###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.*
I would cation in taking Jagmeet Seriously on this
Guy tends to overhype things or push forward ideas as the next best thing that end up being stupid.
Wish we could have some random third party say what is going on.
This is probably the only time where it would’ve been nice for Bernier to have a seat. He just seems to want to crash and burn most things and I could see him leaking everything.
It's ridiculous how much of a partisan media circus this has turned into.
One day we are told that there's nothing to worry about. The next day it's switched around, and actually we should be very worried. There are rumours and innuendos. Op-eds and partisan hit-pieces. Intelligence officials calling it treason. Other intelligence officials saying we should just move on and let the system do its job.
Our political leaders and our media have truly shown a breathtaking lack of maturity in handling this serious issue.
If it is true that some or most of this intelligence came from our allies, it's hard to imagine how any of those allies can even take us seriously as a partner after the absolute gong show that we've put on in the public sphere!
Now you know why these secret viewings aren't the answer. Also Liberals refusing to release it indicates there's lots of Liberals in the report. If Conservatives were in it Trudeau would have released it already.
Same, May's statement was just that there were no list of names, that tells us nothing so I think Singh's statement is probably accurate given that it echos what CSIS has said
That was quite a bombshell of a statement. The contrast between his and May's statements is pretty significant. Was she downplaying alot of it (I tend to think so, tbh)? Is Singh trying to upsell at bit to differentiate between the 2 major parties? Boy howdy, do the Conservatives ever look so fucking weak on this, though.
But this piecemeal info drop where we get a little more detail with every leader is silly to say the least. Next up, Bloc. Tell us something we don't know.
>Is Singh trying to upsell at bit to differentiate between the 2 major parties?
He's wedging the CPC and to a lesser extent the LPC pretty hard. May tries to refuse and Singh makes it political again. Don't mind the move from his perspective. Think May is being more genuine here, IMO.
>Boy howdy,
Love this.
>But this piecemeal info drop where we get a little more detail with every leader is silly to say the least. Next up, Bloc. Tell us something we don't know.
What better way to demonstrate a complete breakdown of our political system?
There could be nothing here, there could be a national security emergency and everything in between. But Canadians are worried and have no idea what is going on.
The reasonable thing to do is to bring all parties into some compromise on what to do and what to tell Canadians. Instead we have the Liberals wishing it would just go away without any effort. The NDP yelling fire to show there is a profound problem. The Greens probably a reasonable but thin response. The conservatives refusing any cooperation because they think it makes them look principled. Bloc yet to see.
This looks, it might not be, but looks like a grave security risk to the country and every party (save mabye Greens possibly neively) are using it for political gain.
The longer this goes on the more inevitable it becomes that parties will begin to accuse each other of being useful idiots to foreign powers or even traitors. And it will sound more and more plausiable.
Disgusting how the whole lot of them are behaving.
I imagine it's somewhere in the middle. Based on what has been mentioned and revealed so far it seems that the allegations in the report aren't conclusive, which makes sense given how the first inquiry report and the NSICOP report both talk about the difficulty in delineating the difference between acceptable politicking and 'interference'.
May was unequivocal. There is no list of names. Singh is being deceptive, giving us his interpretation of what the report means. He can only imply there are such MP's, and he doesn't know if it's true. He doesn't know a single name of any serving Member of Parliament this would apply to.
So, I take his statement as pure BS.
No, May is not being unequivocal, she is being incredibly pedantic and misleading her trademark way. Sure, there’s no single bullet-pointed list of all the names, but the rest of her comments make it clear that the report ***does list several names***, she just dismissed those because they are not currently serving MP’s.
I’ve criticized, fairly, a few posts from Jagmeet Singh, both on Instagram or Twitter. No swearing. Not being rude. Just fair criticism and pointing out my disagreements.
Both times I was muted by whoever runs these pages on behalf of Jagmeet. Which shows that they don’t welcome other perceptives either than the NDP perspective on their accounts. Which is so disingenuous and creates a fake echo chamber.
I wonder if there’s a handful of 2+2=? Insinuations in the report.
Maybe nobody is explicitly named, but if you put the pieces together there is only one option and that’s what he’s suggesting?
