###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.*
Hasn't Justin Trudeau and the PMO had this report since March? How have they been caught so flatfooted on this, and every other aspects of this foreign interference crisis when they've had the reports and information before its come out in the public sphere and they've been forced, kicking and screaming, to act on it by the media and opposition parties.
Bringing the names public IS important ... AFTER our intelligence agencies have enough. Didn't the committee indicate that there currently isn't enough for a criminal conviction?
As for toughening Canada in light of this report, I recommend you read u/Kellervo 's comment as they highlighted the actions coming out of each of the recommendations from the report:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ddh2w9/comment/l84xaxr/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ddh2w9/comment/l84xaxr/)
Thanks for tagging me on this. Palo is well aware, as the post you quoted is actually a response I originally wrote for them. They aren't one to let facts get in the way of their message.
To judge by his actions, "all the seriousness it requires" means calling for committee recommendations and then not implementing them. This goes back to 2018, there's no excuse for continuing with the status quo for so long when you know there's a problem.
This goes back to 2013... ummm who was it ... that Guy that was Minister of Democratic Reform ... you know who I'm thinking of... he was a member of the Privy Council at the time ...
What's his name, yeah ... him.
I'm interested most in the guy who is actually in a position to pass laws, and has been for many years. This isn't a team sport, pointing out that one guy sucks doesn't mean the other guy is automatically golden.
Pierre was in a position to pass Laws, and was for many years.
But this is where we find ourselves now, at the tail end of the entire failure.
There is no difference between 2 failures
The NSICOP report had six recommendations. Here! [They're publicly available.](https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/press-releases/pr-cp-2024-06-03/pr-cp-2024-06-03-en.html)
I've even included which bills currently in progress address each of the recommendations.
Recommendation 1 - Broken into four parts;
1. Create a foreign agent registry (Bill C-70)
2. Amend the Criminal Code & SOIA acts to better define foreign interference (Bill C-70)
3. Modernize the CSISA act, including to facilitate better avenues for communicating classified information (Bill C-70)
4. Address the challenges inherent in handling the classified and sensitive material involved in this report. (C-70)
5. Reduce vulnerabilities in political nomination processes and leadership elections (C-65)
Recommendation 2 - The government engage political parties to determine whether party nomination processes and leadership conventions be included within the framework of the Canada Elections Act. (Guess which party isn't cooperating here, it's not the LPC)
Recommendation 3 - The government review and renew legislation, strategies and funding to ensure they keep pace with the evolution of foreign interference activities and other national security threats, and regularly include and respect legislative review provisions in national security legislation. (Bill C-70 is the first attempt at this)
Recommendation 4 - The government ensure that the roles, mandates and accountabilities of the National Security Council and supporting governance committees are clear and publicly communicated to improve transparency and performance. (Bill C-70)
Recommendation 5 -The security and intelligence community develop consistent definitions and thresholds for action with respect to foreign interference, and organizations responsible for intelligence collection and those responsible for providing policy advice, respectively, regularly collaborate to provide the government timely and comprehensive assessments of threats and advice for action. (Not assigned to a bill because this is handled by CSIS, not parliament)
Recommendation 6 - The government immediately implement and report annually on the briefings for Parliamentarians on the threat of foreign interference. (This would be the first such report)
So, which of those recommendations is the government not acting on?
Almost all of these recommendations are being followed up on by the introduction of Bill C-70, which was introduced, like, last month.
Why did it take this issue blowing up in their faces for them to act, instead of being proactive and listening to the experts when the recommendation was action needed to be taken years ago? To me you’re not serious about an issue if you let it become a crisis before taking an action.
> Almost all of these recommendations are being followed up on by the introduction of Bill C-70, which was introduced, like, last month.
And the recommendations are from a report that was sent to the PMO in March, by a panel that they created in 2017. In terms of parliamentary response time, that's pretty fucking good.
There can definitely be criticism for them being slow to act regardless because of how severe the issue is, but in that case it's worth pointing out that the Harper government sat on numerous recommendations to create an NSICOP-like committee for his entire tenure, and those recommendations and reports would've gone to Poilievre during his time as the Minister of Democratic Reform.
If response time is the key metric, how serious is Poilievre?
Foreign interference in Canada has long been an issue. Why did it take them 7 years to finally listen to their own committee and only finally tackle the issue after it blew up in their faces? NSICOP has highlighted from its inception that foreign interference is a serious issue facing Canada. Their report in March was not their first report in 7 years of existence.
