Statquo and OOE Club: Canadian Politics

[tbm3fan]

So what does Poilievre expect to accomplish or is he nothing but slogans like someone else? I have yet to see a far right populist be anything more than slogans going back 100 years.

[Officer of Engineers]

All politics are local. Poilievre is right in Canada but he's actually left of Biden. The Conservatives ain't getting rid of public healthcare nor the Welfare State anytime soon.

[statquo]

All politics are local. Poilievre is right in Canada but he's actually left of Biden. The Conservatives ain't getting rid of public healthcare nor the Welfare State anytime soon.

I'm kinda surprised to see the Cons tied with the Bloc in Quebec. I kinda wrote off Quebec for him and figured the GTA was the path to win for the Cons.

Legault looks like he's falling apart provincially.. Never a good sign when the PQ is leading and in line for a majority.

I listened to a good discussion today about if the PQ seize a substantial majority in Quebec and start the engine back up on separation. Hypothetically, if there's a call for a referendum, is there an appetite these days to even maintain federation as there was in 95? That's a great question because I'm not sure it is anymore. I'm not sure many people out west outside of the cities would care anymore. Be interested to hear your thoughts from out east.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Gatineau Quebecois have no stomache for independence, especially not after what Trudeau had given them, a loud mouth Quebecois running Canada for them.

[statquo]

The Gatineau Quebecois have no stomache for independence, especially not after what Trudeau had given them, a loud mouth Quebecois running Canada for them.

No I mean people outside of Quebec. Like out East, outside of Quebec, do you think people would be for or against hypothetical separation?

[Officer of Engineers]

No I mean people outside of Quebec. Like out East, outside of Quebec, do you think people would be for or against hypothetical separation?

You're asking the wrong man. I got pissed off when Parizeau said the ethnic vote defeated the vote as if we're not part of Quebec even when I took Quebecois courses, not French courses, to fit into the Regiments. As such, you want to leave, then leave!

[statquo]

You're asking the wrong man. I got pissed off when Parizeau said the ethnic vote defeated the vote as if we're not part of Quebec even when I took Quebecois courses, not French courses, to fit into the Regiments. As such, you want to leave, then leave!

Lol fair enough.

[statquo]

A report claims certain parliamentarians colluded with foreign states — could they be charged?

Stunning allegations triggered outrage and distrust on Parliament Hill — but what can be done?

Some parliamentarians were accused this week of conspiring with foreign governments, but their exact numbers and their identities remain a mystery to the public — and to many of their colleagues.

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) — a group of MPs and senators who hold top secret security clearances and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act — released a heavily redacted report on foreign political interference Monday.

In it, NSICOP alleged that some MPs and senators are "wittingly" helping foreign governments like China and India meddle in Canadian politics.

The allegation sparked outrage and expressions of distrust on Parliament Hill, and the Conservatives called on the Liberal government to reveal the identities of the parliamentarians under suspicion.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc has been refusing to do so, saying it would be inappropriate to release the names and citing his obligations under the Security of Information Act.

NSICOP chair David McGuinty said the committee's "hands are tied" and it can't divulge the identities of the parliamentarians cited in the report. He said it's now up to the RCMP to decide what happens next.

• ANALYSIS
  A foreign interference report lobbed bombshells at Parliament. Now what?

• Conservative leader calls on Liberal government to release names of MPs accused of helping foreign states

The RCMP says it won't comment on whether there is an active criminal investigation into any parliamentarian. The police service did confirm there are active investigations into a broad range of foreign interference efforts in Canada, "including matters which intersect with democratic institutions."

What are the allegations?

The report says the committee members have reviewed intelligence indicating that certain parliamentarians are or have been "'semi-witting or witting' participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in Canadian politics." The report says those parliamentarians' alleged actions include:

• Communicating frequently with foreign missions before or during political campaigns to obtain support from community groups or businesses which the diplomatic missions promise to quietly mobilize in a candidate's favour.
• Accepting knowingly or through willful blindness funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which have been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source.
• Providing foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow parliamentarians, knowing that such information will be used by those officials to inappropriately pressure parliamentarians to change their positions.
• Responding to requests or direction from foreign officials to improperly influence parliamentary colleagues or parliamentary business to the advantage of a foreign state.
• Providing information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.

