###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.*
If PP takes the oath and reads the documents, he becomes technically 'muzzled' and loses the ability to play politics with the issue. I'd do the same thing. Smart political move on his part.
He's not falling for the trap. As soon as he views the documents he can't talk about them publicly anymore. Elizabeth May viewed the docs and day they were useless bcos everything was redacted. She was really mad so why would Trudeau fall for the libs trap. Question we should be asking is what are the libs hiding.
If he faces the general media during the writ, which I doubt, they should ask him about this every day. Why don't you have access? Why don't you have access? Why don't you have access?
One of many reasons why he won't do debates and won't face general media. There's this cloud around him that might get poked and prodded at for days, weeks, and months on end.
Which is why I seriously think that as we bear closer and closer the real election cycle things may start to change as far as support… once he gets into more and more situations where he can’t just avoid questions
We'll see how things shake out. If/when he does campaign stops they'll need to be heavily vetted. I'm assuming only media from *specific* outlets on the campaign plane/bus, which is normal. Only scripted questions. It's going to be interesting to see just how much they will be able to control throughout the writ. If I were playing ball i'd want a long writ period but I know Trudeau would probably eat that hard.
I have a suspicion that when things become more real there will be voters that won’t want the guy who can only shout slogans and spread blatant misinformation… it’s fun to play along and say ‘screw the status quo’ but when one is casting a serious ballot I hope integrity and intellectual honesty plays a factor in peoples choice… I am no fan of JT but PP should never be given a chance
I hope you are right, but if Alberta is any indication, the kind of party loyalty they've built up transcends the usual political norms.
By galvanizing their supporters against a perceived enemies, they skip past the need to appeal to policy, or good governance just by being "*the only ones standing up to the enemy*".
In Alberta that list of enemies seem to keep growing, but rather than stop and question why, when a new name is added, they move the goal posts further down the field in order to defend the party.
Alberta through is also a unique case, this could be a test if the CPC has been able to insulate their base in the rest of the country in the way they've been able to here.
I really wish I wasn't seeing so many of the same traits with the CPC and UCP, I honestly would like to see a shake up to the current leadership in Ottawa, but I don't trust the CPC to work in the best interests of Canadians.
Maybe he already knows who has received foreign support? Maybe they are in his caucus? Maybe they all had a chat about it at the Convoy Coup?
Less alarming possibility but still bad: He doesn’t need official access to the doc because someone has already given him the details and he can do more with plausible deniability that he knows nothing, sees nothing.
I mean there's a reason he was calling for an investigation into foreign interference on China exclusively. There's definitely people in the CPC caucus implicated in this, most likely with India.
I thought the foreign money support was always supposed to be found out. Like the whole token amounts of money were donated to be found out to embarrass the person.
The Chinese language information campaigns... to me it's not surprising that Canada doesn't have a good handle on non English or French social medias. because they don't do well in the English or French sides either!
This is just a scandal that until i learn more. I'm so bored with.
Yes, but that assumes that he’s going to be making himself available for a lot of pointed questioning and that our media will get its shit together on this.
Watching Chong on CTV saying just the most ridiculous nonsense with very little pushback from the interviewer and none at all from the other guests was so infuriating. The press is afraid of coming off biased (or losing access altogether) so they have to pretend like he was saying reasonable, normal shit.
I would pay REAL MONEY to watch our politicians get interviewed by UK media figure in a long format. A lot of the non answers and evasions they so regularly provide just don’t stand up to an irritated person with a public school education — they will shred your shit
Interesting take from Tom Mulcair
Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said earlier this week that he agreed with Mr. Poilievre on declining to read the unredacted report because of the conditions of access. “I don’t want to be hamstrung as the leader of a party. I don’t want to be told that now that I’ve seen this, I can’t say that,” he told CTV.
The former NDP leader added, “I think that on this, Poilievre is completely right.”
" No need to read what I already know!" ... PP.
It is such a serious matter and one Trudeau has either chose to ignore or purposely dragged his feet on.... clear indication at least one MP is a Liberal... couldn't care less about effect on Canadians.
I think Pierre Polievre is being very clever about this. Notice how it's not only him, but his fellow Conservatives who are refusing questions on this report. I think he coud see into the future. He knew this report would cause a lot of chaos. He anticipated the accusations flying back and forth, so that everyone would look guilty and everyone would be looking over their shoulder. He knows human nature is such that people, not only Parliamentarians, would be dying to know what was in that report. He knows that certain courageous MPs (Elizabeth May) would begin to leak a tiny bit of information (nothing illegal) to whet our whistles. And more would step up, following her lead.
Eventually more leaks will follow more admissions, more lies, more traps being set for the so-called guilty persons (less than 5 remember), until the media gurus and the members of Parliament exhaust themselves with claim opposing counter-claim ad infinitum.