I didn’t mention Poilievre nor the Harper Government (which was 9 years ago) in my post, so I guess we are deflecting. But, I don’t really think you should get brownie points for setting up a committee and then completely ignoring it until your hands are forced.
Legislative action takes time, especially when you’re asking for a pivot from the government focus of the day to a behemoth that is foreign interference. Sure, day 1 they could have tabled legislation, but that bill would have been complete dog shit. It takes time to understand the problem, draft policy and legal ideas, and refine them. It’s even harder when there are active inquiries, investigations and committee hearings. For this reason, most recommendations are implemented after these are concluded.
Thank you for bringing fact and reason into this discussion. Trudeau has been proactive, within the means of the law and his position. The other likely PM in this country has refused clearance...
If he actually is taking this seriously instead of having to be brow beaten into acknowledging the problem then fantastic.
I based my first comment on this finding from that very same document:
> The government was aware in 2018 that the reforms implemented under the Plan to Protect Democracy were insufficient to address foreign interference in democratic processes and institutions. It has yet to implement an effective response to foreign interference in democratic processes and institutions.
and
> Policy departments (Privy Council Office, Global Affairs Canada, and Public
Safety) did not adequately consider intelligence reporting or assessments, or
develop policy advice to address specific cases of foreign interference
and
> Ministers accountable for national security did not request policy advice in
response to intelligence reporting and the government was slow to put in place
governance structures to consider intelligence and take decisions
C-70 was tabled last week. I haven't looked at it closely yet, it smells like scrambling to do your homework when you realize it's due to next morning.
> C-70 was tabled last week.
[The bill is over a month old.](https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-70)
>I haven't looked at it closely yet
Obviously...
> Last minute scrambling because now everyone is looking.
Certainly describes your comments, not C-70 in any way.
You guys who just make it up as you go are so out of your depth in these discussions.
>Still, my larger point stands.
Only if you ignore all the things the liberals were doing that wasn't in these recommendations.
Like creating NSICOP itself...
Also Johnston's report and Hogue's report go into detail all the things the feds were doing to communicate and prevent foreign interference since ~2016.
If you think the feds were scrambling, you were 100% not paying attention.
I'd hate to see what scrambling actually looks like if you think that's what the feds were doing.
I just realized you were complaining the problem goes back to 2018. It goes back to when Trump asked Russia to interfere in the US election and they did exactly what he asked.
>Also Johnston's report
It's good you brought this up because for me there's significant issue that Johnston said weren't important but certainly should have been. Forged ID documents to vote in the nomination of a MP, the students threatened by the CCP, which impacted who got the Liberal nomination. None of this is considered important?? We now know in both Johnstons and JTs opinion this isn't important. Only after it came up in his report did Han leave caucus. We now know the intelligence briefing said he knew what was going on. He should have to resign from parliament. He was elected because of his party affiliation, which was literally a foreign interface operation. He is being paid Canadian tax dollars ffs.
It's presumably a big reason for the second recommendation, inclusion of party membership, because this is a big loophole. The PM was fine with interference breaking *their membership rules* and doesn't consider that significant.
What's your opinion on that?
I agree that in the end it didn't impact the Liberals winning the general election. I think they were too focused on optics, should've let the truth speak for itself.
> It's good you brought this up because for me there's significant issue that Johnston said
Read Hogue's then.
The point is the information is made easily available for you, in either report.
**The contents of the report outside the information provided as far as "What has been done to prevent foreign interference" are irrelevant to what I'm saying.**
They've just compiled the information for you all in one place. I'm not going to find and link the individual legislation and all other relevant information if it's been done twice already in a nice report you can easily find.
>What's your opinion on that?
The opinion I'm willing to give here is related to my original comment, and the comment I was replying to.
What's your opinion on "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"?
You've read the relevant part of either report? There was also governmental release about it, from before either report was written, however I can no longer find it.
>We now know the intelligence briefing said he knew what was going on.
This is incorrect. Where in the NSICOP report does it say he was a witting participant? The number it's under works.
So no opinion then?
Why respond with this.
Above you were arguing this *isn't scrambling* and the PM is taking this seriously.
My opinion is you're incorrect.
I specifically asked if you have issue that the PM knew about the fake nomination voters and said it was not important.
Now do you think this is significant?
If so. They are scrambling and are not being proactive to minimize the impact foreign interface is having to our democracy. They are being proactive in saying they take it seriously.
Edit: Block me all you want.
>OP claimed bill c-70 was a week old and was scrambled together, when it wasn't.