The report names China and India as two of the countries allegedly conspiring with Canadian parliamentarians.

Is the alleged behaviour illegal?

National security and intelligence expert Wesley Wark said he was nauseated by the alleged actions detailed in the report — actions he said "absolutely" rise to the level of treason in some instances.

"The treason offences in the Criminal Code, which have been around for a long time, involve for example the unlawful communication of information to a foreign state in peacetime," Wark told CBC's Power & Politics. "You have a piece of the Criminal Code that is there, on the shelf, ready to be used."

But while the NSICOP report itself says some of the activity detailed may be illegal, it also argues criminal charges are unlikely "owing to Canada's failure to address the long-standing issue of protecting classified information and methods in judicial processes."

In other words, Canada's security services struggle to turn intelligence into evidence.

It's a "huge issue," said Michelle Tessier, who served as deputy director of operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) from 2018 to 2023.

"Other countries are able to allow the protection of intelligence — to allow, for example, a judge to see that intelligence and be able to question it and make that decision based on classified intelligence," Tessier told Power & Politics. "In Canada, in the criminal justice system, it's really full disclosure.

"The system is very cumbersome. There is a lot of intelligence that cannot be shared and frankly, in my opinion, its one of the most important things that should be looked at — the ability to use that information in the court of law while protecting national security interests."

Should the accused parliamentarians be unmasked?

The Conservatives are demanding that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly reveal the names of the implicated parliamentarians.

"Criminal prosecution is not the only tool available to the government to counter foreign interference threats against Parliament," Michael Chong, Conservative foreign affairs critic, said this week on Power & Politics. "Sunlight and transparency is another tool that our security agencies have long said the government should be using."

The Liberal government maintains it would be inappropriate to reveal the names, citing the sensitive nature of the intelligence.

"My colleague knows full well that no responsible government would disclose names involved in specific intelligence situations," LeBlanc said in response to Chong's demand in the House that the prime minister name the parliamentarians.

"It is not entirely accurate of him to claim that a responsible government, one that focuses on the security of Canada and our democratic institutions, would do such a thing."

Wark said he thinks simply naming the parliamentarians is a bad idea.

"We have to be very careful about naming and shaming in the public square, which is something that probably authoritarian states who delight in foreign interference would be very pleased by — a way to kind of upend democracy," he said.

"The real route forward is prosecutions."

Former CSIS director Richard Fadden said he thinks criminal prosecution is unlikely but he believes the House and the Senate should take it upon themselves to investigate the allegations further.

"There is a constitutional convention that says both houses of Parliament are the sole master of their procedures and the treatment of their members," said Fadden.

"I would refer it to the committee on ethics, to the board of internal economy, to the party leaderships, to somebody within the House to take a decision. Once that decision is taken — that there has been a serious violation of MPs oaths and of their responsibility to Canada — then I think we should come to the issue of whether or not ... their identity should be made public."

The government is offering to brief opposition party leaders who obtain the necessary security clearances on the classified intelligence.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Green Party co-leader Elizabeth May have both said they will take the government up on this offer.

Bloc Québécois Yves-François Blanchet said he is considering the offer.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has, to date, refused classified briefings on foreign interference, claiming it would restrict his ability to speak publicly on the issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sooo we have a bit of an issue here Colonel. I, like all Canadians I'm assuming, want to know who these treasonous individuals are. But doing so could undermine the intelligence methods of how they got the information. I'm kinda thinking we got tipped off by an ally. Poilevre of course is just playing politics with it.

Do you drag those suspected into the public eye? I would say yes of course. But, it's going to undermine the intelligence gathering that exposed them.

[Officer of Engineers]

Do you drag those suspected into the public eye? I would say yes of course. But, it's going to undermine the intelligence gathering that exposed them.