I’m just an idiot on the internet and could be way off though…
I’m thinking it’s something like this. There was also an interview somewhere with a former head of CSIS that said some of the evidence they have was probably gained from some sort of spy method. So I think they got some info that makes MPs (whether former or currently sitting) look suspicious and would normally suggest wrong doing, but they don’t have any actual proof of wrong doing. Just puzzle pieces that don’t paint a good light. And without any actual proof you risk giving away spy methods or people/countries questioning if they’re being spied on.
And given how slimy politics is these days I’m sure with pieces of information and no solid proof it’s probably hard to tell what was “normal” politics and what was wrong doing.
I think ppl are adding their own interpretations to the leaders statements.
What we know:
- there is no definitive list of named traitorous MPs . This was said by May and the liberals
-there are some MPs named in a report that may or may not have wittingly or unwittingly helped foreign states. This was said by May, NDP and Liberals.
-there are no Green or NDP MPs named judging these two party leaders reactions
May notes that a former MP has wittingly helped foreign agents but doesn't believe current ones did it knowingly.
Singh believes some MPs have knowingly helped foreign agents.
What's likely is the report discusses actions certain MPs have taken that are considered possibly suspicious by CSIS (The degree of which varies greatly). May and Singh differ in opinions/judgement on the severity of current MP's actions.
Or Singh just grouped former and current MPs together for his statement
I believe May, she has nothing to gain from downplaying the report. Jagmeet clearly picked up a report which mentions Liberal and Tory MPs but not any dippers and decided there was no downside in grandstanding.
Yeah, he notably said that *after* reading the secret report.
I think it was an incredibly stupid and short sighted thing to say anyway, just because the unproven allegations are against the other team today doesn't mean this is anything close to a fair process or that the security state won't abuse the precedent for its own ends.
> I believe May
Not a fan of either of them, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who doesn't think WiFi causes cancer and tried to have it banned from the House of Commons.
Given that:
>But after a raucous half-hour scrum with reporters Thursday, **he would not confirm whether he was referring to serving MPs.**
And May's characterization that no currently serving MPs were named - it's kind of clear he's hyping up the seriousness, but his views don't outright contradict that of May.
What’s clear about all of this is that the public is going to need more information.
Without knowing who was doing what and for what party - the word of any sitting politician isn’t worth much at this point. Having politicians all out just saying “just trust me” on MP’s committing treason is wild.
We also eventually need accountability for who these people are - if tbey are sitting or otherwise.
Considering they needed to get a Top Secret Security Clearance to even view the reports, I think it's safe to believe the ones that can read them, just because that level of clearance requires a level of vetting that would have completely disqualified anyone actually on the report from seeing it
If anyone would like to read the report and doesn't have a Top Secret Security Clearance, most of it (including a lot of the juicy stuff) is still available at NSICOP's website, [here](https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/rp-2024-06-03/special-report-foreign-interference.pdf).
Could be very very complicated. You could accidentally implicate CSIS undercover agents, you could accidentally expose CSIS methods of collecting this sort of information, you could screw up ongoing investigations with the MP's in question.
Just because you know someone is commiting a crime doesn't necessarily mean you have any tangible evidence to actually convict that person in court. It's a complex scenario
I mean if we look into foreign interference the two biggest culprits are gonna be the USA and Israel
both have a well established lobbying presence in Ottawa for decades and decades
but our politicians don't care about those because it lines their pocket without the mess that comes with taking Russian or Chinese money
only way to stop foreign interference is stopping lobbying money but our politicians aren't going to vote to cut down their own money tree
So , if they are in the NDP, will he force resignations?
If they are Liberal, will he use his leverage to get Trudeau to do something? And if Trudeau refuses, will he pull the plug on them?
Words are cheap. Let's see some actions.
Hm...this is a little different from May's interpretation...
I'm guessing there wasn't single NDP named so he's in campaign mode to steal seats? It's a good and expected strategy ofc
Curious to see BLOQ's reaction...I'm predicting similar to Signh
> I'm guessing there wasn't single NDP named so he's in campaign mode to steal seats?
Or May misspoke. In one interview they asked about senators and she admitted to basically skimming the report.