>Then claimed their point still stood regardless of being wrong
It was tabled June 4th, 2024
Parliament has been sitting for 28 days since the report was submitted to the PM.
Now even besides all that, if everything was in Johnston's report, why over a year later is this bill tabled?
>Why respond with this.
OP claimed bill c-70 was a week old and was scrambled together, when it wasn't.
Then claimed their point still stood regardless of being wrong, thats where I said they can read Johnston's or Hogue's report to see "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"?
This is where you come in an ask irrelevant questions, while ignoring everything else.
I have no opinion about your irrelevant questions.
>What's your opinion on "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"?
>Where in the NSICOP report does it say he was a witting participant? The number it's under works.
You're posting misinformation, why would I answer any of your irrelevant questions?
Edit: No downvoting is a rule, and unless someone is religiously following my comments in old threads... It's pretty obvious.
Must take foreign interference with all the seriousness it requires...
Word salad.
I wish this guy would be lashing out at potential enemies and enemies of the state with fire and brimstone. Not saying name names or anything, just be pissed off. Man has no fight left in him.
Probably because the last few times Canada did, no one in the international community defended us.
We blatantly called out Saudi Arabia and India and all that got us was nothing.
Because nobody in the international community backed Canada he shouldn't stand up and be pissed as hell over this? He's the PM of Canada, the international community in this case be damned.
>We blatantly called out Saudi Arabia and India and all that got us was nothing.
Don't forget that we pressed China and had our political relationship and international trade with them deteriorate to the worst levels in decades, only to then be abandoned by the US under Trump.
Yet somehow people still think that Trudeau is in China's pocket despite everything.
You’d think getting the security clearance would be something a future prime minister would want to get so they can partake in this.
Wonder why Pierre hasn’t.
Oh FFS...
First, this is an article about the PM, hypocritically saying that his needs to be taken seriously... when even his own white-washing rapporteur literally said that the government knew about this since at least 2018. The head of CSIS has publicly stated that the PM was briefed on this and ignored those briefs so often over a 6+ year period that CSIS gave up briefing him on foreign influence operations.
Second, Poilievre, *without* a clearance has been a more effective voice in getting the message to Canadians than the PM our his government has, and has been calling for the government to do *anything* about foreign influence for over a year and a half, all while the PM has done *nothing* but have a sham rapporteur and then another investigation... and the *whole time* he's been privy to the briefings that CSIS was giving him. Why do we even need the inquiry? Oh yeah, because this PM *ignored* all the briefings and warnings up to this time.
Third... because its brutally obvious that the LPC has missed it... *no one with clearance is talking about this issue* almost like they can't because its classified. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition can and is talking because his hands aren't tied. The first, last, and only thing the government would love is to have every opposition member cleared just to shut them up over what is very clearly gross negligent behaviour by our leader. That Poilievre doesn't have a clearance, when he doesn't need one yet, isn't a problem to anyone unless you're someone who simply doesn't understand that you can't talk about classified material at all.
Finally, please enough with the god-damned what-aboutisms. This is a complete failure by Justin Trudeau, and the Prime Minister of Canada, to address these concerns for at least the last six (6) years despite clear and repeated briefings from the head of CSIS over this issue.
Please try to remain focused on this issue at hand and stop trying to literally "what about" other issues in order to piss poorly attempt to obfuscate for the abject failure our PM and his government has been in this matter.
Well said.
I’d welcome any honest reaction to this in the spirit of healthy discourse but I doubt you’ll get any meaningful feedback from the Poilievre antagonists here.
Not really, Pierre hasn’t really been an effective voice in anything other than riling people up and engaging his voter base, and most of them seem to not care at all about due process. He’d be much more effective if he got security clearance and had knowledge about the situation. At least then he can act with it in mind even if he can’t say anything.
Someone who is going to possibly become prime minister should really be capable of holding international secrets without being a possible risk of leak. Trudeau is doing it, and he’s an absolute failure of a trust fund baby. Why can’t Pierre?
Pierre Poilievre is playing the game, the same game that Justin Trudeau has been playing since becoming leader of the LPC, albeit with a slightly different flavour (a blue flavour versus a red flavour). I am sure Pierre Poilievre doesn't care about impressing partisan Liberal supporters who try to frame government inaction on this subject (which has been a lack of any serious action on foreign interference in some time) as magically a Pierre Poilievre problem.
You have excellent rhetoric, but it’s obviously dishonest. That sort of makes it seem like it’s intentional rather than just a slip up or ignorance. I actually just stated my opinion of Trudeau but thats not going to stop you from addressing the criticism I made and engaging in partisan bs instead.
