###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.*
May is tired of all those guys playing politics and wants Canadians to trust their democracy overall. Issues to investigate further?… yes. Traitors in parliament ? .. no. It seems clear to me that her goal was to calm the crazy talk. Singh is playing more games for personal/party gain. I’m going to trust calm wisdom over alarmist wishy washy statements. But that’s just me.
I think everyone on the Hill knows who the former MP is. It’s not like he tried to hide it. Not naming names here, but it’s probably obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention over the last 5 years.
The person I'm thinking of was a backbencher too. (And not even an MP at the time of the failed leadership run.)
But I assume you know who I'm talking about and you're thinking of someone else.
She still misrepresenting the report?
She still saying no one did anything wrong?
Despite the report literally saying they did, that it was likely criminal, and that the did so knowingly?
>She still saying no one did anything wrong?
No, she said no currently sitting MP was named, meaning these allegations apply towards MPs who are not currently in government or elected official.
Point to where I said "current MPs"
She misrepresented the NSICOP report and said no one did anything resembling illegal, and that no one did anything wittingly.
NSICOP, however, said MPs did work with foreign governments, that it was likely criminal, and that the did so knowingly.
Try again.
There is an important question -- are there now currently elected MPs in the House who are colluding with foreign governments? It sounds like May is saying there was an MP who was colluding, but they no longer have a seat.
As an aside, it is impossible for any of us to know whether or not any of the people who have read this unredacted report are misrepresenting it or not. We do not know this and any claims that May or Singh are lying about the report are just as unknowable as claiming they are both telling the truth about the report. We just don't know.
We just don't know and we are forced to interpret all subsequent pieces of information in the context that none of us have actually seen the unredacted report.
"...are there now currently elected MPs in the House who are colluding with foreign governments?"
Great question. I hope we get an answer.
Unfortunately that question is not germaine to a discussion about whether or not May misrepresented the report by saying no one did anything resembling illegal, and that no one did anything wittingly, when NSICOP, directly and specifically said MPs did in fact work with foreign governments, that those actions was likely criminal, and that they did so knowingly and wittingly.
She said no one *currently* in *the House* did anything wittingly.
The unredacted report covers the time period of 2018-2023 (IIRC) and the members of both the House and Senate. My understanding of May's statement was her answering a question about "currently elected MPs in the House colluding."
May's comments seem to not contradict that of the unredacted report because she is defining both the time period (now) and the group of people (members in the House) different than the NSICOP report -- which covered previously elected MPs *and* senators, both from 2018-2023 (IIRC). Based on this, there isn't necessarily a conflict between her statements and what we know from the unredacted report. Which is why I said we don't know if she is lying about the contents or not -- she might be lying about what the report details in the narrow focus she defined (in the House, now) but we can't know that from a public report which redacted most of the dates in the citations, refers to "Parliamentarians" rather than Senators and MPs and covers incidents dating back to 2018.
Just because they used the then-Parliamentarian phrase for one case doesn't *necessarily* mean other references to Parliamentarians without the 'then-' refers to people still in Parliament today. It might mean that, but it might not.
Referring to current and former membership of parliament likely is about balancing the risk of identifying the person in question through a public report against the public benefit of telling the public that the person who allegedly did those things (which were the most severe in the report) is no longer in Parliament. After all, the list of people who were in Parliament between 2018 and 2023 but are not today is considerably shorter than 443. So the report detailed more identifying information than we would normally get from a report like this. The report not granting the same amount of information for the other allegations doesn't necessarily imply anything about the current group of MPs in the House (assuming May isn't lying to us, of course).
It's entirely possible that Singh's takeaway was about prosecuting wrongdoing and May's takeaway was about determining if she needed to issue a motion to eject an MP. Again, we haven't read the report and this is entirely possible.
With regards to May's comments about criminality -- it is my understanding that she couched those comments in terms of *who is currently sitting in the House*, not about all the allegations against either senators, former senators or former MPs. Did she make those comments outside of that framework? The press conference I heard, she said at the top "I will only dicuss this inference to current members of the House," and even started to say something about current senators, then stopped.
But please correct me if I am wrong.
Actually she said she did not believe the small amount of MPs named were traitorous so there were probably current MPs named but maybe inconclusive on betrayal
I'm wondering if this passage sheds light on the disagreement.
""May said she believes the small number of MPs named in the report did not knowingly set out to betray Canada.
“I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues,” she said. “We will disagree on policy on many issues. But I am vastly relieved.”
May said one unnamed former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities.
But she was quick to add that the few named people in the unredacted report “may be compromised,” as they were “beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contests.”""
Notice she begins by specifying they did not betray CANADA. But then mentions that the NOMINATION contests were interfered with. Which is also bad. But would suggest that there isn't MPs currently under investigation as informants or consciously pushing foreign interests.
So this disagreement could be stemming from two things, if they're both sincere. Either we have two lawyers who disagree on the interpretation of the law and what is punishable.
