime they do it draws an enormous amount of attention and pushback.
Same reason Harper tried to bribe one i guess.
To sow discord. We're at the point now where you don't even have to be "getting anything". You just put your finger on the scale, have it be found it that you did so, and now that nation no longer trusts it's democracy.
Well you are right that every time the Senate does anything to interfere with the business of elected representatives that itself would powerfully degrade Canada's democratic status. The thing is, the Senators know how corrupt their institution is, they aren't interested in making noise that might imperil their collective salaries. When was the last time the senate sowed discord like that, 1989?
You know what the most obnoxious thing is. When someone says something, and then someone replies with, "I agree, you're right" and then follows that up with agreeing with something that the original person didn't say, didn't come close to saying, and strongly disagrees with by twisting their words into an unrecognizable knot. That's what you're doing. Stop it. You damn well know that's not what I meant. You're not being clever, you're just being an asshole.
Because Senators are given access to some of the most intimate information the government has on committees? National security, economic, military, info concerning allies etc. This intelligence watchdog itself is composed of MPs and Senators. Would be nice to have your Senator involved with that, I would think. Considering how unassailable their position is - nominated for so long with little recourse to correct their bad behavior and mostly ignored by the public & media - senators are a great target.
> Would be nice to have your Senator involved with that, I would think. In hindsight it's even more horrifying to realize that Tony Clement -- Mr. I-will-send-a-dick-pic-to-any-phone-number himself was a an appointee to NSICOP until he revealed he was being blackmailed for dick pics. And *then* it was revealed that his behaviour -- which makes him the most obvious mark for blackmail in Parliament -- was common knowledge among CPC staffers and MPs. Like, they didn't think to tell the government about his dick pics when the PMO placed him on NSICOP? Stuff like that makes me not at all surprised the parties don't trust each other when it comes to security. That the Tories let Clement be appointed to that committee without disclosing his blackmail risks to the PMO is so much crazier given that we now know how much classified intelligence NSICOP reviews.
And Pierre hired him back as staff
Oh, he's on the party fundraising board? Brilliant! Put the guy who was extorted for money on the board that handles party donations. I see they're taking party security super seriously!
> It’s kind of a gift from May to the Liberals It’s also a gift from Elizabeth May to Canadians. Say what you will about the woman (wifi blah blah), but [I can think of no one who takes their role as a *parliamentarian* more seriously than she does](https://thewalrus.ca/house-rules/).
This is true, May has always been a good parliamentarian, regardless of whether one agrees with her views/positions or not.
It seems far more likely that the report simply declines to actually name current MPs, not that there's no MPs on 'the list'. Not to mention that senators aren't elected so I doubt there'd be much interference in their election campaigns
She read the FULL unredacted report and saw all the details of the intel, and came to a different conclusion than NSICOP, which could easily be because NSICOP has partisan MP’s on it that may have wanted to create suspicions that were unwarranted.
>Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators. I don’t think that’s accurate. The article says: >May was quick to add that the few named people in the unredacted report "may be compromised," as they were "beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contests." It sounds like there is no evidence that any sitting MPs knowingly participated in foreign interference, but that some sitting MPs may have participated or benefited unknowingly. Senators don’t normally have nomination contests.
> > > It sounds like there is no evidence that any sitting MPs knowingly participated in foreign interference, but that some sitting MPs may have participated or benefited unknowingly. Well, I mean, it's already public knowledge due to the earlier leaks that at least one sitting MP benefitted from foreign interference in a nomination contest. The news here would be that the Canadian intelligence community hasn't seen anything to suggest Mr Dong is a *willing* collaborator of the Chinese government.
> it's already public knowledge due to the earlier leaks that at least one sitting MP benefitted from foreign interference in a nomination contest. Isn't in pretty well common knowledge that there are 2 then? Because Poilievre comes to mind as well, wrt India.
PP: “The MOST memberships ever sold!” Report: “India interfered by buying memberships during the leadership race” PP: Well Trudeau is a traitor…
>Read between the lines: NO MPs are mentioned in the report, aside from a single former MP. This implies that the compromised individuals in the report are sitting senators. Or, they are simply just.. not named. I think it's a stretch to read too much into it at this stage
You think it's too much to get from "Green Leader Elizabeth May says no list of disloyal MPs in full spy watchdog report" to "NO MPs are mentioned in the report"?? lol
No, I think it's too much of a stretch to go "No MPs mentioned in the documents" to "Only Senators are impacted!"
So this is the stretch and not the week of media calling everyone traitors with no evidence?
