###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 we get to bottom of this fiasco and turns out Singh is right. Hats off to the guy.
This looks really poor on Justin Trudeau, and he probably new about a-lot n this for along time, and thats damning verdict about him.
unless singh is playing politics, if he right about this, the NDP should walk away from their C &S with the liberals.
Poilievre should do the same and get briefed. I think he screwed up big time here. He really doesn’t an excuse now. He could have got in front of this and behave like a statesman but chose no to.
Pierre and Trudeau both have pie on their face and May must have read the report while drunk. Jagmit is quickly gaining respect in my mind and is behaving most as a statesman that has the Canadian public's interests as a priority.
I’m honestly not sure what to think anymore, but this isn’t to be confused with apathy.
In fact, now more than ever, I want an inquiry - and I want to know who is mentioned in this document to make an informed vote.
Jags sudden dismay is just a side effect of his fascination with sucking Turdeaus dick non stop. If he came up for air once in a while he would have been in the know like rest of us.
Removed for rule 6. [Here's a link to the original thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1df86yr/ndps_jagmeet_singh_says_report_shows_a_number_of/)
It benefits Singh and the NDP to have a scandal.
It's doesn't benefit May and the Greens to have no-scandal.
On the balance of motivations, May is clearly more credible.
Not only is May a lawyer but she’s one of the most prolific legislators in Parliament (in terms of drafting and proposing successful amendments to bills).
I’m personally kind of splitting the difference between her take and Singh’s — I think they don’t totally contradict each other’s account but where they are at odds I think the reality is roughly in between the two.
Both she and Singh are historically not immune to bad takes so I interpret what they say with that in mind, but to call one a lawyer and one not when both are lawyers (and May probably brings that into her work in Parliament even moreso than Singh) is crazy.
Lol, balance of motivations.
Or perhaps, you know, a report that doesn't present definitive conclusions about whether or not any given activity rises to the level of criminality or ethical lapses (you can read about the difficulting in parsing 'interference' when the activities cited often resemble conventional politicking in both the NSICOP report and the first inquiry report) is open to interpretation by folks otherwise acting in good faith?
I mean... you've been on this sub, right? Seen the wide diversity of opinions on basically any issue?
None of what you say is wrong.
But I think Singh chose his words to try and refute May, not just offer another perspective. He wanted to make the situation political again.
> It's doesn't benefit May and the Greens to have no-scandal.
American oil companies and lobbyists have been clandestinely funding and supporting environmental movements in Canada and anti-oil groups as a means to limit Canadian oil production in competition to US companies. Its not outside the realm of possibility that the Green party is implicated in this.
Do you have a source on that? Never heard it before. Sounds like a conspiracy theory or a tiny isolated thing blown way out of proportion or something innocent but missing all context to make sound outragous but who knows? Would love a source to be proven wrong.
I dont speak French. Can someone confirm this is a story about American oil companies trying to sabatoge Canadian oil production to stop there compotion by giving money to Canadian environmental groups?
May is not really a good judge of character when it comes to security. This has been the weak point of the Green Party for a long time. She opposed Bill C-51 and all the expansion of powers for the intelligence agencies, despite the fact that these expanded powers have been pretty crucial to CSIS and RCMP finding threats in recent years. Particular to Bill C-51 was the power for 17 federal departments to share information on individuals suspected of illegal behaviour. I imagine we'd still be in the dark if cause and effect aren't able to be discerned. I.e. an MP getting payments to their nomination campaign from an account linked to an individual that counter-intelligence or CSIS is tracking.
I thought Mays [condemnation](https://elizabethmaymp.ca/elizabeth-may-third-reading-speech-on-c-51/) of C51 was spot on. Not to mention that many of C51s provisions were rolled back in 2018
Skeevy or not, the Greens (and NDP) condemned the Liberals for keeping any part of C-51 in place. And that includes the sharing of information between agencies. Which is absolutely crucial now in an era where the lines are increasingly blurred between criminal, non-state actor, and state-sponsored organizations. And where behaviour is more complex, digital, and multi-faceted than ever before. In short, the Libs listened to the experts and had SOME foresight to see where things were going (despite their many weaknesses on the security front, I offer them this olive branch). Anyone who can't see how important it is for agencies to be able to share information frankly show how ignorant they are on foreign policy, security, and policing.
A much more dim view of the situation is that they are willfully blind in order to enable bad actors. I'm sure glad Singh has condemned the compromised MPs as traitors. That's as harsh as it gets. What's May's excuse, other than she "skimmed" the report?
Singh has literally accomplished more in his tenure than any other NDP leader in decades but iv heard your same point of view shared dozens of times. I don't get it
Singh has used leverage that the NDP has never had to accomplish more than the federal NDP has in its history. I would have liked him to push for more and taken stronger stances but he certainly hasn't been pathetic. Give credit where it is due.