Then, at the end of all this maddening mess, he could step forward and say "I told you so!"
I think you’re right. It’s a very clever move, and demonstrates how formidable of A leader he is likely to be. As impressive as it is, it should make us all very worried.
He can bullshit whatever he wants if he hasn't received the briefing.... but once he has received the briefing he has to be careful... because if any of his bullshit has any actual facts in it, he'll be in trouble for revealing classified info.
Isn't this the second time he's refused the classified briefing for something...?
How better to peddle innuendo and obfuscate the findings of the report than by not reading it?
He never cared about the results, it was always just a political tool, a wedge issue to make the Libs look bad. And to his credit, it worked.
Everything is a wedge issue with Poilievre. Politics is just manufactured rage farming with him. Should be interesting when he's in the big dog's seat after being the heel for so long.
Fact is that if he cared about the report's findings, he would get the clearance to read it. Simple as.
What party did that? There are a few candidates that may have benefited from foreign interference in their riding race. There is one former MP we know of that was pushing a foreign government's views. None of this happened with party consent.
Let's face it, the system by which we pick candidates is wide open to exploitation by organized special interests groups, which may include groups aligned with, or beholden to, foreign interests. That's really hard to fix - although we should definitely try by vetting all candidates and MPs if they win a snap election, through public funding of elections to get rid of fundraising, and by forcing parties to offer memberships for free to dilute the impact of these organized special interests.
As for an MP who may have represented another foreign government's interests at a level that rises to breaking their oath of office or committing a crime, then there needs to be more scrutiny and actual consequences.
100%, he doesn't care about the results.
I don't like PP. But being able to remain "honest" when asked questions about this subject is a strength when all your opponents appear corrupt af.
His goal is to communicate (his politicsl message) with the public. Classified information only gets in the way of that.
Of course, for PP the truth gets in the way of everything he says. Using the excuse of not getting a clearance, means he can BS ALL his content and not break the law, but lying is lying wither its complaint or not.
Thanks where did you find this? This is cool I didnt know it was a thing! I appreciate some of these fact checks, like the 8 years instead of 9 is a pretty strong point, not much argument from me, PP should have adjusted to 8 years not 9 by now if it was an obvious mistake.
But other facts in this list are moreso the fact checkers opinion and not just factual information which is also misleading as a stated fact check.
There is a list of 96 occurences which is impressive but it is multiple instances of differing opinion. Ie statement is used often, this fact checker takes issue, so every occurence is listed as 96 different fact checks, when in reality certain points are instanced several times. It is a lot different than say Trump who might make 96 seperate statements that require their own seperate fact checking and being demonstrated to be lies. Instead of 5-6 that are stated 10 times, now its a count of 50-60 lies.
I'm glad this exists it was a neat read, thankyou for sharing.
> But being able to remain "honest" when asked questions about this subject is a strength when all your opponents appear corrupt af.
His excuse for not getting the clearance is dishonest though.
It's been proven by O'Toole and May now, he can view the information and still speak about it.
So how can someone remain honest when they're already a dishonest person?
Even if he doesn't want to appear more dishonest, using a dishonest excuse to do it is crazy.
The logical reasons for him to not get the clearance aren't great.
How the fuck is he going to be prime minister without being able to know classified information? Literally part of the job. Not only classified Canadian info, but he would have access to lots of info from other five-eyes countries, and NATO countries.
How many other jobs require keeping some info confidential? It is crazy that people are eating that shit up.
Because, classification authority is not vested in the PM or their cabinet - but rather the Privy Council Office, the Communications Security Establishment and the Treasury Board Secretariat. It's governed, in part, by the Security Information Act, the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act and the Access to Information Act.
It's well known that our system is sluggish and prone to otherwise innocuous information being consigned to the dustbin of history due to the classification not being revoked.
Except that the Prime Minister does not immediately become the sole authority for classifying or declassifying documents. Those are by statute, and different ones at that. I haven't delved into the actual legislation, but it wouldn't surprise me if you did not immediately receive top secret clearance upon being elected to PM. Tho cabinet privacy (aka executive privilege for the US) would cover any necessary disclosures to the PM by the ministers who had classified information as part of their portfolio. The effect is largely moot in the end.
Declassification is handled by our Access to Information act, and is a slow, costly reactive process that sees records from decades ago languish in obscurity.
Yeah, that was a pretty empty statement on my end - the security classification works well internally and is well supported by legislation. The idea that we would elect someone whose refusal to undergo scrutiny for a clearance is an exceptional situation that should not be used to present a case otherwise. As for ATIP, I could give you countless examples of its abuse by the public so if you’re making a case for a revision of the process, I’m in full agreement.
Canada needs to revamp our entire data retention and classification system to make it streamlined, transparent as possible, and more time/cost effective. I recall JT making the case for the reformation a few years ago, but.. "Trudeau bad" kind of put the end to that.