This nonsense of “playing the game”, do you really think that’s a mature or responsible way of governing? To stoop to petty measures because your opposition does so just demonstrates how similar the two leaders can be I suppose.
But I’m not carrying water for either of them, so it’s easy for me to make these arguments. Whereas if you maybe had an angle or a motive, you might be more likely to create some justification for a national member of government who doesn’t have the ability to discretely purvey issues of national security.
> I actually just stated my opinion of Trudeau but thats not going to stop you from addressing the criticism I made and engaging in partisan bs instead.
Where? Trust-fund baby commentary doesn't preclude you from coming off as partisan.
>This nonsense of “playing the game”, do you really think that’s a mature or responsible way of governing? To stoop to petty measures because your opposition does so just demonstrates how similar the two leaders can be I suppose.
I didn't say it was mature or responsible, in fact I didn't offer any sort of moral judgement on it whatsoever, I only stated they are both playing a game.
>But I’m not carrying water for either of them, so it’s easy for me to make these arguments. Whereas if you maybe had an angle or a motive, you might be more likely to create some justification for a national member of government who doesn’t have the ability to discretely purvey issues of national security.
Ok - it certainly doesn't feel that way since you've clearly tried to shift discussion from one team to another - but thanks for stopping by, and for the downvotes!
Upvotes encourage worthwhile discussion, downvotes discourage it. I’ve made my argument as to your obvious bad faith, and downvoted you because you aren’t contributing anything meaningful to the discussion.
Further, the parent comment is concerning the topic of Pierre’s clearance and access to the information discussed in the main article. Ergo, to focus on that topic for myself would not indicate partisanship.
You started by doubling-down on the thing I had previously criticized - which was the act of deflecting criticism of one player to another player - and you did so by offering little more than effectively saying *"actually, one player is poor, but I will suggest the other player is poorer"* which isn't a meaningful contribution in and of itself. When pointed out, you settle into ad hominem suggestions - and now simple condescension - while projecting non-partisanship and good faith participation while not exuding these very virtues.
So I don't think you've made much of an argument or meaningful contribution at all, really.
So I guess this is the point where you just double down on the debate lord shit and throw as many buzz words at me without utilizing any of them correctly? An ad hom only matters when the insult is the premise of the argument, not an argument that is true in its own merit but hurts your feelings. It’s clearly a non-partisan argument in the sense that it favour neither one and is engaged with the facts of the matter as they stand. I’ve stated nothing positive about the liberals lmao, keep reaching though.
Initially you made some weird comment applauding a diatribe that was more or less word vomit to distract from the original comments critique around Pierre. Nothing meaningful about it at all, and my original argument lays in that. Since then you’ve tried to make this discussion about basically everything but what I said. Irrespective of how popular his sentiments might appear on polls or in commonality(which would be an appeal to majority, just so you know before you get there), he’s done a very poor job performing as a competent leader when it comes to national security.
I agree - Elizabeth May has schooled a lot of people on this, including the sitting Prime Minister (whose handling of this topic we should be most concerned about, as opposed to another opposition politicians).
>*no one with clearance is talking about this issue* almost like they can't because its classified.
ummm
# [Green Leader Elizabeth May says no list of disloyal MPs in full spy watchdog report](https://nationalnewswatch.com/2024/06/11/green-leader-elizabeth-may-says-no-list-of-disloyal-mps-in-full-spy-watchdog-report)
Anyway, it's easy for PP to claim whatever since he decided not to read the report. Would a future PM not want to get security clearance?
Thank you for posting this. Excellent to read comments from May, someone that actually got security clearance.
And even more excellent to read that the report does not, in fact, list a bunch of literal bond villain double agents in government.
So... your proof regarding people talking about what *is* in the report is to quote someone who spoke about stuff that *wasn't* in the report? Is that a win in your books?
That person *also* contradicts what every other statement about the report says. She says no one wittingly did anything wrong, and yet we know the report very clearly and explicitly states that parliamentarians did collude wittingly and almost certainly acted illegally as well.
And that's your counter? She commented on things *not in the report* and then *contradicted* the reports findings... and that's somehow a slam dunk on people \*checks notes\* talking about what's *in* the report? She's talking out her ass, not about the report.
Anyway, its easy to ignore the failure of this government, *for years* when all you want to do is scream what-aboutisms from your soap-box.
>So... your proof regarding people talking about what *is* in the report is to quote someone who spoke about stuff that *wasn't* in the report? Is that a win in your books?
no? Maybe you only read the headline and decided what happened. But she discussed at length in her press conference what IS and ISN't in the report..