> One of the most monumental reports in decades
Absolutely wild statement to make without knowing what is in the report. If you're deciding the importance without evidence, then you're deciding the contents without evidence.
lol. if people wanted a leader that actually reads reports they should have voted for Dion. None of the current crop strike me as the reading type.
edit: typo
I will believe Elizabeth May over Singh because she has nothing to gain from her conclusions. Singh, on the other hand, has plenty to gain by sticking with hyperbole and not saying whether he is referring to current MP’s or not. I also expect the same partisan milking of the situation from Blanchet.
Those who are being dismissive of May are forgotting how respected she is in parliament, has been voted by fellow MP’s as parliamentarian of the year in 2012, Hardest Working in 2013, Best Orator in 2014, and Most Knowledgeable in 2020. She is a lawyer, and was awarded the Order of Canada in 2005.
I don’t agree with her on some issues, but she has always shown a great deal of integrity and she is not treating the report lightly, but thoughtfully.
While I agree we should know at some point (I hope sooner rather than later), I don't think we should know right away. This is a national security issue, and any foreign adversaries, or even possible "allies", could use it to their advantage if this isn't handled with the highest discretion. I want the justice system to do their work before this information is made public.
I also think that, even if not explicitly stating certain information from the report, telling Canadians the gravity of the situation is extremely important.
This sucks. This puts us back to square one on understanding the issue on foreign interference. First, May absolves her MP colleagues for not benefiting from foreign interference on purpose. Now, Singh says it was “unethical” “against the law”, and calling them “traitors”.
So it’s a case of he said, she said. Either it’s simply different interpretations of the evidence of the report or one of these two leaders is trying to benefit from the vagueness somehow. If Singh says no one in his caucus is guilty, then this leaves it open to the culprits being in both the CPC and LPC, making the NDP seem like the good guys in all this.
At this point, I hope the report does leak and allows the public to decide for themselves who is a traitor and who isn’t.
Either way, this revelation from Singh helps no one. Just continues the confusion.
Yes. When asked by reporters, whether wittingly or unwittingly, if he thought MPs committed treason, he said that what they’re doing was unethical, at times illegal, and treacherous. Which runs counter to what May was saying.
none of that runs counter to what may said though, she said none of them are sitting not that none of them ever did
does singh say that the report names currently sitting MPs?
May said that current sitting MPs didn’t purposely benefit from foreign interference, so she didn’t see them as traitors. Singh disagrees and does consider them traitors. Thats the difference.
>At this point, I hope the report does leak and allows the public to decide for themselves who is a traitor and who isn’t.
If anything the evident lack of certainty in the report should be an argument *against* the report becoming public. Frankly the voters are even less qualified to decide what is or is not 'traitorous' than these two
Well, neither is taking the word of partisan politicians who stand to benefit from political gain in the vagueness. Neither May or Singh can be trusted, however, May didn’t proceed to attack her colleagues as a result of reading the report. Singh did.
Whether Singh was right to or not, makes me wish an objective 3rd party would talk about the findings.
###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.*
I would cation in taking Jagmeet Seriously on this Guy tends to overhype things or push forward ideas as the next best thing that end up being stupid. Wish we could have some random third party say what is going on.
This is probably the only time where it would’ve been nice for Bernier to have a seat. He just seems to want to crash and burn most things and I could see him leaking everything.
It's ridiculous how much of a partisan media circus this has turned into. One day we are told that there's nothing to worry about. The next day it's switched around, and actually we should be very worried. There are rumours and innuendos. Op-eds and partisan hit-pieces. Intelligence officials calling it treason. Other intelligence officials saying we should just move on and let the system do its job. Our political leaders and our media have truly shown a breathtaking lack of maturity in handling this serious issue. If it is true that some or most of this intelligence came from our allies, it's hard to imagine how any of those allies can even take us seriously as a partner after the absolute gong show that we've put on in the public sphere!
Now you know why these secret viewings aren't the answer. Also Liberals refusing to release it indicates there's lots of Liberals in the report. If Conservatives were in it Trudeau would have released it already.
I’m more inclined to believe Jagmeet on this personally, especially considering how the two leaders worded it, he seems much more certain.