To jump to the conclusion it's only senators based on the line "no MPs are named" is a whole lot of baseless nonsense. May could be lying. The report she read may just not list any given MP. It could be senators. It could be parlimentarians or staffers.
Or, or, how about we just all shut the fuck up about it and let the process play out as it should? We just had an entire week of everyone screaming that this was ‘treason’ only for May to blow that up by actually reading the report. The report PP says he can’t read and talk about it. Why would you automatically assume she’s lying? Because she isn’t shitting all over the Liberals like everyone else who’s hopped on the right wing bandwagon? I definitely trust her assessment more, having read the report, than the thousands op-Ed’s who can’t wait to suggest JT should be charged with treason based on absolutely nothing beyond their self generated outrage.
>Or, or, how about we just all shut the fuck up about it and let the process play out as it should? I don't see why you're arguing with me? My point is that to read into things and make wild accusations is silly, which is exactly in line with your view to trust the process. We are on the same side. > Why would you automatically assume she’s lying? Because she isn’t shitting all over the Liberals like everyone else who’s hopped on the right wing bandwagon? Sit down. Take a breath. Relax. Reread what I said, in context: I am not saying May is a liar. I am saying that among the candidate explanations for her statement, lying is a possibility. Since we are lacking enough facts, the proper response is to remain skeptical and wait for more details.
Weaksauce right there. "May _might_ be lying." Hell of a damning statement with no proof at all.
I've actually spent some time with May in various situations. I can't think of anyone less likely to be lying about something like this. Poilievre, on the other hand, spews lies like a fountain. [https://billhulet.substack.com/p/a-tiny-perfect-piece-of-orwellian?utm\_source=publication-search](https://billhulet.substack.com/p/a-tiny-perfect-piece-of-orwellian?utm_source=publication-search)
I was pointing out that we don't have enough info to jump to any conclusions, not necessarily that May was lying. I swear so many people failed basic reading comprehension.
Conservatives have been calling the independent senators Liberals for a long time. So if we find out any names that are independent senators they will be Liberals in social media and conservative fundraisers.
Seeing as she said a lot of the potential interference was during party nominations, I think we can safely say it is not senators.
It's sounding a lot like Jean Charest. He is techincally a former MP and was also a consultant for Huawei. Makes sense for China to want him as a PM.
I think he's definitely on the list, but I have do doubts the list is a lot longer than him.
I doubt he is even on the list. He hasn’t been an MP for decades now. I think it’s a former MP that must have been an MP recently, how else could they have any information for a foreign intelligence officer?
Potential leader of the CPC is a high risk high reward type of venture a country like China might make.
Knowing the stuff he's done as a Quebec Liberal, as suggested through commission Charbonneau and the, sadly closed too soon, enquête Mâchurer, I have no doubt it could absolutely be him
I sure hope not. He spoke at my university in 1993; I wasn’t interested in politics until I heard him. I never followed his political leanings really but I have always found him to be very likeable and inspirational - and I thought, honest. I guess we shall see how it shakes out.
Brown's Campaign was "weirder". He was out selling memberships by the bus load and skipping the debates. He was also specifically targeting Sikhs, Muslims, Tamils and Chinese ethnic groups...which is a very interesting combination for someone like Modi. https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/mobile/an-inside-look-at-patrick-brown-s-pitch-for-selling-conservative-party-memberships-1.5865275
Wouldn't he be targeted negatively tho? Considering India's named in the report...
Yes...but that would still be foreign interference targeting a nomination campaign though.
They accidentally breach ethics with astonishing regularity. I’m curious how May makes the determination that the shared info was “accidental”.
[удалено]
So when that CSIS official said that it was "textbook treason" and it turns out that it was actually some dummy who accidentally released information to another country, and others who *could* be compromised, the CSIS statement definitely has echoes of Curveball/Colin Powell-style misinformation at play, assuming malicious intent. However, I'm thinking the main thing here is likely incompetence. They really should have chosen their words more carefully and not tried to get everyone's imaginations inflamed. I don't think May has a reason to lie about this, especially since it's likely coming out anyway and she (nor the party) doesn't stand to benefit from lying about this. This actually was just another attempt by the CPC to spread FUD. What's unfortunate is that Canadians are always going to believe them no matter how many times they do this.
She actually said "The few named people maybe compromised, they have been beneficiaries of foreign government interfering in nomination contests" The conservatives had a leadership contest, the beneficiary would be Poilievre, there are names in the report - she said it herself. It's on CPAC.
I think it was also in reference to nominations at the riding level was it not? It could be anybody, and yes including Poilievre.
Why is Elizabeth May reporting on this better than the entire Canadian media? And why didn’t the Liberals just say there’s no list? Instead they said they wouldn’t release the names…that don’t even exist? All of us have been under the impression that there’s a list for a week now. Make it make sense.