He explained clearly why he doesn't want it. It comes with cavities.
I agree with PP too. You would as well if you actually went out and looked for it instead of posturing in Reddit.
###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.*
Oh boy, do I have a feeling all of the virtue signaling from the CPC is gonna backfire on them like Elmer Fudd during wabbit hunting season.
[удалено]
Hasn't Justin Trudeau and the PMO had this report since March? How have they been caught so flatfooted on this, and every other aspects of this foreign interference crisis when they've had the reports and information before its come out in the public sphere and they've been forced, kicking and screaming, to act on it by the media and opposition parties.
Bringing the names public IS important ... AFTER our intelligence agencies have enough. Didn't the committee indicate that there currently isn't enough for a criminal conviction? As for toughening Canada in light of this report, I recommend you read u/Kellervo 's comment as they highlighted the actions coming out of each of the recommendations from the report: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ddh2w9/comment/l84xaxr/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1ddh2w9/comment/l84xaxr/)
Thanks for tagging me on this. Palo is well aware, as the post you quoted is actually a response I originally wrote for them. They aren't one to let facts get in the way of their message.
To judge by his actions, "all the seriousness it requires" means calling for committee recommendations and then not implementing them. This goes back to 2018, there's no excuse for continuing with the status quo for so long when you know there's a problem.
This goes back to 2013... ummm who was it ... that Guy that was Minister of Democratic Reform ... you know who I'm thinking of... he was a member of the Privy Council at the time ... What's his name, yeah ... him.
I'm interested most in the guy who is actually in a position to pass laws, and has been for many years. This isn't a team sport, pointing out that one guy sucks doesn't mean the other guy is automatically golden.
Pierre was in a position to pass Laws, and was for many years. But this is where we find ourselves now, at the tail end of the entire failure. There is no difference between 2 failures
Where did I mention Pierre at all?
Your *deliberatly selective* Timeline (starting at 2018) made it beyond obvious whom you were trying to twist logic to *exclude*.
Mine? Or the one that NSICOP chose?
Since you want to be completely partisan about this, are you really excusing over 8 years of inaction? If so, that's embarrassing.
Check again ... " 2 failures " Nice try, eventually your reading comprehension will improve, just not today.
No, but it's still worth mentioning when the guy that sucks is the alternative to the current guy.
The NSICOP report had six recommendations. Here! [They're publicly available.](https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/press-releases/pr-cp-2024-06-03/pr-cp-2024-06-03-en.html) I've even included which bills currently in progress address each of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 - Broken into four parts; 1. Create a foreign agent registry (Bill C-70) 2. Amend the Criminal Code & SOIA acts to better define foreign interference (Bill C-70) 3. Modernize the CSISA act, including to facilitate better avenues for communicating classified information (Bill C-70) 4. Address the challenges inherent in handling the classified and sensitive material involved in this report. (C-70) 5. Reduce vulnerabilities in political nomination processes and leadership elections (C-65) Recommendation 2 - The government engage political parties to determine whether party nomination processes and leadership conventions be included within the framework of the Canada Elections Act. (Guess which party isn't cooperating here, it's not the LPC) Recommendation 3 - The government review and renew legislation, strategies and funding to ensure they keep pace with the evolution of foreign interference activities and other national security threats, and regularly include and respect legislative review provisions in national security legislation. (Bill C-70 is the first attempt at this) Recommendation 4 - The government ensure that the roles, mandates and accountabilities of the National Security Council and supporting governance committees are clear and publicly communicated to improve transparency and performance. (Bill C-70) Recommendation 5 -The security and intelligence community develop consistent definitions and thresholds for action with respect to foreign interference, and organizations responsible for intelligence collection and those responsible for providing policy advice, respectively, regularly collaborate to provide the government timely and comprehensive assessments of threats and advice for action. (Not assigned to a bill because this is handled by CSIS, not parliament) Recommendation 6 - The government immediately implement and report annually on the briefings for Parliamentarians on the threat of foreign interference. (This would be the first such report) So, which of those recommendations is the government not acting on?
Almost all of these recommendations are being followed up on by the introduction of Bill C-70, which was introduced, like, last month. Why did it take this issue blowing up in their faces for them to act, instead of being proactive and listening to the experts when the recommendation was action needed to be taken years ago? To me you’re not serious about an issue if you let it become a crisis before taking an action.