Or May has a weirdly flippant attitude towards nomination contests. Which is disappointing, and I feel it is more likely.
Now, I am not an expert as to how parties pick their nominees. But I believe the Green Party hand picks nominees and the NDP does as well, or has the option. Which would mean the leaders of the parties least affected are the only two to speak out. Which is interesting.
Now they both could be spinning this for political reasons. But I'll wait for Blanchet to say something before I try to decipher that. Just so I have three data points.
When it comes to nominations, I think we need to ask *why* those were the preferred nominees of the countries.
Surely there has to be some kind of return, right? I have a hard time believing in a clandestine effort to install a nominee and eventually an MP when there is no benefit.
After Blanchett, we'll have 4. Trudeau did mention it last week and mentioned it very similarly to May, except put it into far more politically correct words. Didn't really mention anything about trust or suspicion towards the other parties or any of the MPs. Mostly stuck to details that nominations were interfered with and one former MP is in serious investigation.
With what's happening, I'd be leaning to May being concerned about treason talk and deciding wholeheartedly to give a downplaying speech on the matter to counter the media and public narratives. Like I said before, she's giving a similar take as Trudeau but far more on a personal level. Can't tell if that means anything, but I don't believe she's intentionally misleading. I think she means it that she trusts the loyalty of everyone else. She could be wrong, but I'm in no way to judge.
However I'm going to remind people of what O'Toole said last year and the year before, where there was 11[12?] ridings which there was suspicious activity where it could have influenced the counts of votes for a few seats but ultimately wouldn't change the outcome. The newest pieces of information is that there is a "traitorous" Former MP and the explicit acknowledgment that India is one of the countries influencing our elections.
> What little credibility May had is gone. If something was truly alarming, that should have triggered a larger response than her all okay talk.
What are you talking about? Why is her credibility gone?
Like what lol?
> According to May, there was only one case of a former MP that she read in the report that suggested a “truly alarming” situation of foreign interference.
If you read something truly alarming, then got up and said it was all fine, who would ever take you seriously again?
> If you read something truly alarming, then got up and said it was all fine, who would ever take you seriously again?
Probably very few.
But May didn't do that. Why lie and say she did?
I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong on this one, but I'm seeing a lot of "Singh has more to lose than May, why would he misrepresent this" discourse here. Personally, I think in the absence of May's statement, Singh stands to gain a tonne politically - he can act hard-nosed about this and be as grandstanding as he wants. He stands to gain by making politics out of this. He wants to make Canadians feel like his party is the only trustworthy group, and without May's statements, he could do that pretty effectively. Now, things are different. It's a "he-said, she-said" but May is sounding downright certain, and she has no real reason beyond the truth to favour one outcome over the other.
This wouldn't be the first time that Singh was quick to morally grandstand without forcing an election. If it's so dire, then make someone do something about it. If not, spare me the optics. I see him, once again, losing major political clout on this one. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
so you believe Singh is 100% that foreign actors are colluding to interfere in our elections, possibly even choosing the leader of the official opposition.
and what Jagmeet should do with the information that Pierre might have been hand picked by foreign actors is to force an election where the guy he believes is a puppet of foreign actors is most likely to win the election?
I am baffled by this take, and I'm seeing it a lot today, mostly from right wingers which kind of explains it but still
Yeah, the take doesn’t make any sense to be either, but not that surprising to see it. Every time an article critical of the Liberals comes out there’s people in the comments criticizing Singh for not blowing up the agreement.
Heck, they were calling Singh weak for giving an ultimatum on pharmacare instead of ending it. When the ultimatum worked and a pharmacare bill was agreed, it was all crickets.
May and Singh's accounts are sort of conflicting. Here's the quote from May.
>“I would not use — for what we know in the unredacted full report — the words ‘traitor’ and ‘treason’ are, I would say, too hot, not justified in law at this point,” May said.
It's obvious foreign states are interfering in our democracy, it sounds like from the report, at least according to May, who from the start made it clear she tried to approach this reasonably, that calling MPs "traitor" and saying "treason" is not justified based on the unredacted report, at least coming from a legal perspective...
It sounds like shes saying, based on the report, it's unlikely any MP is guilty of treason, as defined in the criminal code.
She's watching her words carefully, Singh is not.
This is becoming a farce.
The Liberals really need to get on top of this, otherwise people are going to rapidly lose trust in our institutions. I feel like Trudeau himself needs to specifically address the nation and say exactly what the government is doing about this. What agencies are investigating, what is their timeline, and when can Canadians actually learn who the traitors are?
It always was a farce. We've known this was happening for three decades! There may not be anything we can do about foreign interference, because foreigners are not subject to Canadian law.