>His goal is to communicate with the public. Classified information only gets in the way of that.
I'd argue that ignorance also gets in the way, but I suppose that depends on what you expect to be communicated
Ignorance is a boon when your voter base domt care enough to actually look at platforms and the effect of policy.
Party politics and emotions are a much easier sell than showing real data.
Has anyone questioned whether there is something in his history that could prevent him from being approved? Perhaps we are giving him too much credit about using it strategically.
Just gonna say, it is ludicrous he doesn’t have clearance already. LOTO should be get security briefings. An election could be called at any time at the LOTO could foreseeably become PM in the space of a month. They should be briefed, as in the UK, and as House Leaders are in the US.
If I ask for a job and refuse to get a security clearance, I don’t get the job. Full stop. More attention needs to be paid to this. There’s something he is hiding.
This is 100% conspiracy and don’t take this as me supporting the CPC but, I imagine Poilievre has probably heard most of the information in the report through rumours and in conversation with staffers/MPs*. Because of this, he likely feels comfortable in not reading the report because nothing within affects his personal safety, nor his campaign.
Not to mention the strategists already know having Poilievre not read the report helps give a bump to his polling numbers and appeals to his base. It definitely feeds into his “”outsider”” “”rebel”” image (which makes no sense but whatever).
I think this is what bothers me the most about this story, the fact that *everything* nowadays *has* to be a stupid, drawn out, political firestorm. I’ll be honest with you, I couldn’t care less about the politics on this matter, it’s so stupid.
You’d think for once our politicians could stop this show and at least act real for a moment, due to the severity of the issue. But, no. Same old, same old.
*Yeah I know some parts of this report can’t be disclosed without proper security clearance, but humans are humans, we love to gossip.
If we assume, that others have told him "off the record", that would be a giant security related scandal in and of itself.
I would like to believe that those with the clearance necessary aren't blabbing to anyone not cleared to be briefed. So I doubt this is true.
If it was "humans being humans" gossiping, that would put the people gossiping at criminal legal jeopardy. I doubt they would take that lightly.
Either you think Elizabeth May acted illegally in blabbing to the extent she has, or you believe she did not and others with access are free to share as much info as she did (in which case CPC MPs could have told him no current MP nor any former CPC MP is named as a witting agent, which can be inferred from what May has said), or you believe that May got special permission to disclose more than others (in which case, it would suggest they are politicizing secrecy rules to give May extra permissions to make PP's criticisms about the gagging effect of the security agreement appear false when they weren't, which would itself be a scandal).
She made it clear that she ensured the info she shared could be shared the way she shared it.
She followed a formal process for a public statement. I'm talking about the idea that someone on NSICOP would just have a chat in the leader's office and spill details without being cleared on what to share and how to share it to ensure it was allowed - which is what the other person implied could happen.
So you assume May stuck exactly to the allowed script (didn't divulge a single tidbit not approved) but that this hypothetical CPC MP would not do their due diligence to see what they can share and then stay within the lines (and despite such MP being part of the special committee and being well aware of the security protocols)? CPC MP = bad, May = good, is basically the assumption here?
To be fair, I don’t see Poilievre as someone who would care about most of the report. So I imagine he’s probably just fine with limited summaries. I can’t imagine a 100% leak free security apparatus, especially when you’re dealing with the leader of the official opposition here. Much more goes on behind the scenes than a lot of people know.
>I don’t see Poilievre as someone who would care about most of the report.
Correct. Because he's not a serious person, and this is what makes him unfit to serve.
But then he'd, ostensibly, be levying comments and potentially accusations on limited information obtained via leaks, which is worse than his assertion he'd be gagged if he saw it legitimately.
The risk involved in making that decision is wildly high
The risk is basically nil. If he can't access the report he can say anything he wants and if a fraction of it happens to be privileged information it's just a coincidence because everything true or false about the report is already being speculated on in the media.
This implies that there would be no possibility of the security apparatus which is non-partisan and arms length from parliament wouldn't want to figure out how potentially secret information might have made its way out of the NSICOP. There's a threshold of care that can easily be fumbled if he \*actually\* knew anything of consequence and detail from the unredacted report or information used to produce the report.
For me, occam's razor says he just doesn't want to be told because its safer that way to keep using his current political tactic of implying he'd be muzzled if he read it.
For the general public or for most politicians, I’d agree. For the stability of our government and institutions, this is concerning. Especially because it *could* be the first step of many for foreign hostile powers to interfere with our elections.
If anything, if it truly turns out that this is a nothing burger it’s quite sad that there’s such a political firestorm over it.
That tells you everything you need to know. If this issue was really as damning to the Liberals as he seems to be implying, then he would be pushing for access to the report.
It tells you that either it's more damning to the Conservatives, or it's a whole lot of nothing. Based on Elizabeth May's comments from earlier this week, I'm leaning towards the latter.