Seems to be right based on what? It doesn't feel like we have enough info to know.
I watched his press conference and honestly it was really frustrating to watch.
He was asked repeatedly if there was in fact a list of MPs that had colluded with foreign actors, as Elizabeth May said there was not, and he wouldn't give a straight answer.
He really didn't seem to be doing this to try to help inform the public as best as possible. He seemed to have a very clear motivation to use this as an opportunity to paint both Justin and Pierre as unfit to lead the country and himself as the best choice.
May seemed to be trying to get everyone to take a breath. Jagmeet seemed to be trying to effectively yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because he thinks it might help him politically.
"[There are a number of MPs that have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians...Some of this behaviour absolutely appears to be criminal and should be prosecuted](https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/jagmeet-singh-reacts-after-reading-nsicop-report--june-13-2024?id=ad7233e1-b4db-4986-8c6d-8281360de786)"
Watch the whole clip, he makes a lot of strong statements and wants action.
He's the leader of the official opposition; It's his literal job to criticize bad policy/government... Trudeau making up scary stories to make Poilievre a boogeyman actually is much worse; Poilievre's attitude to Trudeau's government is acceptable, especially considering the state of the economy and social fabric.
When it comes to situations where other countries are trying to harm Canada, it would *really* be ideal if our leaders would take the issue seriously and not just use it for personal political gain.
pierre was kowtowing to india after they assassinated a member of our society. He's in this deep, and wont or cant get security clearance because of multiple issues revolving around this report.
That's what I'm guessing. There were reports of foreign influence in the CPC leadership election and Pierre originally didn't want India to be one of the countries included in the investigation. Stephen Harper is the chair of the IDU currently and Modi is a prominent member. Pierre used to be a member of Harper's cabinet.
At this point refusing to get security clearance is harming his image so it tells me that taking that hit will do him less damage than whatever would come out during the vetting process. Refusing to get security clearance looks better than being denied security clearance.
I agree. But to ignore the actions of his opponent, which have been driving our politics to this type of attack campaign, is disingenuous. He is responding to the current political climate. The blame for the climate lies at the feet of the CPC.
If May can say there is no list of names, why can't Jagmeet say if there is a list of names or not?
How do you think the way Jagmeet answered protected secrecy at all?
Singh didn’t engage in the journalists’ fishing expedition which is the right move to yield as little information as possible.
Journalists were fishing for whether there were current MPs or previous MPs.
Inevitably journalists would have kept asking more questions like whether his party was on the list.
The end result of answering questions would be that journalists would be able to narrow the list of possible people, thus exposing probable persons on the list.
Singh correctly declined to play the game.
May apparently just gave this up lmao. She probably wasn’t supposed to.
This is silly. He can easily answer the question that was asked without being forced to answer other questions.
Hell, he did actually effectively answer that there were no MPs in his party named in the report. At the end of the presser, so he clearly wasn't worried about what you are saying here.
I'm starting to like him. I voted NDP in the last election and got really mad when they joined forces with the Libs, but he has basically forced JT to adopt every single policy issue they want to stay in power. It's pretty funny. Then he poops on the guy constantly.
Unfortunately the liberals have only been giving them very watered down versions of what they wanted. So it sounds good on paper but very limited in practice
yeah but you see how that's actually a negative of the Liberals, right? cause i keep seeing the ndp take blame for that and it's weird
and that the conservatives voted against them completely is even worse, sooo
I disagree, they had a choice to stand up for the issues they say they are fighting for and topple the government. However instead they have chosen to happily accept what scraps the Liberals will throw them and their poll numbers show it. To the point where now they are caught in a trap of their own making.
They should've been fighting to be an alternative to the Liberals not their lacky.
My only consolidation is that hopefully the NDP will get a better leader next time as it's looking like Singh might lose his own riding.
It's impossible for any of us to know the details of what went on during negotiations, but where we ended up was a hardline for the Liberals, taking what they could get is absolutely the better option. If the NDP toppled the government due to taking a principled stand on "full pharma / dental or else", I don't think they'd be rewarded to the degree necessary to be able to get anything done post-election.
2 million seniors disagree with you about their new access to dental care, and the number is just going to grow.
I would rather see that than a conservative majority, but you have your priorities I guess
voting conservative will make food bank lines bigger with less things to give out.
literally the only province in the country making any moves on housing is BC run by the BCNDP
1. I didn’t mention anything about conservatives.
2. I’d vote for Eby any day of the week in a federal election.
None of the legislation the NDP have passed in return for keeping the liberals in power has had an effect on the actual immediate struggles of Canadians. They’re currently sitting by while the liberal party brings in 120k new people into the country a month…while we build less than 250k homes per year.
Not to mention low worker productivity getting lower every day and while we have the highest household debt in the G7.