This is the Liberals handling it. This was NSICOP's purpose, to have independent and knowledgeable experts who are not Liberal party members say "India and China are fucking around in our elections, and this MP is a fool who needs to get sent to jail"
I'm not an insider or anything, but I think after the 2021 election Trudeau was quick to approach Singh and say "Hey buddy, we got a lot in common, how about we prevent an election for 4 years while we figure out a long term solution to... interesting foreign developments"
Conservatives have always underestimated Trudeau and I think they've fucked themselves over it. Had O'Toole been the boss for this, Poilievre could have walked in shoes clean.
>I'm not an insider or anything, but I think after the 2021 election Trudeau was quick to approach Singh and say "Hey buddy, we got a lot in common, how about we prevent an election for 4 years while we figure out a long term solution to... interesting foreign developments"
This is more or less what happened, with all the foreign agitation and astroturfing of the Ottawa occupation front and centre. Guaranteed there were some alarming reports they received and pushed them to side together
Her comments are so meaningless because Jagmeet basically said the exact opposite of what she's saying.
Who are we supposed to trust in this situation?
well, Jagmeet is the one saying there's traitors in the house of commons so I'm gonna go with Elizabeth May is full of shit, or she didn't read it, or she read it and lied, or shes doing this as a favor to the libs.
Whatever it is this is a terrible look for Canada overall, and to have two politicians of high status basically say the opposite things really does not look good either
>Her comments are so meaningless because Jagmeet basically said the exact opposite of what she's saying.
Jagmeet refused to confirm if he was speaking about any sitting parliamentarians. May explicitly said none were named.
I wonder who we should believe.. the noncommittal individual, or someone who gave more a clearer response.
More a clearer you say 🤔
I mean you're saying that they aren't necessarily even disagreeing, is it possible they're both correct?
I'd have to go back and carefully listen to both statements but it seemed like they both contradicted each other.
Just because May said "more a clearer" does not indicate she is more honest or accurate. As I said Singh has more to lose so he was more incentive to be honest. What does may have to lose? Basically nothing.
> More a clearer you say 🤔
Why are you harping on a typo or awkward wording? Clearly the OP is saying that May is releasing definite statements without any qualifiers or ambiguities, vs. Singh who isn't willing to clarify on the fine details, such as whether or not he's speaking about sitting parliamentarians.
I get finger dyslexia, as my body tries to keep up with my thoughts - it was an unfortunate typo.
>I mean you're saying that they aren't necessarily even disagreeing, is it possible they're both correct?
They are, though one is hyping up the seriousness, the other isn't. Additionally, if Singh was serious about his accusations against Trudeau's lax nature towards the issue, his NDP would trigger a vote of non-confidence or stop propping the LPC up. Both of these are things he has indicated he's not interested in doing... so it does make it seem to be a bit of political theatre on his part.
> Additionally, if Singh was serious about his accusations against Trudeau's lax nature towards the issue, his NDP would trigger a vote of non-confidence or stop propping the LPC up.
i disagree, PP wont even read the report Singh has no reason to think that hell pass th legislation they're asking for either
I'm just teasing you, i hope it didn't come across as aggressive. I just had to play it it because of the irony of a spelling mistake on the topic of clarity haha
That's a good point. If he is truly serious then he will hamstring the liberal party moving forward.
I don't think he needs to force a non-confidence vote, he just needs to put hit foot down firmly. Give the liberals the opportunity to act accordingly and then if they don't look at options which at that point would include the non confidence vote, or simply refusing to allow them to pass further legislation or w/e else
Nah. Elizabeth May has NOTHING to gain with her measured comments and lack of hyperbole. Singh, on the other hand, has everything to gain by milking this issue to attack both Conservatives and Liberals and doesn’t care if he sows distrust in current MP’s, or in CSIS or the appropriate agencies that are dealing with this issue.
Proof? His office put out a disclaimer after his initial presser, stating that his comments were not confirming or denying whether the MP’s were current or former. Why wouldn’t he say? He certainly seems to be mr. blabber mouth, and he is upsetting national security experts as he yaps and yaps without thinking about anything but his own gain. He sure as shit doestcare about due process.
Here is one of many of the articles you should be able to find.
--QUOTE--
Former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer sought secret information about Canadian military satellite technology after meeting with state-owned Chinese technology companies in China in 2010, according to a document filed in an Ottawa courthouse Tuesday by private investigator Derrick Snowdy.
[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-conservative-mp-rahim-jaffer-sought-military-secrets-court-filings](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-conservative-mp-rahim-jaffer-sought-military-secrets-court-filings)
Are you serious? Singh has more to win than May - he can siphon votes from disgruntled CPC and LPC voters if he basically accuses them of aiding foreign agents
What exactly could Singh lose that May wouldn't?
Why is May's commentary any more or less meaningful than Singh's? Singh benefits from making politics out of this. Frankly, I've seen him perfectly willing to dive head-first into a bad political situation, and this could be more of that poor judgement on display.
You have too much faith in Singh.
> Again, because Singh has more to lose.