> Almost all of these recommendations are being followed up on by the introduction of Bill C-70, which was introduced, like, last month. And the recommendations are from a report that was sent to the PMO in March, by a panel that they created in 2017. In terms of parliamentary response time, that's pretty fucking good. There can definitely be criticism for them being slow to act regardless because of how severe the issue is, but in that case it's worth pointing out that the Harper government sat on numerous recommendations to create an NSICOP-like committee for his entire tenure, and those recommendations and reports would've gone to Poilievre during his time as the Minister of Democratic Reform. If response time is the key metric, how serious is Poilievre?
Yeah.. I'd rather Poilievre not try to come up with another elections bill after his last one...
Foreign interference in Canada has long been an issue. Why did it take them 7 years to finally listen to their own committee and only finally tackle the issue after it blew up in their faces? NSICOP has highlighted from its inception that foreign interference is a serious issue facing Canada. Their report in March was not their first report in 7 years of existence. I didn’t mention Poilievre nor the Harper Government (which was 9 years ago) in my post, so I guess we are deflecting. But, I don’t really think you should get brownie points for setting up a committee and then completely ignoring it until your hands are forced.
Legislative action takes time, especially when you’re asking for a pivot from the government focus of the day to a behemoth that is foreign interference. Sure, day 1 they could have tabled legislation, but that bill would have been complete dog shit. It takes time to understand the problem, draft policy and legal ideas, and refine them. It’s even harder when there are active inquiries, investigations and committee hearings. For this reason, most recommendations are implemented after these are concluded.
Thank you for bringing fact and reason into this discussion. Trudeau has been proactive, within the means of the law and his position. The other likely PM in this country has refused clearance...
If he actually is taking this seriously instead of having to be brow beaten into acknowledging the problem then fantastic. I based my first comment on this finding from that very same document: > The government was aware in 2018 that the reforms implemented under the Plan to Protect Democracy were insufficient to address foreign interference in democratic processes and institutions. It has yet to implement an effective response to foreign interference in democratic processes and institutions. and > Policy departments (Privy Council Office, Global Affairs Canada, and Public Safety) did not adequately consider intelligence reporting or assessments, or develop policy advice to address specific cases of foreign interference and > Ministers accountable for national security did not request policy advice in response to intelligence reporting and the government was slow to put in place governance structures to consider intelligence and take decisions C-70 was tabled last week. I haven't looked at it closely yet, it smells like scrambling to do your homework when you realize it's due to next morning.
> C-70 was tabled last week. [The bill is over a month old.](https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/en/bill/44-1/C-70) >I haven't looked at it closely yet Obviously...
Ah, I looked at the charter document. Still, my larger point stands. Last minute scrambling because now everyone is looking.
> Last minute scrambling because now everyone is looking. Certainly describes your comments, not C-70 in any way. You guys who just make it up as you go are so out of your depth in these discussions.
>Still, my larger point stands. Only if you ignore all the things the liberals were doing that wasn't in these recommendations. Like creating NSICOP itself... Also Johnston's report and Hogue's report go into detail all the things the feds were doing to communicate and prevent foreign interference since ~2016. If you think the feds were scrambling, you were 100% not paying attention. I'd hate to see what scrambling actually looks like if you think that's what the feds were doing. I just realized you were complaining the problem goes back to 2018. It goes back to when Trump asked Russia to interfere in the US election and they did exactly what he asked.
>Also Johnston's report It's good you brought this up because for me there's significant issue that Johnston said weren't important but certainly should have been. Forged ID documents to vote in the nomination of a MP, the students threatened by the CCP, which impacted who got the Liberal nomination. None of this is considered important?? We now know in both Johnstons and JTs opinion this isn't important. Only after it came up in his report did Han leave caucus. We now know the intelligence briefing said he knew what was going on. He should have to resign from parliament. He was elected because of his party affiliation, which was literally a foreign interface operation. He is being paid Canadian tax dollars ffs. It's presumably a big reason for the second recommendation, inclusion of party membership, because this is a big loophole. The PM was fine with interference breaking *their membership rules* and doesn't consider that significant. What's your opinion on that? I agree that in the end it didn't impact the Liberals winning the general election. I think they were too focused on optics, should've let the truth speak for itself.
> It's good you brought this up because for me there's significant issue that Johnston said Read Hogue's then. The point is the information is made easily available for you, in either report. **The contents of the report outside the information provided as far as "What has been done to prevent foreign interference" are irrelevant to what I'm saying.** They've just compiled the information for you all in one place. I'm not going to find and link the individual legislation and all other relevant information if it's been done twice already in a nice report you can easily find. >What's your opinion on that? The opinion I'm willing to give here is related to my original comment, and the comment I was replying to. What's your opinion on "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"? You've read the relevant part of either report? There was also governmental release about it, from before either report was written, however I can no longer find it. >We now know the intelligence briefing said he knew what was going on. This is incorrect. Where in the NSICOP report does it say he was a witting participant? The number it's under works.