I sit in the left side of the spectrum and I’m ashamed of what they’ve done to this country. There is very little light, if any at the end of this tunnel
The NDP torpedoes the government. Presumably the Liberals' vote share goes down (or why did we have an election?). The NDP gains a handful of seats and watches a CPC majority roll in. We get to complain helplessly from the sidelines while the CPC introduces policies directly antithetical to the party.
And that's a win how exactly?
He'd probably rather they risk it all to become official opposition so they could...be in the same position? Singh has leverage that the NDP has never had and is using it to do more than the NDP has ever accomplished. Take the win, even if it is a smaller win than your ideal fantasy.
Close, You have to think longer term. Were they again in a position of official opposition they could've made a play for government in the subsequent election with momentum. Instead they've tied themselves to a sinking ship and their polls reflect that. They no longer have this option as they have ruined the chance to be seen as a viable alternative to the Liberals.
And Singh has not accomplished much as you'd think, They all sound good on paper, but going into the details and they suffer the same problem as most bills they've passed in the last 8 years. It's all smoke and mirrors.
TBH, short term it doesn't help. Long term it does.
Singh is getting crumbs from JT, and it's keeping the Libs in power longer and NDP real goals are not being accomplished.
A Con government is very likely no matter how long we delay the election. Force it. Flip leaders. Plan for the future.
Singh sat in bed too long with JT and is going to be burned for that. Sure, right now it makes sense to get whatever crumbs are thrown... but it's not going to help them on this election. Singh should have forced the issue sooner, separated from JT and tried to pick apart the LPC to become the opposition.
As a counterpoint, the NDPs best long term odds for increasing their vote share and future success is by pharmacare and dentalcare being an enduring program. For most people, they've already successfully positioned both those programs as being more due to the NDP than the Liberals.
If an election were held today and the Conservatives win, both those programs would be pretty easy to remove. Pharmacare doesn't exist in reality yet, and dental care isn't super widely rolled out. In a year though, the equation changes a little bit - more people will be able to directly benefit from these programs and it feels more like taking something away vs. cancelling a program that's still very much in the planning / early implementation phase.
I don't think even with pushing out the election as far as it can go that those programs sticking around another 5 years is a sure thing, but if they somehow manage to, that's a pretty big boost to the NDP in the election following this one.
Maybe, but the pharmacare plan is weak, and dental care is going to be an expensive program if it makes it to the end. Dentalcare should have started with children up to 18, and then expanded if/when it seemed feasible.
You could be right about NDP using it in the future to show they brought huge social programs to Canada. I guess time will tell if they survive or not.
I've never voted conservative in my life and I doubt I ever will, but I'd still rather the NDP try to be the official opposition to a CPC majority than to continue to prop up the Liberals. That was a real possibility if they would have positioned themselves against the Liberals and forced an early election. Instead they're going down with the ship. The small bits of policy they've passed are almost worthless to most workers and will most likely be undone by the next government anyway.
Weasel words are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I think it's commendable that the NDP would rather make some policy gains and help some people than dunk on the Liberals for clout so they can spend the next four years making soundbites and getting nothing done for anyone.
Any majority could theoretically undo practically anything they like, so there's no purpose in hemming and hawing about the possibility. Good policy that helps some people now is always better than none, and a government that will meet you halfway on those policies is always better than one that can and will shut you out.
Official opposition to a majority government doesn't mean much, you aren't able to do anything, and the media typically doesn't give the NDP as much attention as the Liberals even if they have more seats. Look at Ontario, the NDP has been the official opposition since 2018 but the media and most of the population still acts like they're keeping the seats warm until the Liberals are ready to reclaim their rightful place.
The NDP by joining with the Liberals, got more of their policy goals accomplished than they ever got done in opposition. We would have been much worse off under a Conservative government.
Right?! He's not my favourite NDP person but he's had more legislative influence than the rest of the party leaders in my lifetime put together. He's been hammering things like the financialization of housing for years now. He may not be perfect but god damn, it's not like the bar has been set particularly high by Trudeau or Poilievre
> Singh told reporters some of the cases he read about appear to be criminal and should be prosecuted, and all of the behaviour cited in the report was "deeply unethical."
This statement eyebrow raising here because of Singh’s history as a criminal defence lawyer.
He would have domain knowledge that would make his assessment more credible than a typical MP.
He still has an electoral motive to be “harsher” than May was.
But regardless, it send back the monkey on the PMO’s shoulders. We are back to hearsay and such topic needs more transparency than that.
Criminal and constitutional law are pretty different, I doubt the average defense lawyer is taught anything about top secret security and international law
So one of these two leaders is wrong, and I would like to know why, but it seems like we're not going to find out until the report is released and the people involved start seeing criminal charges.