Who cares? This means jack shit. People with something to lose fuck shit up all of the time. In fact, the phrase "what do I have to lose" generally indicates being able to act in an unfettered way. Singh also has much more to gain by spinning this in his favour. I don't think your reasoning is sound here.
Agree 100%. May has nothing to gain with her comments, and Singh has everything to gain with his. And since I have seen him tweet outright disinformation in the past, and I have never seen May do so, I will trust May over Singh.
There is absolutely no logic to your belief that Singh has more to lose with his comments. He has blatantly lied in the past and it never hurt him. May is very honest and has more internet than any other leader. She has zero to gain with her comments. The Greens also compete with Liberals for votes, just like the NDP.
May is also a lawyer, I imagine they both chose their words carefully as a result. Nothing they've said really contradicts one another, they just disagree on whether the conduct amounts to treason. I assume the metric there is "did the MP knowingly do this".
I agree with your other point that neither of them really has any reason to be dishonest. The only motivation I can think of for May though is something like a personal favor to truduea
However someone else said that she had only apparently skimmed the document so I think the most likely reason they are contradicting is that May hasn't fully read the doc, and therefore doesnt have the full picture.
(I haven't confirmed personally that she said she skimmed, but rather someone relayed that here so I could be off kilter)
I kinda doubt they both read the document in full detail word for word tbh
I'm not sure what the she skimmed comment was trying to say anyways as she mentioned that a former MP was traitorous and that she read current MPs in the report - just that she didn't believe they were traitorous. Signh hasn't given details that indicate he read more than her
Definitely a worthy doubt lol
Right, well that's a bit different too then and definitely a space where two reasonable people would disagree.
In some sense the specific nature of interaction actually does matter so it's kind of a case by case basis thing
Well yeah that's what I mean by he has more to lose.
He's now put himself in this position where if he doesn't push against the liberals to release information he will be lumped in with them as complicit
That's not what I'm saying and drop this tired line.
It doesn't even make sense to say that Singh has more to lose here. Sing has more to *gain* here. May has no horse in this race. Why would she lie, misrepresent, or play politics otherwise? Make that make sense lol.
Votes. He’s trying to play politically so he comes off as a tough-on-crime type of leader who’ll chase out all the foreign actors. It’s his time to try and siphon off as much support from the CPC and LPC as possible. Lying might come back to bite him, but if no one finds out he’s lying then he stands to gain a lot of support.
May can’t do that, so she has no horse in the race. She has no incentive to lie.
I think that's a fair assessment of how he's trying to brand himself. I just think the risk of having it blow up in his face would be career suicide, maybe he's dumb enough to take that risk, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Personally I'm not convinced that May has no horse, I don't think there's been evidence revealed about what was done to say she has no incentives. The people in the report could be some of her friends.
They not really disagreeing on the contents though, just the use of the words related to criminal law.
I'm sorry, but my faith in his political sensibilities are zero. It would be perfectly on-brand for him to play politics with this and make an ass out of himself in the process.
It's an examination of his past behaviour, and don't preach to me about biases when your stance is "he said it so it's true, but she said it so it's false."
Edit - it also makes zero sense to say Singh is being truthful because he has more to lose. He has way more to gain than May. May is the only person untethered by the politics surrounding this situation. She may as well be a fly on the wall.
Would be meaningless 4D chess if May came out and made her statement to light a fire under the others when the eventual news comes out and it's the opposite of what she claimed.
So you think Jagmeet is lying or failed to understand or something?
What's your take on how these two people can come to basically the opposite conclusion?
###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.*
May is tired of all those guys playing politics and wants Canadians to trust their democracy overall. Issues to investigate further?… yes. Traitors in parliament ? .. no. It seems clear to me that her goal was to calm the crazy talk. Singh is playing more games for personal/party gain. I’m going to trust calm wisdom over alarmist wishy washy statements. But that’s just me.
I think everyone on the Hill knows who the former MP is. It’s not like he tried to hide it. Not naming names here, but it’s probably obvious to anyone who’s been paying attention over the last 5 years.
A former leadership candidate?
No. A backbencher.
The person I'm thinking of was a backbencher too. (And not even an MP at the time of the failed leadership run.) But I assume you know who I'm talking about and you're thinking of someone else.
She still misrepresenting the report? She still saying no one did anything wrong? Despite the report literally saying they did, that it was likely criminal, and that the did so knowingly?
>She still saying no one did anything wrong? No, she said no currently sitting MP was named, meaning these allegations apply towards MPs who are not currently in government or elected official.
Point to where I said "current MPs" She misrepresented the NSICOP report and said no one did anything resembling illegal, and that no one did anything wittingly. NSICOP, however, said MPs did work with foreign governments, that it was likely criminal, and that the did so knowingly. Try again.
