• voluble@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Dear downvoter in the thread: just testing something out here-

    Parliamentarians who are wittingly working with foreign powers to interfere in Canadian politics, should be expelled from parliament.

    Your thoughts?

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m glad to see this hitting the fucking fan. As much as I hate to say it, PP is right: canadians need to see who is compromised. I’m a staunch left voter, but I wrote my conservative fuckstick MP when the report was first leaked.

    • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I would agree, except that it may be legally prohibited. At present, I believe JT would be violating national security laws by revealing the names.

      Meanwhile, PP would much rather falsely scream “LIAR!” than admit that BS like that is exactly why he refuses to get a security clearance.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh I agree: he’s being a typical spineless conservative. The point remains, however, that if there is hard evidence of our MPs literally working with foreign interests, they should be held accountable and the public should know who they are voting for.

    • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      19 hours ago

      PP needs to see who is compromised.

      When it comes to national security there’s no excuse for our second major party and likely next PM to not have clearance.

      At least Trudeau can hide behind national security on this, and I would like to see more. But PP isn’t behaving responsibly or in good faith.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Certainly not doing the job of the opposition leader. He should be all up in that business, but he’s playing coy.

    • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I must have missed the part where there was definitive evidence that anyone was compromised. I thought this was still an investigation.

      If this has progressed to the stage that the evidence is strong enough than sure the names should be released, but I didn’t think the investigation was at that point.

      The alternative is the list of names is released and then it later comes out that a few names were actually innocent but it’s too late to take it back because that incorrect news being public will have ruined their chances or reelection.

      • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m not suggesting a witch-hunt without evidence; just accountability from the government that is supposed to serve us. In power or otherwise.

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          22 hours ago

          That’s what the investigation is. And that’s happening. All parties with the correct access can access that information. What accountability isn’t happening?

          • voluble@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Out of curiosity, and if you don’t mind sharing, do you think the Liberals have done a good job of dealing with election interference issues?

    • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      That would be irresponsible - this is intelligence, not evidence that would hold up in court.

      Trudeau himself says that some of the intel could be wrong.

      Of course, if they have irrefutable evidence regarding any individuals, I agree with you.

      • voluble@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The issue is that foreign interference isn’t properly encompassed by the legal system in Canada. The party in charge doesn’t seem to be bothered by this fact, and has done nothing to actively remedy it. They could be setting definitions, and standards for what counts as interference, determining where the bar for intelligence credibility should be set, etc. Instead, they’ve left the door open to interference, and made it clear that when it happens, nothing will be done about it.

        • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          Do you think an acting government should be the one who sets the bar on what foreign interference is? That sounds like a huge conflict of interest. What’s wrong with leaving it to the courts to decide?

          • voluble@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            I think a responsible government would be having an open conversation about it, getting consensus from the other parties, and doing something, rather than nothing. That conversation should have started 7 years ago, when the PM was first briefed on election interference. A responsible government wouldn’t have tried to minimize or bury the issue.

            We’ve had two federal elections since the PM was first briefed on interference, and are about to have another without a clear plan for how to deal with compromised parliamentarians. As a citizen, I don’t find that acceptable.

            The line that gets trotted out is that interference “didn’t change the outcome of the election” in 2019 and 2021. That is absolutely not a satisfactory threshold for action to be taken. Nobody is talking about how the threshold should be much, much lower. If the current government isn’t making an attempt at defining that threshold in an ethical and non-partisan way, that’s their failure.

            To your question, I think egregious examples of foreign compromise should absolutely be criminalized, and handled by the judicial branch. But the legislative branch needs to be empowered to act swiftly to prevent compromised parliamentarians from operating in Ottawa unhindered.

  • voluble@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    “I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference,” [Trudeau] said.

    The fact that Trudeau is comfortable using foreign interference as a cudgel against a political opponent is outrageous. FFS, the Liberals knew about Han Dong, and didn’t do anything about it until it became public and their hand was forced. Had that not happened, there is no reason to expect that Han Dong wouldn’t still be happily sitting as a Liberal.

    If the Prime Minister cared about foreign interference, he would be putting measures in place immediately to ensure that if anybody sitting in the house of commons is compromised by foreign interests, they should be expelled. He’s the Prime Minister. He could make this a priority. But no, it’s still somehow a bickering match about security clearances. Crazy.

    • Value Subtracted@startrek.websiteOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      When questioned by Conservative Party lawyer Nando De Luca, Trudeau also said the names of Liberal parliamentarians and individuals from other parties are on the list of parliamentarians at risk of being compromised by foreign interference.

      Wow, what a cudgel.

      • voluble@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It’s an unusual axe to choose to grind during testimony. Take it from two former CSIS directors:

        Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock — two former CSIS directors — told CBC News’ Power & Politics on Wednesday that Trudeau probably shouldn’t have taken such a partisan turn in his testimony.

        “He lapsed into really extreme partisanship when he made this accusation and he made it in terms that could not help but enrage the Conservative leader. So that was his objective. I think it worked,” Fadden told host David Cochrane.

        “Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

        Source: CBC - "Why won’t Trudeau release classified names — and why won’t Poilievre get a security clearance?

    • Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      JT just needs to announce who’s on the list and I’m willing to bet we’ll see why exactly PP doesn’t want a background check done on him.