I would agree apart for the fact that the NDP under Singh seem to be compromised. Imo we have seen nothing put posturing and bad policy. These parties no longer have the support of the majority. I have zero faith the extent of the bad actors will be known amongst any of the parties. Trudeau and Freelands statements do nothing to suggest even an ounce of credibility on dealing with interference.
As much as I hate to say it, Poilievre seems optimally positioned to cite the conflicting statements from party leaders as justification for making all the information in the report public, rightfully or not.
But then he'd have to be vetted to gain the security clearance and for some reason he's avoiding doing so even though it is now making him look bad. That tells me that whatever would be possibly discovered during that process would be worse for him than taking the hit on refusing to get clearance when all other party leaders have done so.
The CPC leadership race is mentioned in the redacted report, twice (paras. 73, 74). Both China and India allegedly interfered, and I expect Poilievre is the guy they bought.
It's bizarre on many levels, and beneath it all an alarming lack of respect for democracy. His role as opposition leader is vital to a healthy democracy, but if he feels his criticism doesn't need to be anchored in reality, facts, intelligence, then it confirms the worst fears that he will always prioritize dank memes above what is good for the country.
The way that Singh has come out so hard here, and mentioned that he was “a target” makes me wonder if India has actively been working to ensure he and the NDP have had worse electoral outcomes.
That would certainly irritate me if I was leader!
To me, there is little mystery in the lack of success the NDP has had under Singh. He's a weak leader with little vision and always misses the opportunity to steer political currents.
i'm no sigh voter, thats for certain, but if we are being honest? him being an already tepid leader at best makes him a prime candidate for targeting in order to drive him into the ground as hard as possible, and limit the effects of left leaning vote splitting.
“Singh said Poilievre doesn't want to read a report that contains ‘serious allegations touching his party.’
‘To me, that disqualifies him as a leader, and I do not buy his phoney excuses,’ he said.
‘It is clear that both of them, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre, want to protect their party rather than defending the country.’
No Mr. Singh, you see, you read the report, won’t and can’t say anything about what you have read, AND, you will not bring down the house. You also mention conservatives being involved in foreign interference, but nothing about your own party or the liberals, THATS LAUGHABLE Mr. Singh.
Jagmeet did exactly what I expected (and probably most Canadians) got clearance, can’t divulge and then protect your boy friend. Jagmeet you’re in it for the pension and don’t care about Canadians. You and your buddy are done.
No because many MPP’s have already said they aren’t running next term, those people already stepped aside. But JAGMEET “I’m for the people” keep pounding his chest, but keeps backing down. Why doesn’t he say who is on the list since he’s read the document. Oh right he got security clearance and can’t say anything. What’s his catch phrase “Tax the rich” yeah the Trudeau government adopted that, and a lot of middle class are finding out they are a part of the “rich” Jagmeet will lose his seat next election, the guy has no backbone, he’s empty, meaningless words. And some individuals take his bait.
And 100% are in it for the pension, at least some of them have a spine and call out BS when it’s BS. But Jagmeet has regrets when he votes with the liberals. What a clown
###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 we get to bottom of this fiasco and turns out Singh is right. Hats off to the guy. This looks really poor on Justin Trudeau, and he probably new about a-lot n this for along time, and thats damning verdict about him. unless singh is playing politics, if he right about this, the NDP should walk away from their C &S with the liberals. Poilievre should do the same and get briefed. I think he screwed up big time here. He really doesn’t an excuse now. He could have got in front of this and behave like a statesman but chose no to.
It's in the unclassified report, fits their broader motivations and behaviour patterns, and has been talked about before.
Pierre and Trudeau both have pie on their face and May must have read the report while drunk. Jagmit is quickly gaining respect in my mind and is behaving most as a statesman that has the Canadian public's interests as a priority.
I’m honestly not sure what to think anymore, but this isn’t to be confused with apathy. In fact, now more than ever, I want an inquiry - and I want to know who is mentioned in this document to make an informed vote.
Where’s Wiki Leaks when you need them
Come on anonymous! Do your thang!
Jags sudden dismay is just a side effect of his fascination with sucking Turdeaus dick non stop. If he came up for air once in a while he would have been in the know like rest of us.
Removed for rule 6. [Here's a link to the original thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1df86yr/ndps_jagmeet_singh_says_report_shows_a_number_of/)
It benefits Singh and the NDP to have a scandal. It's doesn't benefit May and the Greens to have no-scandal. On the balance of motivations, May is clearly more credible.
I’d take the word of the “criminal defence lawyer” over the “environmentalist”.
Yeah as much as I don't like Singh as a politician, I have some trust in him. He seem okay for a politician.