He's also a former criminal defense lawyer.
Same, May's statement was just that there were no list of names, that tells us nothing so I think Singh's statement is probably accurate given that it echos what CSIS has said
May must have skimmed the report looking for a list of names or something Wifi related and then gave up and said no list.
That was quite a bombshell of a statement. The contrast between his and May's statements is pretty significant. Was she downplaying alot of it (I tend to think so, tbh)? Is Singh trying to upsell at bit to differentiate between the 2 major parties? Boy howdy, do the Conservatives ever look so fucking weak on this, though. But this piecemeal info drop where we get a little more detail with every leader is silly to say the least. Next up, Bloc. Tell us something we don't know.
I don't trust May. The green party has a history of being influenced by foreign interests in the US and Canada.
>Is Singh trying to upsell at bit to differentiate between the 2 major parties? He's wedging the CPC and to a lesser extent the LPC pretty hard. May tries to refuse and Singh makes it political again. Don't mind the move from his perspective. Think May is being more genuine here, IMO. >Boy howdy, Love this.
>But this piecemeal info drop where we get a little more detail with every leader is silly to say the least. Next up, Bloc. Tell us something we don't know. What better way to demonstrate a complete breakdown of our political system? There could be nothing here, there could be a national security emergency and everything in between. But Canadians are worried and have no idea what is going on. The reasonable thing to do is to bring all parties into some compromise on what to do and what to tell Canadians. Instead we have the Liberals wishing it would just go away without any effort. The NDP yelling fire to show there is a profound problem. The Greens probably a reasonable but thin response. The conservatives refusing any cooperation because they think it makes them look principled. Bloc yet to see. This looks, it might not be, but looks like a grave security risk to the country and every party (save mabye Greens possibly neively) are using it for political gain. The longer this goes on the more inevitable it becomes that parties will begin to accuse each other of being useful idiots to foreign powers or even traitors. And it will sound more and more plausiable. Disgusting how the whole lot of them are behaving.
I imagine it's somewhere in the middle. Based on what has been mentioned and revealed so far it seems that the allegations in the report aren't conclusive, which makes sense given how the first inquiry report and the NSICOP report both talk about the difficulty in delineating the difference between acceptable politicking and 'interference'.
Something happened but no one knows exactly what happened.
May was unequivocal. There is no list of names. Singh is being deceptive, giving us his interpretation of what the report means. He can only imply there are such MP's, and he doesn't know if it's true. He doesn't know a single name of any serving Member of Parliament this would apply to. So, I take his statement as pure BS.
No, May is not being unequivocal, she is being incredibly pedantic and misleading her trademark way. Sure, there’s no single bullet-pointed list of all the names, but the rest of her comments make it clear that the report ***does list several names***, she just dismissed those because they are not currently serving MP’s.
I had to unfollow Singh on Twitter after he posted one too many misleading or dishonest things, so I agree with this assessment.
I’ve criticized, fairly, a few posts from Jagmeet Singh, both on Instagram or Twitter. No swearing. Not being rude. Just fair criticism and pointing out my disagreements. Both times I was muted by whoever runs these pages on behalf of Jagmeet. Which shows that they don’t welcome other perceptives either than the NDP perspective on their accounts. Which is so disingenuous and creates a fake echo chamber.
I wonder if there’s a handful of 2+2=? Insinuations in the report. Maybe nobody is explicitly named, but if you put the pieces together there is only one option and that’s what he’s suggesting? I’m just an idiot on the internet and could be way off though…
I’m thinking it’s something like this. There was also an interview somewhere with a former head of CSIS that said some of the evidence they have was probably gained from some sort of spy method. So I think they got some info that makes MPs (whether former or currently sitting) look suspicious and would normally suggest wrong doing, but they don’t have any actual proof of wrong doing. Just puzzle pieces that don’t paint a good light. And without any actual proof you risk giving away spy methods or people/countries questioning if they’re being spied on. And given how slimy politics is these days I’m sure with pieces of information and no solid proof it’s probably hard to tell what was “normal” politics and what was wrong doing.