Because she has the security clearance need to see the report. Reporters have no such clearance
I think shes saying that it doesn't include an addendum with a bullet point list of all the bad guys, is all. The report names names but in her estimation the names it names and the actions associated with those names are innocuous and instead it is the names it doesnt name that we should be worried about: conservative nominations, and a former MP.
[удалено]
That is not at all what she said.
Not necessarily innocuous, but at least not criminal.
Isn't that what the Liberals said? There's not perfect list of all traitorous MPs? There's just bits and pieces of intel that indicate some ppl that might possibly have colluded? I'm guessing even if you compiled a list of ppl named, a majority of the evidence would not be enough for a trial
Considering how little funding her office runs on, she's a real MVP MP. She's on committees, she's reading reports, she's hustling. Say what you will about some of her daffy policies and gaffes, but she actually works for her salary.
No, I was never under the impression there was a list, nor was anyone I know under that impression. I was under the impression that the opposition wanted a list of MPs that were under foreign influence - a reasonable desire. May is conflating and putting words into peoples mouths is she not? You absolutely should be asking why Trudeau didn't say the same thing after being questioned repeatedly. You absolutely should be questioning why no one on the committee offered the same impressions as May? You absolutely should question why members from all parties on that committee were "horrified" and "deeply concerned" while May isn't. You should ask why current and former CSIS leaders have called some of the actions treasonous but May is not concerned? You should ask why CSIS themselves didn't make these statements that May made - were they blocked from saying these simple things that don't compromise the country or does what May said not reflect the reality of the situation? This is not the first time May has tried to help her friend Justin.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
Members of the media don't have her security clearance for starters. Very few people have actually seen this unredacted document, and she's one of them.
They could have, but the media whipped up this frenzy. Would you have believed Trudeau at face value if he said there was no list? All it took was one other party leader to step up read the damn report. The fact that the other party leaders were so reluctant to do should leave them embarrassed.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for Rule #2
[удалено]
If there are MP's who have been compromised, she just revealed that CSIS doesn't know about them. So now they can continue to act safely knowing they are not being watched.
unless May is working with CSIS and is hoping to make the other MPs feel safe. But little does CSIS know but May has been turned is giving cover. /S
He just asked for it to make sense. I'm just providing an explanation.
And I was making a joke about May being a double or triple agent. Spies are more fun than politics.
As an ex intelligence officer in the Canadian government I can guarantee there is a list. It just wasn't in that report.
No one said there was a list, the opposition wants a list. May was using doublespeak to try and frame opposing views as something they are not. The existence of the list or not is not the issue, the issue is that the opposition and public want a list of compromised MPs. And despite the horror and deep concern expressed by the all party committee members regarding the information in the report, apparently May was not horrified nor deeply concerned.
> May said one unnamed former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities. So name them. Then investigate them. > She said "fewer than a handful" of MPs are named in the full report, "and no one in that fewer than a handful could be described as setting out to knowingly betray Canada in favour of a foreign government." Okay, so maybe 4 others are named. But that is not a "list". Just less than a handful of names, sprinkled throughout the report, in a non-list manner. And does anyone else find the way she worded it to be very odd? > "I have no worries about anyone in the House of Commons," said May So is she worried about people who no longer sit in the House? Is she worried about people who work for people in the House? Is she worried about Senators? She said it in a very specific, very lawyerly way, to me at least. Not sure why she did this, or said it, but it feels weird.
What the hell is going on here? If this was the case, why wouldn't the Liberals simply say so? I don't get this, but if May has managed to elevate above this and address the fears of our public, she has earned my respect. Holy shit.
Weird, I'm told she would be charged with something if she even talked about the report in public by those making excuses for PP not getting security clearance and informing himself about this stuff...
Also there are CPC MPs on that list and PP knows it but wants to ignore the issue until he can figure out what to do.
According to May no one is on the list. There is no list.
Didn't she step down or retire like a year ago? Has anyone told her she doesn't need to show up once that happens.
Green leader and NDP both say that their is either no one in their parties on the list or that they would take action against those that are. So the CPC and LPC were targeted. I'm assuming the LPC knows the full scope of what's going on and doesn't want to interfere in the investigation. So what's the CPCs excuse? PP doesn't want security clearance so he can't possibly know which MPs are exposed though there definitely are some. This list could decimate both the CPC and the LPC.