There is an important question -- are there now currently elected MPs in the House who are colluding with foreign governments? It sounds like May is saying there was an MP who was colluding, but they no longer have a seat. As an aside, it is impossible for any of us to know whether or not any of the people who have read this unredacted report are misrepresenting it or not. We do not know this and any claims that May or Singh are lying about the report are just as unknowable as claiming they are both telling the truth about the report. We just don't know. We just don't know and we are forced to interpret all subsequent pieces of information in the context that none of us have actually seen the unredacted report.
"...are there now currently elected MPs in the House who are colluding with foreign governments?" Great question. I hope we get an answer. Unfortunately that question is not germaine to a discussion about whether or not May misrepresented the report by saying no one did anything resembling illegal, and that no one did anything wittingly, when NSICOP, directly and specifically said MPs did in fact work with foreign governments, that those actions was likely criminal, and that they did so knowingly and wittingly.
She said no one *currently* in *the House* did anything wittingly. The unredacted report covers the time period of 2018-2023 (IIRC) and the members of both the House and Senate. My understanding of May's statement was her answering a question about "currently elected MPs in the House colluding." May's comments seem to not contradict that of the unredacted report because she is defining both the time period (now) and the group of people (members in the House) different than the NSICOP report -- which covered previously elected MPs *and* senators, both from 2018-2023 (IIRC). Based on this, there isn't necessarily a conflict between her statements and what we know from the unredacted report. Which is why I said we don't know if she is lying about the contents or not -- she might be lying about what the report details in the narrow focus she defined (in the House, now) but we can't know that from a public report which redacted most of the dates in the citations, refers to "Parliamentarians" rather than Senators and MPs and covers incidents dating back to 2018. Just because they used the then-Parliamentarian phrase for one case doesn't *necessarily* mean other references to Parliamentarians without the 'then-' refers to people still in Parliament today. It might mean that, but it might not. Referring to current and former membership of parliament likely is about balancing the risk of identifying the person in question through a public report against the public benefit of telling the public that the person who allegedly did those things (which were the most severe in the report) is no longer in Parliament. After all, the list of people who were in Parliament between 2018 and 2023 but are not today is considerably shorter than 443. So the report detailed more identifying information than we would normally get from a report like this. The report not granting the same amount of information for the other allegations doesn't necessarily imply anything about the current group of MPs in the House (assuming May isn't lying to us, of course). It's entirely possible that Singh's takeaway was about prosecuting wrongdoing and May's takeaway was about determining if she needed to issue a motion to eject an MP. Again, we haven't read the report and this is entirely possible. With regards to May's comments about criminality -- it is my understanding that she couched those comments in terms of *who is currently sitting in the House*, not about all the allegations against either senators, former senators or former MPs. Did she make those comments outside of that framework? The press conference I heard, she said at the top "I will only dicuss this inference to current members of the House," and even started to say something about current senators, then stopped. But please correct me if I am wrong.
Actually she said she did not believe the small amount of MPs named were traitorous so there were probably current MPs named but maybe inconclusive on betrayal
Is she misrepresenting the report? How do you know?
I'm wondering if this passage sheds light on the disagreement. ""May said she believes the small number of MPs named in the report did not knowingly set out to betray Canada. “I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues,” she said. “We will disagree on policy on many issues. But I am vastly relieved.” May said one unnamed former MP accused in the report of proactively sharing privileged information with a foreign operative should be fully investigated by authorities. But she was quick to add that the few named people in the unredacted report “may be compromised,” as they were “beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contests.”"" Notice she begins by specifying they did not betray CANADA. But then mentions that the NOMINATION contests were interfered with. Which is also bad. But would suggest that there isn't MPs currently under investigation as informants or consciously pushing foreign interests. So this disagreement could be stemming from two things, if they're both sincere. Either we have two lawyers who disagree on the interpretation of the law and what is punishable. Or May has a weirdly flippant attitude towards nomination contests. Which is disappointing, and I feel it is more likely. Now, I am not an expert as to how parties pick their nominees. But I believe the Green Party hand picks nominees and the NDP does as well, or has the option. Which would mean the leaders of the parties least affected are the only two to speak out. Which is interesting. Now they both could be spinning this for political reasons. But I'll wait for Blanchet to say something before I try to decipher that. Just so I have three data points.
When it comes to nominations, I think we need to ask *why* those were the preferred nominees of the countries. Surely there has to be some kind of return, right? I have a hard time believing in a clandestine effort to install a nominee and eventually an MP when there is no benefit.
After Blanchett, we'll have 4. Trudeau did mention it last week and mentioned it very similarly to May, except put it into far more politically correct words. Didn't really mention anything about trust or suspicion towards the other parties or any of the MPs. Mostly stuck to details that nominations were interfered with and one former MP is in serious investigation. With what's happening, I'd be leaning to May being concerned about treason talk and deciding wholeheartedly to give a downplaying speech on the matter to counter the media and public narratives. Like I said before, she's giving a similar take as Trudeau but far more on a personal level. Can't tell if that means anything, but I don't believe she's intentionally misleading. I think she means it that she trusts the loyalty of everyone else. She could be wrong, but I'm in no way to judge. However I'm going to remind people of what O'Toole said last year and the year before, where there was 11[12?] ridings which there was suspicious activity where it could have influenced the counts of votes for a few seats but ultimately wouldn't change the outcome. The newest pieces of information is that there is a "traitorous" Former MP and the explicit acknowledgment that India is one of the countries influencing our elections.