That's hogwash. We can and do hold court sessions behind closed doors, only the authorized can attend, Lawyers cleared for Top Secret (Col (Ret'd) Drapeau comes to mind) can examine the evidence without breaking the chain-of-intel. Anytime "protect the source" statement is used, it is used to protect the guilty.

[statquo]

That's hogwash. We can and do hold court sessions behind closed doors, only the authorized can attend, Lawyers cleared for Top Secret (Col (Ret'd) Drapeau comes to mind) can examine the evidence without breaking the chain-of-intel. Anytime "protect the source" statement is used, it is used to protect the guilty.

That doesn't explain why they can't make the names public. All of the party leaders are protecting the guilty? Don't buy it for a second. I think there's process that is being ignored.

Any party leader is more than welcome to get the names from NSICOP. So why haven't they gone in, got the names, and then leak it to the public? You can't. That's my point. You just said they are using the guardrails as an excuse in order to protect individuals who, regardless of political affiliation, would be run out of the country if what they did is true. And what would be the benefit of protecting the guilty? The longer it goes on, it stains everyone and the whole system. Should there not be guardrails for how that information should/can be used?

Government said the RCMP will handle it. RCMP said sure we can handle criminal behaviour, but we cannot act on information from intelligence services in many instances because of arrangements with allies and that CSIS will share information with us on the basis that it won't be used for prosecution purposes - it won't be public. So if you're RCMP and you find information through intelligence, you can't use the evidence for criminal prosecution and you can't make it public. Not saying I like it but I understand it. And let's not act like it wouldn't be pretty obvious who it is when so and so has to go into a secret court session. But even still, the RCMP can't prosecute them on evidence they obtained from intelligence. Intelligence isn't truth.

All of the party leadership can get the names. There's no political advantage in leaking the names? They're all protecting the guilty? As I said, don't buy it for a second. Unless... they legally can't...

[Officer of Engineers]

They legally can't in the first place. That's why they're leaks.

Nothing is stopping the RCMP from launching its own investigations, ignore the foreign intel, and doing its own god damned legwork.

As for what the politicians are doing? No idea but it leaves a bad taste.

[Officer of Engineers]

Any party leader is more than welcome to get the names from NSICOP.

And they have to be Security Cleared to read this. In fact, everyone involved has to be security cleared. As per protocol, there are various versions of this report out there. I'm not going to go too deep on this as I have only a passing familiarity with this practice. Only two people know all of them. Every one else gets to work or read one version. Which ever version is leaked and there are key words designed to be leaked limits the leakage to a very specific set of people who worked/read the report. Further investigation would most certainly lead to the leakage.

Poilievre refused to be security cleared because he will release the info and, therefore, will not read the report and any info he gathers is not subject to binding security.

[statquo]

And they have to be Security Cleared to read this. In fact, everyone involved has to be security cleared. As per protocol, there are various versions of this report out there. I'm not going to go too deep on this as I have only a passing familiarity with this practice. Only two people know all of them. Every one else gets to work or read one version. Which ever version is leaked and there are key words designed to be leaked limits the leakage to a very specific set of people who worked/read the report. Further investigation would most certainly lead to the leakage.

Poilievre refused to be security cleared because he will release the info and, therefore, will not read the report and any info he gathers is not subject to binding security.

From my understanding, Poilevre already has security clearance because he's bound to his oath as a Privy Council member for being a past cabinet minister. Even still, he can go get it again to view the report any time he wishes. Elizabeth May just did. Jagmeet is saying he will. It's obvious why he's not. It's better for him politically to be able to spread speculation about it, because once he does read it, as you said, he can't talk about it anymore.

Coming from May after reviewing it:

Green Leader Elizabeth May says there's no list of disloyal current MPs in unredacted NSICOP report

May says she was 'relieved' after reading top-secret information

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she's read the original version of a highly-publicized intelligence watchdog's report on foreign interference and she doesn't believe any of her House of Commons colleagues knowingly betrayed their country.

"There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty to Canada," she said. "I am vastly relieved."

Last week, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a cross-party committee of MPs and senators with top security clearances, released a heavily redacted document alleging some parliamentarians have actively helped foreign governments meddle in Canadian politics.