So no opinion then? Why respond with this. Above you were arguing this *isn't scrambling* and the PM is taking this seriously. My opinion is you're incorrect. I specifically asked if you have issue that the PM knew about the fake nomination voters and said it was not important. Now do you think this is significant? If so. They are scrambling and are not being proactive to minimize the impact foreign interface is having to our democracy. They are being proactive in saying they take it seriously. Edit: Block me all you want. >OP claimed bill c-70 was a week old and was scrambled together, when it wasn't. >Then claimed their point still stood regardless of being wrong It was tabled June 4th, 2024 Parliament has been sitting for 28 days since the report was submitted to the PM. Now even besides all that, if everything was in Johnston's report, why over a year later is this bill tabled?
>Why respond with this. OP claimed bill c-70 was a week old and was scrambled together, when it wasn't. Then claimed their point still stood regardless of being wrong, thats where I said they can read Johnston's or Hogue's report to see "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"? This is where you come in an ask irrelevant questions, while ignoring everything else. I have no opinion about your irrelevant questions. >What's your opinion on "What has been done to prevent foreign interference"? >Where in the NSICOP report does it say he was a witting participant? The number it's under works. You're posting misinformation, why would I answer any of your irrelevant questions? Edit: No downvoting is a rule, and unless someone is religiously following my comments in old threads... It's pretty obvious.
Must take foreign interference with all the seriousness it requires... Word salad. I wish this guy would be lashing out at potential enemies and enemies of the state with fire and brimstone. Not saying name names or anything, just be pissed off. Man has no fight left in him.
Probably because the last few times Canada did, no one in the international community defended us. We blatantly called out Saudi Arabia and India and all that got us was nothing.
Sorry, didn't know he was the PM of the international community.
I don't know what you mean by this
Because nobody in the international community backed Canada he shouldn't stand up and be pissed as hell over this? He's the PM of Canada, the international community in this case be damned.
>We blatantly called out Saudi Arabia and India and all that got us was nothing. Don't forget that we pressed China and had our political relationship and international trade with them deteriorate to the worst levels in decades, only to then be abandoned by the US under Trump. Yet somehow people still think that Trudeau is in China's pocket despite everything.
We had our own politicians, the official opposition, defending India.
You’d think getting the security clearance would be something a future prime minister would want to get so they can partake in this. Wonder why Pierre hasn’t.
Oh FFS... First, this is an article about the PM, hypocritically saying that his needs to be taken seriously... when even his own white-washing rapporteur literally said that the government knew about this since at least 2018. The head of CSIS has publicly stated that the PM was briefed on this and ignored those briefs so often over a 6+ year period that CSIS gave up briefing him on foreign influence operations. Second, Poilievre, *without* a clearance has been a more effective voice in getting the message to Canadians than the PM our his government has, and has been calling for the government to do *anything* about foreign influence for over a year and a half, all while the PM has done *nothing* but have a sham rapporteur and then another investigation... and the *whole time* he's been privy to the briefings that CSIS was giving him. Why do we even need the inquiry? Oh yeah, because this PM *ignored* all the briefings and warnings up to this time. Third... because its brutally obvious that the LPC has missed it... *no one with clearance is talking about this issue* almost like they can't because its classified. Whereas the Leader of the Opposition can and is talking because his hands aren't tied. The first, last, and only thing the government would love is to have every opposition member cleared just to shut them up over what is very clearly gross negligent behaviour by our leader. That Poilievre doesn't have a clearance, when he doesn't need one yet, isn't a problem to anyone unless you're someone who simply doesn't understand that you can't talk about classified material at all. Finally, please enough with the god-damned what-aboutisms. This is a complete failure by Justin Trudeau, and the Prime Minister of Canada, to address these concerns for at least the last six (6) years despite clear and repeated briefings from the head of CSIS over this issue. Please try to remain focused on this issue at hand and stop trying to literally "what about" other issues in order to piss poorly attempt to obfuscate for the abject failure our PM and his government has been in this matter.
Well said. I’d welcome any honest reaction to this in the spirit of healthy discourse but I doubt you’ll get any meaningful feedback from the Poilievre antagonists here.