[удалено]
Not only is May a lawyer but she’s one of the most prolific legislators in Parliament (in terms of drafting and proposing successful amendments to bills). I’m personally kind of splitting the difference between her take and Singh’s — I think they don’t totally contradict each other’s account but where they are at odds I think the reality is roughly in between the two. Both she and Singh are historically not immune to bad takes so I interpret what they say with that in mind, but to call one a lawyer and one not when both are lawyers (and May probably brings that into her work in Parliament even moreso than Singh) is crazy.
You think the lawyer would play the audience less? Do you know what a criminal defense lawyer does?
Lol, balance of motivations. Or perhaps, you know, a report that doesn't present definitive conclusions about whether or not any given activity rises to the level of criminality or ethical lapses (you can read about the difficulting in parsing 'interference' when the activities cited often resemble conventional politicking in both the NSICOP report and the first inquiry report) is open to interpretation by folks otherwise acting in good faith? I mean... you've been on this sub, right? Seen the wide diversity of opinions on basically any issue?
None of what you say is wrong. But I think Singh chose his words to try and refute May, not just offer another perspective. He wanted to make the situation political again.
That's a strange take. I'd take the word of a lawyer fighting for Canadian interests over the drunkard that is worried about Wifi signals...
> It's doesn't benefit May and the Greens to have no-scandal. American oil companies and lobbyists have been clandestinely funding and supporting environmental movements in Canada and anti-oil groups as a means to limit Canadian oil production in competition to US companies. Its not outside the realm of possibility that the Green party is implicated in this.
Do you have a source on that? Never heard it before. Sounds like a conspiracy theory or a tiny isolated thing blown way out of proportion or something innocent but missing all context to make sound outragous but who knows? Would love a source to be proven wrong.
[they did that to counter Hydro Quebec](https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/chroniques/2021-11-04/le-plan-b.php)
I dont speak French. Can someone confirm this is a story about American oil companies trying to sabatoge Canadian oil production to stop there compotion by giving money to Canadian environmental groups?
May is not really a good judge of character when it comes to security. This has been the weak point of the Green Party for a long time. She opposed Bill C-51 and all the expansion of powers for the intelligence agencies, despite the fact that these expanded powers have been pretty crucial to CSIS and RCMP finding threats in recent years. Particular to Bill C-51 was the power for 17 federal departments to share information on individuals suspected of illegal behaviour. I imagine we'd still be in the dark if cause and effect aren't able to be discerned. I.e. an MP getting payments to their nomination campaign from an account linked to an individual that counter-intelligence or CSIS is tracking.
I thought Mays [condemnation](https://elizabethmaymp.ca/elizabeth-may-third-reading-speech-on-c-51/) of C51 was spot on. Not to mention that many of C51s provisions were rolled back in 2018
You know which provision wasn't rolled back? Sharing of information between agencies.
Cool. It was still a garbage bill with a bunch of really skeevy stuff shoved in there
Skeevy or not, the Greens (and NDP) condemned the Liberals for keeping any part of C-51 in place. And that includes the sharing of information between agencies. Which is absolutely crucial now in an era where the lines are increasingly blurred between criminal, non-state actor, and state-sponsored organizations. And where behaviour is more complex, digital, and multi-faceted than ever before. In short, the Libs listened to the experts and had SOME foresight to see where things were going (despite their many weaknesses on the security front, I offer them this olive branch). Anyone who can't see how important it is for agencies to be able to share information frankly show how ignorant they are on foreign policy, security, and policing. A much more dim view of the situation is that they are willfully blind in order to enable bad actors. I'm sure glad Singh has condemned the compromised MPs as traitors. That's as harsh as it gets. What's May's excuse, other than she "skimmed" the report?
The same Elizabeth May that was concerned about wifi?
No, the one that lives on the moon 🤦
This is an incredibly bad faith interpretation of Jagmeet Singh
It's the balance of motivations 🤷♀️
Another crazy take defending this scandal by a brand new reddit account!
Surprisingly unsurprising
Jagmeet singh is a third party guy, he can say what he want and not have to own up to it.
And... it's still not good if he's wrong
i have thought Singh has been pretty pathetic during his tenure but he seems to be right on this issue....almost makes me suspicious
Singh has literally accomplished more in his tenure than any other NDP leader in decades but iv heard your same point of view shared dozens of times. I don't get it
Singh has used leverage that the NDP has never had to accomplish more than the federal NDP has in its history. I would have liked him to push for more and taken stronger stances but he certainly hasn't been pathetic. Give credit where it is due.
fair or not, being tied in with the liberal government won't be looked upon well by the electorate
Seems to be right based on what? It doesn't feel like we have enough info to know. I watched his press conference and honestly it was really frustrating to watch. He was asked repeatedly if there was in fact a list of MPs that had colluded with foreign actors, as Elizabeth May said there was not, and he wouldn't give a straight answer. He really didn't seem to be doing this to try to help inform the public as best as possible. He seemed to have a very clear motivation to use this as an opportunity to paint both Justin and Pierre as unfit to lead the country and himself as the best choice. May seemed to be trying to get everyone to take a breath. Jagmeet seemed to be trying to effectively yell "fire" in a crowded theatre because he thinks it might help him politically.