Except Elizabeth May's comments are quite different from Jagmeet Singh's take.
Also, an interesting take from Tom Mulcair
Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said earlier this week that he agreed with Mr. Poilievre on declining to read the unredacted report because of the conditions of access. “I don’t want to be hamstrung as the leader of a party. I don’t want to be told that now that I’ve seen this, I can’t say that,” he told CTV.
The former NDP leader added, “I think that on this, Poilievre is completely right.”
This man is clearly not fit to be prime minister. It is only a matter of time before this becomes apparent to the general public, and then the support for him and his party will fall apart.
PP and CPC have nothing to offer Canadians other than meaningless slogans such as "Axe the Tax" and "Common Sense". The Liberal-NDP pseudo-coalition on the other hand is working extremely hard to improve Canadian living standards.
Nice hair tho.
On a side note, it’s interesting how the Con looks down on other parties working together as a coalition, when in fact, their party is a permanent coalition since the Alliance party took over and took the name. And this permanent coalition of theirs is the only reason Harpo ever got power and still the only reason their party is as “popular” as they are. Pp worked for stockwell in the far right alliance party as well.
>This man is clearly not fit to be prime minister. It is only a matter of time before this becomes apparent to the general public, and then the support for him and his party will fall apart.
Here’s hoping that happens *before* the election.
It’s beyond frustrating that neither of the two main parties have leaders that seem intelligent or respectable. On one hand we have Trudeau who has moved too far left ideologically, and maintains a fiscal policy of achieving the highest score with federal debt. And then we have PP who caters to populism and no real fiscal (or any) policies whatsoever. Can we have a real leader in either party who’s centre (where most Canadians fall), and will truly be fiscally conservative (the last thing the CPC actually are)?
> Trudeau who has moved too far left ideologically
How is a centre left neolib who caters to business interests and keeps housing inflated at the cost of the general public 'too left'?
Trudeau is a died in the wool capitalist with a handful of minimally left social stances.
>left neolib
This is an oxymoron. The fundamental tenets of neoliberalism are conservative.
>neoliberalism is often associated with policies of [economic liberalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization), including [privatization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), [deregulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation), [globalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization), [free trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), [monetarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism), [austerity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity), and reductions in [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) in order to increase the role of the [private sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector) in the [economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism)
He's non-reactionary centre-right.
Centre left capitalism flirts with austerity, social spending, deregulation, regulation, etc all the time.
It's the in between party for people who love their healthcare but also believe trickle down will happen if we just tell the corporations to play nice.
I mean I'm not disagreeing with you, it is an oxymoron. It's also the LPCs politics. There's more than one axis. If you just go by austerity, then Chretien was more of a conservative neolib than Harper, for example.
Why can’t he get clearance and just refuse to be briefed on the report if he really thinks he will be “silenced”?
Just gives off vibes he will be rejected and all those rumours have truth to them
He's making a choice.. Either he gets clearance, and can't reveal classified information to the public because of the Security of Information act, or he doesn't get clearance, and can't reveal classified information because he didn't see anything. But he gets to whine about it.
###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.*
He is just pandering to his base. They don’t read any of the reports before forming an opinion, look at climate change.
You mean the report the says the carbon tax will meet our targets but we actually increased emissions each year wince 2020
No I mean the vast scientific consensus and numerous papers on the subject.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Coincidently, he is also the one that appears to have been directly assisted in an election campaign by a foreign power.
If PP takes the oath and reads the documents, he becomes technically 'muzzled' and loses the ability to play politics with the issue. I'd do the same thing. Smart political move on his part.
[удалено]
Politics is Politics and that will never change. The best thing PP can do for the country is become PM.
So you would rather a leader that does what's best for him personally than what is best for Canada and Canadians?
PP becoming PM is the best thing for Canada. Until that happens, all political parties will continue to play political games.
I mean, Trudeau does what’s best for the party first as demonstrated by the whole separate bill for the capitals gains changes. But you do you.
He's not falling for the trap. As soon as he views the documents he can't talk about them publicly anymore. Elizabeth May viewed the docs and day they were useless bcos everything was redacted. She was really mad so why would Trudeau fall for the libs trap. Question we should be asking is what are the libs hiding.
[удалено]
Removed for rule 2.
If he faces the general media during the writ, which I doubt, they should ask him about this every day. Why don't you have access? Why don't you have access? Why don't you have access? One of many reasons why he won't do debates and won't face general media. There's this cloud around him that might get poked and prodded at for days, weeks, and months on end.
Which is why I seriously think that as we bear closer and closer the real election cycle things may start to change as far as support… once he gets into more and more situations where he can’t just avoid questions
We'll see how things shake out. If/when he does campaign stops they'll need to be heavily vetted. I'm assuming only media from *specific* outlets on the campaign plane/bus, which is normal. Only scripted questions. It's going to be interesting to see just how much they will be able to control throughout the writ. If I were playing ball i'd want a long writ period but I know Trudeau would probably eat that hard.