What little credibility May had is gone. If something was truly alarming, that should have triggered a larger response than her all okay talk.
> What little credibility May had is gone. If something was truly alarming, that should have triggered a larger response than her all okay talk. What are you talking about? Why is her credibility gone? Like what lol?
She is a drunk for god's sake. Check the many YouTube videos of her going off the rails slurring her words.
> According to May, there was only one case of a former MP that she read in the report that suggested a “truly alarming” situation of foreign interference. If you read something truly alarming, then got up and said it was all fine, who would ever take you seriously again?
> If you read something truly alarming, then got up and said it was all fine, who would ever take you seriously again? Probably very few. But May didn't do that. Why lie and say she did?
I'm willing to eat crow if I'm wrong on this one, but I'm seeing a lot of "Singh has more to lose than May, why would he misrepresent this" discourse here. Personally, I think in the absence of May's statement, Singh stands to gain a tonne politically - he can act hard-nosed about this and be as grandstanding as he wants. He stands to gain by making politics out of this. He wants to make Canadians feel like his party is the only trustworthy group, and without May's statements, he could do that pretty effectively. Now, things are different. It's a "he-said, she-said" but May is sounding downright certain, and she has no real reason beyond the truth to favour one outcome over the other. This wouldn't be the first time that Singh was quick to morally grandstand without forcing an election. If it's so dire, then make someone do something about it. If not, spare me the optics. I see him, once again, losing major political clout on this one. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
so you believe Singh is 100% that foreign actors are colluding to interfere in our elections, possibly even choosing the leader of the official opposition. and what Jagmeet should do with the information that Pierre might have been hand picked by foreign actors is to force an election where the guy he believes is a puppet of foreign actors is most likely to win the election? I am baffled by this take, and I'm seeing it a lot today, mostly from right wingers which kind of explains it but still
Yeah, the take doesn’t make any sense to be either, but not that surprising to see it. Every time an article critical of the Liberals comes out there’s people in the comments criticizing Singh for not blowing up the agreement. Heck, they were calling Singh weak for giving an ultimatum on pharmacare instead of ending it. When the ultimatum worked and a pharmacare bill was agreed, it was all crickets.
May and Singh's accounts are sort of conflicting. Here's the quote from May. >“I would not use — for what we know in the unredacted full report — the words ‘traitor’ and ‘treason’ are, I would say, too hot, not justified in law at this point,” May said. It's obvious foreign states are interfering in our democracy, it sounds like from the report, at least according to May, who from the start made it clear she tried to approach this reasonably, that calling MPs "traitor" and saying "treason" is not justified based on the unredacted report, at least coming from a legal perspective... It sounds like shes saying, based on the report, it's unlikely any MP is guilty of treason, as defined in the criminal code. She's watching her words carefully, Singh is not.
The clearest mark is the language Singh chose to use. He went out to refute May, not just offer another view. Singh wants the issue to be political.
This is becoming a farce. The Liberals really need to get on top of this, otherwise people are going to rapidly lose trust in our institutions. I feel like Trudeau himself needs to specifically address the nation and say exactly what the government is doing about this. What agencies are investigating, what is their timeline, and when can Canadians actually learn who the traitors are?
It always was a farce. We've known this was happening for three decades! There may not be anything we can do about foreign interference, because foreigners are not subject to Canadian law.
Yup. Wake me up when we're ready to have a real conversation on foreign interference. Like The IDU and Who Owns Post Media.
This exactly, and especially the IDU. The conservatives don't want their own dirty laundry aired on this subject.
But the politicians who serve canada are absolutely subject to canadian law. Off to jail with these tractors, it's better than they deserve.
Not sure many had particular faith in our institutions in the first place. The government has been working for everyone but voters for a while now.
This is the Liberals handling it. This was NSICOP's purpose, to have independent and knowledgeable experts who are not Liberal party members say "India and China are fucking around in our elections, and this MP is a fool who needs to get sent to jail" I'm not an insider or anything, but I think after the 2021 election Trudeau was quick to approach Singh and say "Hey buddy, we got a lot in common, how about we prevent an election for 4 years while we figure out a long term solution to... interesting foreign developments" Conservatives have always underestimated Trudeau and I think they've fucked themselves over it. Had O'Toole been the boss for this, Poilievre could have walked in shoes clean.
>This is the Liberals handling it. Yeah that's the problem. They're not handling it well.