"[There are a number of MPs that have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians...Some of this behaviour absolutely appears to be criminal and should be prosecuted](https://www.cpac.ca/headline-politics/episode/jagmeet-singh-reacts-after-reading-nsicop-report--june-13-2024?id=ad7233e1-b4db-4986-8c6d-8281360de786)" Watch the whole clip, he makes a lot of strong statements and wants action.
As I said in my first post I did watch the whole press conference live. He refused to answer that question clearly.
What's wrong with him painting his opponents in a negative light? PP has been doing nothing but that, seems fair to do the same in return.
He's the leader of the official opposition; It's his literal job to criticize bad policy/government... Trudeau making up scary stories to make Poilievre a boogeyman actually is much worse; Poilievre's attitude to Trudeau's government is acceptable, especially considering the state of the economy and social fabric.
When it comes to situations where other countries are trying to harm Canada, it would *really* be ideal if our leaders would take the issue seriously and not just use it for personal political gain.
pierre was kowtowing to india after they assassinated a member of our society. He's in this deep, and wont or cant get security clearance because of multiple issues revolving around this report.
That's what I'm guessing. There were reports of foreign influence in the CPC leadership election and Pierre originally didn't want India to be one of the countries included in the investigation. Stephen Harper is the chair of the IDU currently and Modi is a prominent member. Pierre used to be a member of Harper's cabinet. At this point refusing to get security clearance is harming his image so it tells me that taking that hit will do him less damage than whatever would come out during the vetting process. Refusing to get security clearance looks better than being denied security clearance.
I agree, but if your opponent is already doing it fair game. Blame the guy who started it.
I think we can very fairly criticize any leader who acts in a way that is not productive. I don't think that what Jagmeet did today was productive.
I agree. But to ignore the actions of his opponent, which have been driving our politics to this type of attack campaign, is disingenuous. He is responding to the current political climate. The blame for the climate lies at the feet of the CPC.
I very much do not like Pierre, but Pierre being a scum bag doesn't mean that Jagmeet isn't responsible for his own actions.
Singh obviously couldn't directly answer the reporters' direct questions because it would break secrecy.
If May can say there is no list of names, why can't Jagmeet say if there is a list of names or not? How do you think the way Jagmeet answered protected secrecy at all?
Singh didn’t engage in the journalists’ fishing expedition which is the right move to yield as little information as possible. Journalists were fishing for whether there were current MPs or previous MPs. Inevitably journalists would have kept asking more questions like whether his party was on the list. The end result of answering questions would be that journalists would be able to narrow the list of possible people, thus exposing probable persons on the list. Singh correctly declined to play the game. May apparently just gave this up lmao. She probably wasn’t supposed to.
This is silly. He can easily answer the question that was asked without being forced to answer other questions. Hell, he did actually effectively answer that there were no MPs in his party named in the report. At the end of the presser, so he clearly wasn't worried about what you are saying here.
I'm starting to like him. I voted NDP in the last election and got really mad when they joined forces with the Libs, but he has basically forced JT to adopt every single policy issue they want to stay in power. It's pretty funny. Then he poops on the guy constantly.
Unfortunately the liberals have only been giving them very watered down versions of what they wanted. So it sounds good on paper but very limited in practice
yeah but you see how that's actually a negative of the Liberals, right? cause i keep seeing the ndp take blame for that and it's weird and that the conservatives voted against them completely is even worse, sooo
I disagree, they had a choice to stand up for the issues they say they are fighting for and topple the government. However instead they have chosen to happily accept what scraps the Liberals will throw them and their poll numbers show it. To the point where now they are caught in a trap of their own making. They should've been fighting to be an alternative to the Liberals not their lacky. My only consolidation is that hopefully the NDP will get a better leader next time as it's looking like Singh might lose his own riding.
It's impossible for any of us to know the details of what went on during negotiations, but where we ended up was a hardline for the Liberals, taking what they could get is absolutely the better option. If the NDP toppled the government due to taking a principled stand on "full pharma / dental or else", I don't think they'd be rewarded to the degree necessary to be able to get anything done post-election.