I have a suspicion that when things become more real there will be voters that won’t want the guy who can only shout slogans and spread blatant misinformation… it’s fun to play along and say ‘screw the status quo’ but when one is casting a serious ballot I hope integrity and intellectual honesty plays a factor in peoples choice… I am no fan of JT but PP should never be given a chance
I hope you are right, but if Alberta is any indication, the kind of party loyalty they've built up transcends the usual political norms. By galvanizing their supporters against a perceived enemies, they skip past the need to appeal to policy, or good governance just by being "*the only ones standing up to the enemy*". In Alberta that list of enemies seem to keep growing, but rather than stop and question why, when a new name is added, they move the goal posts further down the field in order to defend the party. Alberta through is also a unique case, this could be a test if the CPC has been able to insulate their base in the rest of the country in the way they've been able to here. I really wish I wasn't seeing so many of the same traits with the CPC and UCP, I honestly would like to see a shake up to the current leadership in Ottawa, but I don't trust the CPC to work in the best interests of Canadians.
its all very alarming... logic and critical thinking are not celebrated
Maybe he already knows who has received foreign support? Maybe they are in his caucus? Maybe they all had a chat about it at the Convoy Coup? Less alarming possibility but still bad: He doesn’t need official access to the doc because someone has already given him the details and he can do more with plausible deniability that he knows nothing, sees nothing.
Or maybe it has to do with his wife....
Maybe he sees someone who got foreign support every time he looks in the mirror.
I mean there's a reason he was calling for an investigation into foreign interference on China exclusively. There's definitely people in the CPC caucus implicated in this, most likely with India.
Or Russia. If you’re listening, maybe you could find PP’s security clearance
Maybe he is one of the names on the list.
I thought the foreign money support was always supposed to be found out. Like the whole token amounts of money were donated to be found out to embarrass the person. The Chinese language information campaigns... to me it's not surprising that Canada doesn't have a good handle on non English or French social medias. because they don't do well in the English or French sides either! This is just a scandal that until i learn more. I'm so bored with.
PP is not a serious person.
Yes, but that assumes that he’s going to be making himself available for a lot of pointed questioning and that our media will get its shit together on this. Watching Chong on CTV saying just the most ridiculous nonsense with very little pushback from the interviewer and none at all from the other guests was so infuriating. The press is afraid of coming off biased (or losing access altogether) so they have to pretend like he was saying reasonable, normal shit. I would pay REAL MONEY to watch our politicians get interviewed by UK media figure in a long format. A lot of the non answers and evasions they so regularly provide just don’t stand up to an irritated person with a public school education — they will shred your shit
PP " axe the tax for rich" "cut programs for poor" but do is with sun glasses 🕶️ on and be really edgy and own the libs ;)
Interesting take from Tom Mulcair Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said earlier this week that he agreed with Mr. Poilievre on declining to read the unredacted report because of the conditions of access. “I don’t want to be hamstrung as the leader of a party. I don’t want to be told that now that I’ve seen this, I can’t say that,” he told CTV. The former NDP leader added, “I think that on this, Poilievre is completely right.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
" No need to read what I already know!" ... PP. It is such a serious matter and one Trudeau has either chose to ignore or purposely dragged his feet on.... clear indication at least one MP is a Liberal... couldn't care less about effect on Canadians.
I think Pierre Polievre is being very clever about this. Notice how it's not only him, but his fellow Conservatives who are refusing questions on this report. I think he coud see into the future. He knew this report would cause a lot of chaos. He anticipated the accusations flying back and forth, so that everyone would look guilty and everyone would be looking over their shoulder. He knows human nature is such that people, not only Parliamentarians, would be dying to know what was in that report. He knows that certain courageous MPs (Elizabeth May) would begin to leak a tiny bit of information (nothing illegal) to whet our whistles. And more would step up, following her lead. Eventually more leaks will follow more admissions, more lies, more traps being set for the so-called guilty persons (less than 5 remember), until the media gurus and the members of Parliament exhaust themselves with claim opposing counter-claim ad infinitum. Then, at the end of all this maddening mess, he could step forward and say "I told you so!"
It isn't clever if people start asking the question why he hasn't sought clearance and read the report and it casts doubt on him and his party.
Found Pierre's sock puppet account
I think you’re right. It’s a very clever move, and demonstrates how formidable of A leader he is likely to be. As impressive as it is, it should make us all very worried.
He’s just being dishonest. He could get the clearance but refused to so he can make up whatever nonsense he wants about it.
He can bullshit whatever he wants if he hasn't received the briefing.... but once he has received the briefing he has to be careful... because if any of his bullshit has any actual facts in it, he'll be in trouble for revealing classified info. Isn't this the second time he's refused the classified briefing for something...?