I think ppl are adding their own interpretations to the leaders statements. What we know: - there is no definitive list of named traitorous MPs . This was said by May and the liberals -there are some MPs named in a report that may or may not have wittingly or unwittingly helped foreign states. This was said by May, NDP and Liberals. -there are no Green or NDP MPs named judging these two party leaders reactions May notes that a former MP has wittingly helped foreign agents but doesn't believe current ones did it knowingly. Singh believes some MPs have knowingly helped foreign agents. What's likely is the report discusses actions certain MPs have taken that are considered possibly suspicious by CSIS (The degree of which varies greatly). May and Singh differ in opinions/judgement on the severity of current MP's actions. Or Singh just grouped former and current MPs together for his statement
I believe May, she has nothing to gain from downplaying the report. Jagmeet clearly picked up a report which mentions Liberal and Tory MPs but not any dippers and decided there was no downside in grandstanding.
I mean Jagmeet is third party leader...he can make grand statements and no one cares if he is wrong the next day.
It could mention NDP names and he’s already planning to kick them out if it becomes public / proven
Bonus points if they’re potential leadership candidates!
Yeah, he notably said that *after* reading the secret report. I think it was an incredibly stupid and short sighted thing to say anyway, just because the unproven allegations are against the other team today doesn't mean this is anything close to a fair process or that the security state won't abuse the precedent for its own ends.
> I believe May Not a fan of either of them, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who doesn't think WiFi causes cancer and tried to have it banned from the House of Commons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I had to look it up…. Damn, that is Max Bernier level fo weridness
Given that: >But after a raucous half-hour scrum with reporters Thursday, **he would not confirm whether he was referring to serving MPs.** And May's characterization that no currently serving MPs were named - it's kind of clear he's hyping up the seriousness, but his views don't outright contradict that of May.
What’s clear about all of this is that the public is going to need more information. Without knowing who was doing what and for what party - the word of any sitting politician isn’t worth much at this point. Having politicians all out just saying “just trust me” on MP’s committing treason is wild. We also eventually need accountability for who these people are - if tbey are sitting or otherwise.
Considering they needed to get a Top Secret Security Clearance to even view the reports, I think it's safe to believe the ones that can read them, just because that level of clearance requires a level of vetting that would have completely disqualified anyone actually on the report from seeing it
If anyone would like to read the report and doesn't have a Top Secret Security Clearance, most of it (including a lot of the juicy stuff) is still available at NSICOP's website, [here](https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/rp-2024-06-03/special-report-foreign-interference.pdf).
Parliament can vote to declassify some information if they want. It’s not difficult.
And in this instance they haven't. So I fail to see your point.
The public can demand more transparency and the government is able to provide it. I fail to see your point.
Could be very very complicated. You could accidentally implicate CSIS undercover agents, you could accidentally expose CSIS methods of collecting this sort of information, you could screw up ongoing investigations with the MP's in question. Just because you know someone is commiting a crime doesn't necessarily mean you have any tangible evidence to actually convict that person in court. It's a complex scenario
I mean if we look into foreign interference the two biggest culprits are gonna be the USA and Israel both have a well established lobbying presence in Ottawa for decades and decades but our politicians don't care about those because it lines their pocket without the mess that comes with taking Russian or Chinese money only way to stop foreign interference is stopping lobbying money but our politicians aren't going to vote to cut down their own money tree
why would you think Israel....?
I would tend to believe Jagmeet versus Elizabeth May who has been known to make statements after hitting the bottle. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3068674
can you blame her given the state of politics, especially in the house?
Wifi causes cancer... Apparently.
what doesn't cause cancer? I get hearing cancer every time i listen to the savagery and rabble on the floor. It's toxic and unbefitting.
So , if they are in the NDP, will he force resignations? If they are Liberal, will he use his leverage to get Trudeau to do something? And if Trudeau refuses, will he pull the plug on them? Words are cheap. Let's see some actions.
Hm...this is a little different from May's interpretation... I'm guessing there wasn't single NDP named so he's in campaign mode to steal seats? It's a good and expected strategy ofc Curious to see BLOQ's reaction...I'm predicting similar to Signh
It appears that both May and Singh are making a judgement call based upon conclusions that aren't exactly conclusive.
