Five key takeaways from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's testimony on foreign interference
Five key takeaways from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's testimony on foreign interference
You're viewing a single thread.
41 comments
-
"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.
-
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.
-
The
conservativecriminal party of Canada has some explaining to do. -
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.
-
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."
-
“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.”
If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.
There would be no "partisan turn" to take if he would meet this basic expectation.
-
I agree. Poilievre's choice to not be cleared, like many of his other choices and positions, is asinine and idiotic.
The Liberal talking point of, "if only Poilievre would get the clearance, we could get to work on fixing this" is also asinine.
It's worth remembering that the CSIS-briefed, PM-known issue of election interference predates Poilievre by 5 years, and a span of 2 federal elections, one of which the Liberals enjoyed a majority government. The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there's nothing they can do because Poilievre won't do something he's made clear he won't do. Trudeau and the Liberals have been happy to sit on their hands on this issue, for years, and it has left parliament vulnerable to foreign influence. That's uniquely Trudeau and the Liberals' fault, and they ought to be taken to task for that. It's a huge deal.
-
The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.
I don't think they've said this?
-
Hours of logjammed question periods of Poilievre saying "release the names" and Liberals saying "get the clearance". Liberals are framing the issue around Poilievre's obstinance, in the house, and now in testimony to the Foreign Interference Commission. It's not honest.
-
There's already another article posted about this, but I would think the concerns around releasing classified information are self-evident.
-
Two elections have passed since the PM was briefed on election interference, and he knew about the issue for years before Poilievre was leader of the CPC. The fact that they're talking about Poilievre at all seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility.
-
I guess I'm not sure what you think he should have done differently?
Like, this whole situation is a mess, and there's a mix of possible "foreign influence" in play, ranging from "unsuccessful attempts" to "this person is an active foreign agent," and it's all based on classified CSIS intelligence. And these people are still elected officials, so it's there more that even could be done beyond perhaps booting them out of caucus?
Surely we can agree that the situation isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be.
-
It would be nice if the current Election Interference Commission was initiated 7 years ago, after the PM was first briefed on election interference. Instead they sat on numerous subsequent briefings, and allowed 2 federal elections to take place (one of which they themselves called) where the issue was unresolved, and it remains unresolved today.
What could they have done differently? I don't know, I'm not an elected policymaker. All I see is the result, where, there's this ominous list of compromised parliamentarians that, from the outside, it doesn't seem like there is anything being done about. A provably compromised MP is still sitting in the House. There doesn't appear to be any consequence or even disincentive for foreign nations to interfere in Canadian politics. A Canadian citizen was murdered on Canadian soil by the Indian government, and all it has resulted in are meek discussions and shuffling around of ambassadors. This is a very bad situation for Canadian sovereignty.
The solutions might not be straightforward, but we should be demanding that our government do better. It's not a partisan thing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
41 comments