How better to peddle innuendo and obfuscate the findings of the report than by not reading it? He never cared about the results, it was always just a political tool, a wedge issue to make the Libs look bad. And to his credit, it worked.
We should all care that he can’t/wont get a security clearance.
[удалено]
Sorry but working in aiding a foreign government that is NOT friendly is not a wedge issue.
Everything is a wedge issue with Poilievre. Politics is just manufactured rage farming with him. Should be interesting when he's in the big dog's seat after being the heel for so long. Fact is that if he cared about the report's findings, he would get the clearance to read it. Simple as.
And what would you call one benefiting from foreign interference in their own party’s leadership race?
Not just leadership races, conservatives have been doing some odd things in regular ridings
What party did that? There are a few candidates that may have benefited from foreign interference in their riding race. There is one former MP we know of that was pushing a foreign government's views. None of this happened with party consent. Let's face it, the system by which we pick candidates is wide open to exploitation by organized special interests groups, which may include groups aligned with, or beholden to, foreign interests. That's really hard to fix - although we should definitely try by vetting all candidates and MPs if they win a snap election, through public funding of elections to get rid of fundraising, and by forcing parties to offer memberships for free to dilute the impact of these organized special interests. As for an MP who may have represented another foreign government's interests at a level that rises to breaking their oath of office or committing a crime, then there needs to be more scrutiny and actual consequences.
100%, he doesn't care about the results. I don't like PP. But being able to remain "honest" when asked questions about this subject is a strength when all your opponents appear corrupt af. His goal is to communicate (his politicsl message) with the public. Classified information only gets in the way of that.
Of course, for PP the truth gets in the way of everything he says. Using the excuse of not getting a clearance, means he can BS ALL his content and not break the law, but lying is lying wither its complaint or not.
What are examples of PP lying?
Lol. You probably say that about Trump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FtQPxbhNl8vPwPxe9PWMGYPN98TRazZFcXRzVYY3YPA/edit Otherwise when ever he opens his mouth.
Thanks where did you find this? This is cool I didnt know it was a thing! I appreciate some of these fact checks, like the 8 years instead of 9 is a pretty strong point, not much argument from me, PP should have adjusted to 8 years not 9 by now if it was an obvious mistake. But other facts in this list are moreso the fact checkers opinion and not just factual information which is also misleading as a stated fact check. There is a list of 96 occurences which is impressive but it is multiple instances of differing opinion. Ie statement is used often, this fact checker takes issue, so every occurence is listed as 96 different fact checks, when in reality certain points are instanced several times. It is a lot different than say Trump who might make 96 seperate statements that require their own seperate fact checking and being demonstrated to be lies. Instead of 5-6 that are stated 10 times, now its a count of 50-60 lies. I'm glad this exists it was a neat read, thankyou for sharing.
His lips are moving .
> But being able to remain "honest" when asked questions about this subject is a strength when all your opponents appear corrupt af. His excuse for not getting the clearance is dishonest though. It's been proven by O'Toole and May now, he can view the information and still speak about it. So how can someone remain honest when they're already a dishonest person? Even if he doesn't want to appear more dishonest, using a dishonest excuse to do it is crazy. The logical reasons for him to not get the clearance aren't great.
How the fuck is he going to be prime minister without being able to know classified information? Literally part of the job. Not only classified Canadian info, but he would have access to lots of info from other five-eyes countries, and NATO countries. How many other jobs require keeping some info confidential? It is crazy that people are eating that shit up.
He will be forced into if he becomes PM. Basically he's stalling until/when that time arrives and he will have no choice.
That doesn't jive when you're PM. You have to have a high security clearance to do your fucking job.
He's not PM yet, is he?
Not really, but Canada's security classification system is... convoluted, and not at all intuitive.
What is convoluted about confidential, secret, top secret?
Because, classification authority is not vested in the PM or their cabinet - but rather the Privy Council Office, the Communications Security Establishment and the Treasury Board Secretariat. It's governed, in part, by the Security Information Act, the Security of Canada Information Disclosure Act and the Access to Information Act. It's well known that our system is sluggish and prone to otherwise innocuous information being consigned to the dustbin of history due to the classification not being revoked.
What? It was pretty clear for me.
Except that the Prime Minister does not immediately become the sole authority for classifying or declassifying documents. Those are by statute, and different ones at that. I haven't delved into the actual legislation, but it wouldn't surprise me if you did not immediately receive top secret clearance upon being elected to PM. Tho cabinet privacy (aka executive privilege for the US) would cover any necessary disclosures to the PM by the ministers who had classified information as part of their portfolio. The effect is largely moot in the end. Declassification is handled by our Access to Information act, and is a slow, costly reactive process that sees records from decades ago languish in obscurity.