The report said some Parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, "semi-witting or witting participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics."

May has a top security clearance allowing her to see classified intelligence and was granted access to the unredacted version of NSICOP Monday night. She said reactions to the report since it was tabled last week have triggered a "totally understandable media firestorm, which in my view is overblown."

No currently serving MPs named in report: May

May described the contents of the report as "not as bad as a John le Carré novel but a bit more worrying than Miss Marple."

"So I am very glad I read the full report. I am very comfortable sitting with my colleagues," said the veteran parliamentarian.

The redacted NSICOP report described what it called "particularly concerning" behaviour by some parliamentarians.

For example, the report said some elected officials "began wittingly assisting foreign state actors soon after their election." The report said unnamed members of Parliament worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian officials.

May said that case study involved people not currently serving in Parliament.

"You couldn't find a single name of a single member of Parliament currently serving who had significance intelligence, or any intelligence or any suggestion in the unredacted report that they had put the interest of a foreign government ahead of Canada's," she later told CBC's Power & Politics.

May, who told reporters that she had to tread carefully to avoid disclosing classified information, said the report lists the names of less than a handful of MPs who may have been compromised by foreign governments.

"They have been beneficiaries of foreign governments interfering in nomination contests," she said.

"Saying that I'm relieved does not mean that there is nothing to see here folks. There are clearly threats to Canadian democracy from foreign governments."

She also said she did not read any specific reference to the Senate in the report.

May said the most troubling case in NSICOP's report involved a former MP who maintained a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer.

The report says that, according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the MP "sought to arrange a meeting in a foreign state with a senior intelligence official and also proactively provided the intelligence officer with information provided in confidence."

May said that person, who was not named in the unredacted report, should be fully investigated by police.

The RCMP has said it is probing cases involving foreign interference but would not say whether it's investigating parliamentarians.

May: Bloc motion 'a hot potato in the wrong soup pot'

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who also has a top security clearance, is expected to read the report Wednesday. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said Tuesday he's inquired about getting cleared to view the report.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not sought clearance to review classified intelligence. He has argued that doing so would prevent him from commenting publicly.

"Elizabeth May took on her responsibilities as party leader, got her security clearance and did the work," said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Tuesday.

"Mr. Poilievre should do that too. He is choosing ignorance so he can play partisan politics."

The Bloc Québécois introduced a motion to expand the mandate of the public inquiry investigating foreign election interference to allow it to investigate the claims in the NSICOP report concerning MPs and senators. It passed with almost unanimous support Tuesday.

May said she was going to vote in favour of the motion but changed her mind after reading the report.

"I think the Bloc motion is it's throwing a hot potato in the wrong soup pot," she said Tuesday.

"Throw it to Justice Hogue, that's not good enough. We're members of Parliament, we should be able to — and especially those of us who have the clearance to read the report — should be able to read it, consider it, and start fortifying our own defences against foreign interference."

A spokesperson for Marie-Josee Hogue, who is overseeing the public inquiry investigating allegations of election meddling, said she is "honoured by the confidence expressed towards the commission."

"She will soon issue a notice to the public regarding the parameters of the commission's mandate and the next stage of its work," said spokesperson Michael Tansey.

Trudeau and his government have come under pressure to release the names of parliamentarians in the unredacted NSICOP report.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc has argued releasing classified intelligence could expose CSIS methods, put sources at risk and jeopardize relationships with allies, who share their intelligence with Canada on the condition that it not be made public.

"We've gone barking up the wrong tree … there is no list," said May.

"Let's keep our eye on the ball. The ball is what are foreign governments trying to do in Canada."

But I agree with you, it leaves a real bad taste.

I wonder if we'll ever start taking our national security seriously again.

[Officer of Engineers]

Ok here is the redacted report

https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/...terference.pdf

There's nothing in there that would stop the RCMP from conducting an investigation. The report itself raises plenty of alarms. I don't know what Ms May is smoking but where can I get some?

[statquo]

Yes after reading it there definitely needs to be an RCMP investigation. Elizabeth May is a clown.