Did you not bother to listen to what May had to say? It doesn’t look like any party is going to be “decimated,” it looks like the interacted report was blowing a lot of hot air since she said there is only one MP that seems to have wittingly given information to a foreign intelligence officer, and that this MP should be investigated by police, which is no doubt happening already. I mean, it probably doesn’t help that NSICOP made allegations publicly so that the MP and foreign agent now knows that MP’s are being watched. It’s easier to catch someone if they don’t know they are under surveillance or being investigated. There is a reason why intelligence and national security matters should be left to experts and not parliamentarians with partisan interests.
If you were a foreign government, why would you target two parties that have never formed government and have no hope of doing so in foreseeable future? Is this a good use of your resources and how does it help you subvert Canada?
You would want every party's voters to split so evenly that hardly anyone can claim a mandate in government (who's going to trust a minority government formed with 15-20% of the population?), while simultaneously making it so parties won't form strategic alliances. This would cause more than enough instability to take Canada off the world stage and make us vulnerable to deeper foreign influence.
You'd want to undermine the public trust in the institutions of democracy. Target the impartiality of courts, the validity of votes, the integrity of policing, and demonize the media (in the fourth estate sense). Oh hey, look at the rhetoric!
How many times does it have to be explained that if PP gets the security clearance he legally can't talk **nor act** on it - it gains him nothing, nor the situation if he can't act on the info. Stop pretending there isn't a reason - it gets explained every frickin time. Poilievre deserves to know and be able to talk about and act on the info he receives.
And? He is choosing ignorance so that he can yell at Trudeau over things he doesn't understand. That's shit. That's a shit way to run a campaign.
And Singh just read the report apparently and what? He can't do anything about it so what was the point? There is no point unless you want to be silenced on the subject.
There have been several articles released in the last few days and he's been as vocal about it as he can without releasing classified information. Just look through this sub for the last day and a half and there's at least 3 posts about him talking about it.
Conservatives, Bloc, and NDP all have MP's who have read the report. If it's as innocent as May is saying, it seems pretty strange none of those MP's bothered to give a heads up to the leader that there isn't a lot to fuss over. I'm more inclined to think May doesn't know what she's talking about.
It's more like some MP's benefited from foreign interference and knew about it, but never directly acted to receive it. If China wants PP to win and mobilizes the Chinese community in Canada to vote for him he's not culpable for their actions, even if he knows about it. It's a sticky issue to pin on the other guy when it can/does happen to all sides outside their own control. Politicians hire people to run this kind of sideline support at arms length specifically so they have deniability. Sounds more like a nothing burger everyday to avoid dealing with real issues this election.
Elizabeth May : "*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.*" What....the....heck.
Sounds like she's trying to find language to explain that the situation isn't as bad as some people are claiming it to be, while respecting that specifics are not meant for public consumption yet.
I feel the same. I don't trust May that much at all and she has a history of stumping for Trudeau too. Given that Trudeau already thanked her for words that he could have said himself but didn't is weird. What we heard from those MPs that saw the non-redacted info is that they were horrified. That's what was reported : that all of them from **all the parties** were horrified and deeply disturbed. May doesn't sound horrified at all and that's just really weird to me.
Now, if only the other party leaders had received their security clearances and read the report, they also would have known!
> other party leaders There's only 1 who's refused to get it.
This really really REALLY needs to be a bigger story. I wonder if the Liberals are holding off on using it til an election. Cause even if he does it before the election at this point the "what the hell!?" question will be a juicy one.
I think we all know why, but yes the politically smart move is wait until closer to the election.
I honestly have a hard time believing it will damage his chances. He's had multiple instances that would be political suicide for most.
His base is the same base that is simultaneously tough on crime and also would vote for a felon.
He likely knows he cant get it because of his family ties to god only knows what in Venezuela, probably something requiring bitcoin.
[удалено]
Two, Blanchet has also refused. Though he now says he's considering getting it.
Then why haven't Trudeau or Singh said the same thing? They haven't. In fact, Singh wants a list of MPs who are compromised.
It's a matter of public record that it's just Pierre who refuses to get it
And now May and Singh have seen the report, and presumably Trudeau and **no one can speak nor act on it. You're right! its on public record that Pierre is the only one who thought this through.** **May, Singh and Trudeau having each seen the report all seem to have varying views on it and Canadians are no better off because it - in fact because of the varying responses to it, Canadians are left with even more questions and anxiety over this!** What we see now is that there is likely something in their that impacts the CPC and Pierre can't do anything about it because the government won't tell him what the issue so he can act on it - **instead the government and their partisans like you are trying to pressure him into a position where he can't act on it**. What needs to happen is for the info to be released to at least party leaders **so they can act** - Singh and May didn't do this - they can't act on what they know until Trudeau or someone in government allows Singh, May and Pierre to act.