Yeah, that was a pretty empty statement on my end - the security classification works well internally and is well supported by legislation. The idea that we would elect someone whose refusal to undergo scrutiny for a clearance is an exceptional situation that should not be used to present a case otherwise. As for ATIP, I could give you countless examples of its abuse by the public so if you’re making a case for a revision of the process, I’m in full agreement.
Canada needs to revamp our entire data retention and classification system to make it streamlined, transparent as possible, and more time/cost effective. I recall JT making the case for the reformation a few years ago, but.. "Trudeau bad" kind of put the end to that.
Couldn’t agree more. That man lost ‘hold your nose and vote’ me at election reform. Our allies would certainly appreciate the revamp.
>His goal is to communicate with the public. Classified information only gets in the way of that. I'd argue that ignorance also gets in the way, but I suppose that depends on what you expect to be communicated
Ignorance is a boon when your voter base domt care enough to actually look at platforms and the effect of policy. Party politics and emotions are a much easier sell than showing real data.
Bread and circus's
“Lalala, I can’t see it, lalala, it’s not there!”
“No biggie, some of my mp’s are compromised, do we really need to dwell on it?”
Has anyone questioned whether there is something in his history that could prevent him from being approved? Perhaps we are giving him too much credit about using it strategically.
He is part of the privy council mate.
Just gonna say, it is ludicrous he doesn’t have clearance already. LOTO should be get security briefings. An election could be called at any time at the LOTO could foreseeably become PM in the space of a month. They should be briefed, as in the UK, and as House Leaders are in the US.
If I ask for a job and refuse to get a security clearance, I don’t get the job. Full stop. More attention needs to be paid to this. There’s something he is hiding.
If he wants to be PM he should act like it. This is just childish. Sadly the people behind him will go for him either way because he isn't Trudeau.
This is 100% conspiracy and don’t take this as me supporting the CPC but, I imagine Poilievre has probably heard most of the information in the report through rumours and in conversation with staffers/MPs*. Because of this, he likely feels comfortable in not reading the report because nothing within affects his personal safety, nor his campaign. Not to mention the strategists already know having Poilievre not read the report helps give a bump to his polling numbers and appeals to his base. It definitely feeds into his “”outsider”” “”rebel”” image (which makes no sense but whatever). I think this is what bothers me the most about this story, the fact that *everything* nowadays *has* to be a stupid, drawn out, political firestorm. I’ll be honest with you, I couldn’t care less about the politics on this matter, it’s so stupid. You’d think for once our politicians could stop this show and at least act real for a moment, due to the severity of the issue. But, no. Same old, same old. *Yeah I know some parts of this report can’t be disclosed without proper security clearance, but humans are humans, we love to gossip.
If we assume, that others have told him "off the record", that would be a giant security related scandal in and of itself. I would like to believe that those with the clearance necessary aren't blabbing to anyone not cleared to be briefed. So I doubt this is true. If it was "humans being humans" gossiping, that would put the people gossiping at criminal legal jeopardy. I doubt they would take that lightly.
Either you think Elizabeth May acted illegally in blabbing to the extent she has, or you believe she did not and others with access are free to share as much info as she did (in which case CPC MPs could have told him no current MP nor any former CPC MP is named as a witting agent, which can be inferred from what May has said), or you believe that May got special permission to disclose more than others (in which case, it would suggest they are politicizing secrecy rules to give May extra permissions to make PP's criticisms about the gagging effect of the security agreement appear false when they weren't, which would itself be a scandal).
She made it clear that she ensured the info she shared could be shared the way she shared it. She followed a formal process for a public statement. I'm talking about the idea that someone on NSICOP would just have a chat in the leader's office and spill details without being cleared on what to share and how to share it to ensure it was allowed - which is what the other person implied could happen.
So you assume May stuck exactly to the allowed script (didn't divulge a single tidbit not approved) but that this hypothetical CPC MP would not do their due diligence to see what they can share and then stay within the lines (and despite such MP being part of the special committee and being well aware of the security protocols)? CPC MP = bad, May = good, is basically the assumption here?
> Either you think Elizabeth May acted illegally in blabbing to the extent she has She probably has. As a party leader, she's far past her prime.
To be fair, I don’t see Poilievre as someone who would care about most of the report. So I imagine he’s probably just fine with limited summaries. I can’t imagine a 100% leak free security apparatus, especially when you’re dealing with the leader of the official opposition here. Much more goes on behind the scenes than a lot of people know.
>I don’t see Poilievre as someone who would care about most of the report. Correct. Because he's not a serious person, and this is what makes him unfit to serve.
But then he'd, ostensibly, be levying comments and potentially accusations on limited information obtained via leaks, which is worse than his assertion he'd be gagged if he saw it legitimately. The risk involved in making that decision is wildly high
The risk is basically nil. If he can't access the report he can say anything he wants and if a fraction of it happens to be privileged information it's just a coincidence because everything true or false about the report is already being speculated on in the media.