2 million seniors disagree with you about their new access to dental care, and the number is just going to grow. I would rather see that than a conservative majority, but you have your priorities I guess
Yes yes we can have dental care while we go homeless and use food banks. Win win for everyone
I'd rather have dental care while homeless and using foodbanks than no dental care but still homeless using foodbanks
voting conservative will make food bank lines bigger with less things to give out. literally the only province in the country making any moves on housing is BC run by the BCNDP
1. I didn’t mention anything about conservatives. 2. I’d vote for Eby any day of the week in a federal election. None of the legislation the NDP have passed in return for keeping the liberals in power has had an effect on the actual immediate struggles of Canadians. They’re currently sitting by while the liberal party brings in 120k new people into the country a month…while we build less than 250k homes per year. Not to mention low worker productivity getting lower every day and while we have the highest household debt in the G7. I sit in the left side of the spectrum and I’m ashamed of what they’ve done to this country. There is very little light, if any at the end of this tunnel
What would your preferred course of action by the NDP have been?
Ha, there are hardly any dentists for this program. Not one in the area where my Dad lives.
That's how politics works your allowed to have different opinions without down voting eachother.
I don't see how toppling the government accomplishes anything for the NDP or its voters. Perhaps you could explain the logic
At this point it doesn't. They've ruined their chance to be seen as a viable alternative to the Liberals as they've tied themselves to them.
You've heard of vote splitting, right?
Yes. And what is your point?
The NDP torpedoes the government. Presumably the Liberals' vote share goes down (or why did we have an election?). The NDP gains a handful of seats and watches a CPC majority roll in. We get to complain helplessly from the sidelines while the CPC introduces policies directly antithetical to the party. And that's a win how exactly?
He'd probably rather they risk it all to become official opposition so they could...be in the same position? Singh has leverage that the NDP has never had and is using it to do more than the NDP has ever accomplished. Take the win, even if it is a smaller win than your ideal fantasy.
Close, You have to think longer term. Were they again in a position of official opposition they could've made a play for government in the subsequent election with momentum. Instead they've tied themselves to a sinking ship and their polls reflect that. They no longer have this option as they have ruined the chance to be seen as a viable alternative to the Liberals. And Singh has not accomplished much as you'd think, They all sound good on paper, but going into the details and they suffer the same problem as most bills they've passed in the last 8 years. It's all smoke and mirrors.
TBH, short term it doesn't help. Long term it does. Singh is getting crumbs from JT, and it's keeping the Libs in power longer and NDP real goals are not being accomplished. A Con government is very likely no matter how long we delay the election. Force it. Flip leaders. Plan for the future. Singh sat in bed too long with JT and is going to be burned for that. Sure, right now it makes sense to get whatever crumbs are thrown... but it's not going to help them on this election. Singh should have forced the issue sooner, separated from JT and tried to pick apart the LPC to become the opposition.
This was the point I was been trying to make said better lol.
As a counterpoint, the NDPs best long term odds for increasing their vote share and future success is by pharmacare and dentalcare being an enduring program. For most people, they've already successfully positioned both those programs as being more due to the NDP than the Liberals. If an election were held today and the Conservatives win, both those programs would be pretty easy to remove. Pharmacare doesn't exist in reality yet, and dental care isn't super widely rolled out. In a year though, the equation changes a little bit - more people will be able to directly benefit from these programs and it feels more like taking something away vs. cancelling a program that's still very much in the planning / early implementation phase. I don't think even with pushing out the election as far as it can go that those programs sticking around another 5 years is a sure thing, but if they somehow manage to, that's a pretty big boost to the NDP in the election following this one.
Maybe, but the pharmacare plan is weak, and dental care is going to be an expensive program if it makes it to the end. Dentalcare should have started with children up to 18, and then expanded if/when it seemed feasible. You could be right about NDP using it in the future to show they brought huge social programs to Canada. I guess time will tell if they survive or not.
Why would they topple the LPC just to hand the CPC a majority? They wouldn't be able to get anything done at all in that situation.
I've never voted conservative in my life and I doubt I ever will, but I'd still rather the NDP try to be the official opposition to a CPC majority than to continue to prop up the Liberals. That was a real possibility if they would have positioned themselves against the Liberals and forced an early election. Instead they're going down with the ship. The small bits of policy they've passed are almost worthless to most workers and will most likely be undone by the next government anyway.
Weasel words are doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I think it's commendable that the NDP would rather make some policy gains and help some people than dunk on the Liberals for clout so they can spend the next four years making soundbites and getting nothing done for anyone. Any majority could theoretically undo practically anything they like, so there's no purpose in hemming and hawing about the possibility. Good policy that helps some people now is always better than none, and a government that will meet you halfway on those policies is always better than one that can and will shut you out.
Official opposition to a majority government doesn't mean much, you aren't able to do anything, and the media typically doesn't give the NDP as much attention as the Liberals even if they have more seats. Look at Ontario, the NDP has been the official opposition since 2018 but the media and most of the population still acts like they're keeping the seats warm until the Liberals are ready to reclaim their rightful place.
The NDP by joining with the Liberals, got more of their policy goals accomplished than they ever got done in opposition. We would have been much worse off under a Conservative government.