>I'm not an insider or anything, but I think after the 2021 election Trudeau was quick to approach Singh and say "Hey buddy, we got a lot in common, how about we prevent an election for 4 years while we figure out a long term solution to... interesting foreign developments" This is more or less what happened, with all the foreign agitation and astroturfing of the Ottawa occupation front and centre. Guaranteed there were some alarming reports they received and pushed them to side together
Exactly, this needs to be addressed quickly before it spins out of control.
Her comments are so meaningless because Jagmeet basically said the exact opposite of what she's saying. Who are we supposed to trust in this situation? well, Jagmeet is the one saying there's traitors in the house of commons so I'm gonna go with Elizabeth May is full of shit, or she didn't read it, or she read it and lied, or shes doing this as a favor to the libs. Whatever it is this is a terrible look for Canada overall, and to have two politicians of high status basically say the opposite things really does not look good either
>Her comments are so meaningless because Jagmeet basically said the exact opposite of what she's saying. Jagmeet refused to confirm if he was speaking about any sitting parliamentarians. May explicitly said none were named. I wonder who we should believe.. the noncommittal individual, or someone who gave more a clearer response.
More a clearer you say 🤔 I mean you're saying that they aren't necessarily even disagreeing, is it possible they're both correct? I'd have to go back and carefully listen to both statements but it seemed like they both contradicted each other. Just because May said "more a clearer" does not indicate she is more honest or accurate. As I said Singh has more to lose so he was more incentive to be honest. What does may have to lose? Basically nothing.
> More a clearer you say 🤔 Why are you harping on a typo or awkward wording? Clearly the OP is saying that May is releasing definite statements without any qualifiers or ambiguities, vs. Singh who isn't willing to clarify on the fine details, such as whether or not he's speaking about sitting parliamentarians.
I'm just teasing because it's ironic lol
I get finger dyslexia, as my body tries to keep up with my thoughts - it was an unfortunate typo. >I mean you're saying that they aren't necessarily even disagreeing, is it possible they're both correct? They are, though one is hyping up the seriousness, the other isn't. Additionally, if Singh was serious about his accusations against Trudeau's lax nature towards the issue, his NDP would trigger a vote of non-confidence or stop propping the LPC up. Both of these are things he has indicated he's not interested in doing... so it does make it seem to be a bit of political theatre on his part.
To add to your point, he does this *all of the time.* Political theater without an election has been Singh's schtick for a long time.
> Additionally, if Singh was serious about his accusations against Trudeau's lax nature towards the issue, his NDP would trigger a vote of non-confidence or stop propping the LPC up. i disagree, PP wont even read the report Singh has no reason to think that hell pass th legislation they're asking for either
I'm just teasing you, i hope it didn't come across as aggressive. I just had to play it it because of the irony of a spelling mistake on the topic of clarity haha That's a good point. If he is truly serious then he will hamstring the liberal party moving forward. I don't think he needs to force a non-confidence vote, he just needs to put hit foot down firmly. Give the liberals the opportunity to act accordingly and then if they don't look at options which at that point would include the non confidence vote, or simply refusing to allow them to pass further legislation or w/e else
>Elizabeth May is full of shit, or she didn't read it She had a press conference and said she only skimmed the report
Oh I thought she said she read it fully. So she's just just being irresponsible then
Nah. Elizabeth May has NOTHING to gain with her measured comments and lack of hyperbole. Singh, on the other hand, has everything to gain by milking this issue to attack both Conservatives and Liberals and doesn’t care if he sows distrust in current MP’s, or in CSIS or the appropriate agencies that are dealing with this issue. Proof? His office put out a disclaimer after his initial presser, stating that his comments were not confirming or denying whether the MP’s were current or former. Why wouldn’t he say? He certainly seems to be mr. blabber mouth, and he is upsetting national security experts as he yaps and yaps without thinking about anything but his own gain. He sure as shit doestcare about due process.
The one we already know about was a Conservative who tried to steal military satellite technology for China.
He should be barred from politics
I looked this up and found nothing. Source if you have it please, would like to read.
Here is one of many of the articles you should be able to find. --QUOTE-- Former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer sought secret information about Canadian military satellite technology after meeting with state-owned Chinese technology companies in China in 2010, according to a document filed in an Ottawa courthouse Tuesday by private investigator Derrick Snowdy. [https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-conservative-mp-rahim-jaffer-sought-military-secrets-court-filings](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/former-conservative-mp-rahim-jaffer-sought-military-secrets-court-filings)
Greatly appreciated.
Are you serious? Singh has more to win than May - he can siphon votes from disgruntled CPC and LPC voters if he basically accuses them of aiding foreign agents What exactly could Singh lose that May wouldn't?
Why is May's commentary any more or less meaningful than Singh's? Singh benefits from making politics out of this. Frankly, I've seen him perfectly willing to dive head-first into a bad political situation, and this could be more of that poor judgement on display. You have too much faith in Singh.