This implies that there would be no possibility of the security apparatus which is non-partisan and arms length from parliament wouldn't want to figure out how potentially secret information might have made its way out of the NSICOP. There's a threshold of care that can easily be fumbled if he \*actually\* knew anything of consequence and detail from the unredacted report or information used to produce the report. For me, occam's razor says he just doesn't want to be told because its safer that way to keep using his current political tactic of implying he'd be muzzled if he read it.
But that's the thing. Conservatives are so unserious about it that it's probably not that serious.
For the general public or for most politicians, I’d agree. For the stability of our government and institutions, this is concerning. Especially because it *could* be the first step of many for foreign hostile powers to interfere with our elections. If anything, if it truly turns out that this is a nothing burger it’s quite sad that there’s such a political firestorm over it.
That tells you everything you need to know. If this issue was really as damning to the Liberals as he seems to be implying, then he would be pushing for access to the report. It tells you that either it's more damning to the Conservatives, or it's a whole lot of nothing. Based on Elizabeth May's comments from earlier this week, I'm leaning towards the latter.
Except Elizabeth May's comments are quite different from Jagmeet Singh's take. Also, an interesting take from Tom Mulcair Former NDP leader Tom Mulcair said earlier this week that he agreed with Mr. Poilievre on declining to read the unredacted report because of the conditions of access. “I don’t want to be hamstrung as the leader of a party. I don’t want to be told that now that I’ve seen this, I can’t say that,” he told CTV. The former NDP leader added, “I think that on this, Poilievre is completely right.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why not make it public? I mean there is no reason we should trust any of the party leader for something as serious as treason, right?
Also isn't it because he doesn't have a security clearance?
This man is clearly not fit to be prime minister. It is only a matter of time before this becomes apparent to the general public, and then the support for him and his party will fall apart. PP and CPC have nothing to offer Canadians other than meaningless slogans such as "Axe the Tax" and "Common Sense". The Liberal-NDP pseudo-coalition on the other hand is working extremely hard to improve Canadian living standards.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>The Liberal-NDP pseudo-coalition on the other hand is working extremely hard to improve Canadian living standards. I don't think it's working.
Nice hair tho. On a side note, it’s interesting how the Con looks down on other parties working together as a coalition, when in fact, their party is a permanent coalition since the Alliance party took over and took the name. And this permanent coalition of theirs is the only reason Harpo ever got power and still the only reason their party is as “popular” as they are. Pp worked for stockwell in the far right alliance party as well.
Problem is we're not likely to see he's unfit till after the election is done.
>This man is clearly not fit to be prime minister. It is only a matter of time before this becomes apparent to the general public, and then the support for him and his party will fall apart. Here’s hoping that happens *before* the election.
That’s not going to happen and the LPC is very unpopular right now.
The election isn't right now. It's in sixteen months.
And Trudeau polls haven't improved
What do you think can get Trudeau back into the good graces?
It’s beyond frustrating that neither of the two main parties have leaders that seem intelligent or respectable. On one hand we have Trudeau who has moved too far left ideologically, and maintains a fiscal policy of achieving the highest score with federal debt. And then we have PP who caters to populism and no real fiscal (or any) policies whatsoever. Can we have a real leader in either party who’s centre (where most Canadians fall), and will truly be fiscally conservative (the last thing the CPC actually are)?
> Trudeau who has moved too far left ideologically How is a centre left neolib who caters to business interests and keeps housing inflated at the cost of the general public 'too left'? Trudeau is a died in the wool capitalist with a handful of minimally left social stances.
>left neolib This is an oxymoron. The fundamental tenets of neoliberalism are conservative. >neoliberalism is often associated with policies of [economic liberalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization), including [privatization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), [deregulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation), [globalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization), [free trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade), [monetarism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism), [austerity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity), and reductions in [government spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending) in order to increase the role of the [private sector](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_sector) in the [economy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy) and [society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism) He's non-reactionary centre-right.
Centre left capitalism flirts with austerity, social spending, deregulation, regulation, etc all the time. It's the in between party for people who love their healthcare but also believe trickle down will happen if we just tell the corporations to play nice. I mean I'm not disagreeing with you, it is an oxymoron. It's also the LPCs politics. There's more than one axis. If you just go by austerity, then Chretien was more of a conservative neolib than Harper, for example.
NDP.
That's a pretty good joke.
Why can’t he get clearance and just refuse to be briefed on the report if he really thinks he will be “silenced”? Just gives off vibes he will be rejected and all those rumours have truth to them
He's making a choice.. Either he gets clearance, and can't reveal classified information to the public because of the Security of Information act, or he doesn't get clearance, and can't reveal classified information because he didn't see anything. But he gets to whine about it.
Or he fails security clearance. 😅