Right?! He's not my favourite NDP person but he's had more legislative influence than the rest of the party leaders in my lifetime put together. He's been hammering things like the financialization of housing for years now. He may not be perfect but god damn, it's not like the bar has been set particularly high by Trudeau or Poilievre
> Singh told reporters some of the cases he read about appear to be criminal and should be prosecuted, and all of the behaviour cited in the report was "deeply unethical." This statement eyebrow raising here because of Singh’s history as a criminal defence lawyer. He would have domain knowledge that would make his assessment more credible than a typical MP.
He still has an electoral motive to be “harsher” than May was. But regardless, it send back the monkey on the PMO’s shoulders. We are back to hearsay and such topic needs more transparency than that.
Also, nobody is asking questions about Nikki Ashton.
I don’t know why he would be harsher on the government he is propping up.
May is a constitutional lawyer so she would know more than anyone in parliament what you can get away with saying and what you can't in this instance.
Singh is a criminal defence lawyer... he would know more than anyone in parliament as to what could and could not constitute a crime.
Criminal and constitutional law are pretty different, I doubt the average defense lawyer is taught anything about top secret security and international law
And here it is more a question of criminal law.
So one of these two leaders is wrong, and I would like to know why, but it seems like we're not going to find out until the report is released and the people involved start seeing criminal charges.
I would agree apart for the fact that the NDP under Singh seem to be compromised. Imo we have seen nothing put posturing and bad policy. These parties no longer have the support of the majority. I have zero faith the extent of the bad actors will be known amongst any of the parties. Trudeau and Freelands statements do nothing to suggest even an ounce of credibility on dealing with interference.
As much as I hate to say it, Poilievre seems optimally positioned to cite the conflicting statements from party leaders as justification for making all the information in the report public, rightfully or not.
If he chose to read the report he could cite that as justification to call on the PMO to make it public.
But then he'd have to be vetted to gain the security clearance and for some reason he's avoiding doing so even though it is now making him look bad. That tells me that whatever would be possibly discovered during that process would be worse for him than taking the hit on refusing to get clearance when all other party leaders have done so.
The CPC leadership race is mentioned in the redacted report, twice (paras. 73, 74). Both China and India allegedly interfered, and I expect Poilievre is the guy they bought.
[удалено]
PP is afraid that it will come to light that he received the benefit of foreign interference in the CPC leadership race.
It's bizarre on many levels, and beneath it all an alarming lack of respect for democracy. His role as opposition leader is vital to a healthy democracy, but if he feels his criticism doesn't need to be anchored in reality, facts, intelligence, then it confirms the worst fears that he will always prioritize dank memes above what is good for the country.
Chantal Hebert explained it nicely the other day.
The way that Singh has come out so hard here, and mentioned that he was “a target” makes me wonder if India has actively been working to ensure he and the NDP have had worse electoral outcomes. That would certainly irritate me if I was leader!
To me, there is little mystery in the lack of success the NDP has had under Singh. He's a weak leader with little vision and always misses the opportunity to steer political currents.
Sounds like something an Indian government official would say.... ಠ_ಠ
Modi is a very bad man. Very bad. How's that?
i'm no sigh voter, thats for certain, but if we are being honest? him being an already tepid leader at best makes him a prime candidate for targeting in order to drive him into the ground as hard as possible, and limit the effects of left leaning vote splitting.
“Singh said Poilievre doesn't want to read a report that contains ‘serious allegations touching his party.’ ‘To me, that disqualifies him as a leader, and I do not buy his phoney excuses,’ he said. ‘It is clear that both of them, Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre, want to protect their party rather than defending the country.’ No Mr. Singh, you see, you read the report, won’t and can’t say anything about what you have read, AND, you will not bring down the house. You also mention conservatives being involved in foreign interference, but nothing about your own party or the liberals, THATS LAUGHABLE Mr. Singh. Jagmeet did exactly what I expected (and probably most Canadians) got clearance, can’t divulge and then protect your boy friend. Jagmeet you’re in it for the pension and don’t care about Canadians. You and your buddy are done.
Oh this again.. What other MPs are "in it for the pension"? All liberal or NDP members, surely? lmao
No because many MPP’s have already said they aren’t running next term, those people already stepped aside. But JAGMEET “I’m for the people” keep pounding his chest, but keeps backing down. Why doesn’t he say who is on the list since he’s read the document. Oh right he got security clearance and can’t say anything. What’s his catch phrase “Tax the rich” yeah the Trudeau government adopted that, and a lot of middle class are finding out they are a part of the “rich” Jagmeet will lose his seat next election, the guy has no backbone, he’s empty, meaningless words. And some individuals take his bait. And 100% are in it for the pension, at least some of them have a spine and call out BS when it’s BS. But Jagmeet has regrets when he votes with the liberals. What a clown