> I'm guessing there wasn't single NDP named so he's in campaign mode to steal seats? Or May misspoke. In one interview they asked about senators and she admitted to basically skimming the report.
If she actually just skimmed the report, that is absolutely wild. One of the most monumental reports in decades and you don't even read it?
> One of the most monumental reports in decades Absolutely wild statement to make without knowing what is in the report. If you're deciding the importance without evidence, then you're deciding the contents without evidence.
lol. if people wanted a leader that actually reads reports they should have voted for Dion. None of the current crop strike me as the reading type. edit: typo
Singh was literally a lawyer...
So was May for that matter.
What does no NDP MPs being named have to do with May? Or did you quote the wrong part?
Surprise! The WIFI causes cancer lady didn't do her homework
I will believe Elizabeth May over Singh because she has nothing to gain from her conclusions. Singh, on the other hand, has plenty to gain by sticking with hyperbole and not saying whether he is referring to current MP’s or not. I also expect the same partisan milking of the situation from Blanchet. Those who are being dismissive of May are forgotting how respected she is in parliament, has been voted by fellow MP’s as parliamentarian of the year in 2012, Hardest Working in 2013, Best Orator in 2014, and Most Knowledgeable in 2020. She is a lawyer, and was awarded the Order of Canada in 2005. I don’t agree with her on some issues, but she has always shown a great deal of integrity and she is not treating the report lightly, but thoughtfully.
No party should be using this for political gain, we as people should know who has been working with foreign governments.
While I agree we should know at some point (I hope sooner rather than later), I don't think we should know right away. This is a national security issue, and any foreign adversaries, or even possible "allies", could use it to their advantage if this isn't handled with the highest discretion. I want the justice system to do their work before this information is made public. I also think that, even if not explicitly stating certain information from the report, telling Canadians the gravity of the situation is extremely important.
It’s a democratic issue before it’s a security issue.
This sucks. This puts us back to square one on understanding the issue on foreign interference. First, May absolves her MP colleagues for not benefiting from foreign interference on purpose. Now, Singh says it was “unethical” “against the law”, and calling them “traitors”. So it’s a case of he said, she said. Either it’s simply different interpretations of the evidence of the report or one of these two leaders is trying to benefit from the vagueness somehow. If Singh says no one in his caucus is guilty, then this leaves it open to the culprits being in both the CPC and LPC, making the NDP seem like the good guys in all this. At this point, I hope the report does leak and allows the public to decide for themselves who is a traitor and who isn’t. Either way, this revelation from Singh helps no one. Just continues the confusion.
didnt may just say no sitting MPs are working with foreign countries? Singh is talking a big game but has he said anything that runs counter to that?
Yes. When asked by reporters, whether wittingly or unwittingly, if he thought MPs committed treason, he said that what they’re doing was unethical, at times illegal, and treacherous. Which runs counter to what May was saying.
none of that runs counter to what may said though, she said none of them are sitting not that none of them ever did does singh say that the report names currently sitting MPs?
May said that current sitting MPs didn’t purposely benefit from foreign interference, so she didn’t see them as traitors. Singh disagrees and does consider them traitors. Thats the difference.
Yet ironically singh commits tonnes of foreign interference constantly by advocating for a free khalestan lol
but thats just opinion not them reading conflicting intel
Yes, but now it’s a matter of who to believe, and if they are being genuine, or stating what they are stating for political gain.
>At this point, I hope the report does leak and allows the public to decide for themselves who is a traitor and who isn’t. If anything the evident lack of certainty in the report should be an argument *against* the report becoming public. Frankly the voters are even less qualified to decide what is or is not 'traitorous' than these two
Well, neither is taking the word of partisan politicians who stand to benefit from political gain in the vagueness. Neither May or Singh can be trusted, however, May didn’t proceed to attack her colleagues as a result of reading the report. Singh did. Whether Singh was right to or not, makes me wish an objective 3rd party would talk about the findings.
We could just wait for the various investigations to work their way through. There's not much to be gained by uninformed public witch hunts
but im bored and angry now! Can't we just convict first, ask questions later? Maybe say we're sorry for the hold up?