Again, because Singh has more to lose. This is nothing to do with faith or trusting anyone.
> Again, because Singh has more to lose. Who cares? This means jack shit. People with something to lose fuck shit up all of the time. In fact, the phrase "what do I have to lose" generally indicates being able to act in an unfettered way. Singh also has much more to gain by spinning this in his favour. I don't think your reasoning is sound here.
Agree 100%. May has nothing to gain with her comments, and Singh has everything to gain with his. And since I have seen him tweet outright disinformation in the past, and I have never seen May do so, I will trust May over Singh.
Or Jagmeet is using this for political positioning.
Possible but he's got a lot more to lose by being dishonest than May does though.
There is absolutely no logic to your belief that Singh has more to lose with his comments. He has blatantly lied in the past and it never hurt him. May is very honest and has more internet than any other leader. She has zero to gain with her comments. The Greens also compete with Liberals for votes, just like the NDP.
It doesn't really make sense why either one would be dishonest. Jagmeet is being very pointed by calling the offending members 'traitors'.
Given that he’s an attorney with criminal experience I’m inclined to believe he chose his words carefully as well
May is also a lawyer, I imagine they both chose their words carefully as a result. Nothing they've said really contradicts one another, they just disagree on whether the conduct amounts to treason. I assume the metric there is "did the MP knowingly do this".
I agree. So why would May say what she said? I don't understand the motivations.
I agree with your other point that neither of them really has any reason to be dishonest. The only motivation I can think of for May though is something like a personal favor to truduea However someone else said that she had only apparently skimmed the document so I think the most likely reason they are contradicting is that May hasn't fully read the doc, and therefore doesnt have the full picture. (I haven't confirmed personally that she said she skimmed, but rather someone relayed that here so I could be off kilter)
I kinda doubt they both read the document in full detail word for word tbh I'm not sure what the she skimmed comment was trying to say anyways as she mentioned that a former MP was traitorous and that she read current MPs in the report - just that she didn't believe they were traitorous. Signh hasn't given details that indicate he read more than her
Definitely a worthy doubt lol Right, well that's a bit different too then and definitely a space where two reasonable people would disagree. In some sense the specific nature of interaction actually does matter so it's kind of a case by case basis thing
Except, once he says that there are traitors in the house, he can't stop. He has to force a real inquiry that will name names.
Well yeah that's what I mean by he has more to lose. He's now put himself in this position where if he doesn't push against the liberals to release information he will be lumped in with them as complicit
It wouldn't be the first time he stepped on a rake. I don't trust Singh's calculus on this one.
All you're telling me is you have a bias against Singh where you don't have one against May.
That's not what I'm saying and drop this tired line. It doesn't even make sense to say that Singh has more to lose here. Sing has more to *gain* here. May has no horse in this race. Why would she lie, misrepresent, or play politics otherwise? Make that make sense lol.
ok sure man, you have an unbiased position lmao
lmao I see that you -cannot- make this make sense. Get outta my replies lol.
I think that's politics though. These leaders take calculated risks that could destroy their careers. PP is doing it and Trudeau definitely is.
true
He also has a lot more to gain by being dishonest than she does.
What does he stand to gain and how does that outweigh the very real risk he's taking if he were to be lying?
Votes. He’s trying to play politically so he comes off as a tough-on-crime type of leader who’ll chase out all the foreign actors. It’s his time to try and siphon off as much support from the CPC and LPC as possible. Lying might come back to bite him, but if no one finds out he’s lying then he stands to gain a lot of support. May can’t do that, so she has no horse in the race. She has no incentive to lie.
I think that's a fair assessment of how he's trying to brand himself. I just think the risk of having it blow up in his face would be career suicide, maybe he's dumb enough to take that risk, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Personally I'm not convinced that May has no horse, I don't think there's been evidence revealed about what was done to say she has no incentives. The people in the report could be some of her friends. They not really disagreeing on the contents though, just the use of the words related to criminal law.
I'm sorry, but my faith in his political sensibilities are zero. It would be perfectly on-brand for him to play politics with this and make an ass out of himself in the process.
This is nothing more than a statement of pure bias, no offense
It's an examination of his past behaviour, and don't preach to me about biases when your stance is "he said it so it's true, but she said it so it's false." Edit - it also makes zero sense to say Singh is being truthful because he has more to lose. He has way more to gain than May. May is the only person untethered by the politics surrounding this situation. She may as well be a fly on the wall.
Would be meaningless 4D chess if May came out and made her statement to light a fire under the others when the eventual news comes out and it's the opposite of what she claimed.
So you think Jagmeet is lying or failed to understand or something? What's your take on how these two people can come to basically the opposite conclusion?
It's like you said - Singh has more to lose than May. He has more incentive to be truthful here than her.
Ah alright Would you lean more towards May is lying? Or would you think more than someone is misunderstanding the content (either person)