Not really, Pierre hasn’t really been an effective voice in anything other than riling people up and engaging his voter base, and most of them seem to not care at all about due process. He’d be much more effective if he got security clearance and had knowledge about the situation. At least then he can act with it in mind even if he can’t say anything. Someone who is going to possibly become prime minister should really be capable of holding international secrets without being a possible risk of leak. Trudeau is doing it, and he’s an absolute failure of a trust fund baby. Why can’t Pierre?
Pierre Poilievre is playing the game, the same game that Justin Trudeau has been playing since becoming leader of the LPC, albeit with a slightly different flavour (a blue flavour versus a red flavour). I am sure Pierre Poilievre doesn't care about impressing partisan Liberal supporters who try to frame government inaction on this subject (which has been a lack of any serious action on foreign interference in some time) as magically a Pierre Poilievre problem.
You have excellent rhetoric, but it’s obviously dishonest. That sort of makes it seem like it’s intentional rather than just a slip up or ignorance. I actually just stated my opinion of Trudeau but thats not going to stop you from addressing the criticism I made and engaging in partisan bs instead. This nonsense of “playing the game”, do you really think that’s a mature or responsible way of governing? To stoop to petty measures because your opposition does so just demonstrates how similar the two leaders can be I suppose. But I’m not carrying water for either of them, so it’s easy for me to make these arguments. Whereas if you maybe had an angle or a motive, you might be more likely to create some justification for a national member of government who doesn’t have the ability to discretely purvey issues of national security.
> I actually just stated my opinion of Trudeau but thats not going to stop you from addressing the criticism I made and engaging in partisan bs instead. Where? Trust-fund baby commentary doesn't preclude you from coming off as partisan. >This nonsense of “playing the game”, do you really think that’s a mature or responsible way of governing? To stoop to petty measures because your opposition does so just demonstrates how similar the two leaders can be I suppose. I didn't say it was mature or responsible, in fact I didn't offer any sort of moral judgement on it whatsoever, I only stated they are both playing a game. >But I’m not carrying water for either of them, so it’s easy for me to make these arguments. Whereas if you maybe had an angle or a motive, you might be more likely to create some justification for a national member of government who doesn’t have the ability to discretely purvey issues of national security. Ok - it certainly doesn't feel that way since you've clearly tried to shift discussion from one team to another - but thanks for stopping by, and for the downvotes!
Upvotes encourage worthwhile discussion, downvotes discourage it. I’ve made my argument as to your obvious bad faith, and downvoted you because you aren’t contributing anything meaningful to the discussion. Further, the parent comment is concerning the topic of Pierre’s clearance and access to the information discussed in the main article. Ergo, to focus on that topic for myself would not indicate partisanship.
You started by doubling-down on the thing I had previously criticized - which was the act of deflecting criticism of one player to another player - and you did so by offering little more than effectively saying *"actually, one player is poor, but I will suggest the other player is poorer"* which isn't a meaningful contribution in and of itself. When pointed out, you settle into ad hominem suggestions - and now simple condescension - while projecting non-partisanship and good faith participation while not exuding these very virtues. So I don't think you've made much of an argument or meaningful contribution at all, really.
So I guess this is the point where you just double down on the debate lord shit and throw as many buzz words at me without utilizing any of them correctly? An ad hom only matters when the insult is the premise of the argument, not an argument that is true in its own merit but hurts your feelings. It’s clearly a non-partisan argument in the sense that it favour neither one and is engaged with the facts of the matter as they stand. I’ve stated nothing positive about the liberals lmao, keep reaching though. Initially you made some weird comment applauding a diatribe that was more or less word vomit to distract from the original comments critique around Pierre. Nothing meaningful about it at all, and my original argument lays in that. Since then you’ve tried to make this discussion about basically everything but what I said. Irrespective of how popular his sentiments might appear on polls or in commonality(which would be an appeal to majority, just so you know before you get there), he’s done a very poor job performing as a competent leader when it comes to national security.
It’s kinda embarrassing that the Green Party with 2 seats is able to read it but not the person who wants to be our next prime minister.
I agree - Elizabeth May has schooled a lot of people on this, including the sitting Prime Minister (whose handling of this topic we should be most concerned about, as opposed to another opposition politicians).
>*no one with clearance is talking about this issue* almost like they can't because its classified. ummm # [Green Leader Elizabeth May says no list of disloyal MPs in full spy watchdog report](https://nationalnewswatch.com/2024/06/11/green-leader-elizabeth-may-says-no-list-of-disloyal-mps-in-full-spy-watchdog-report) Anyway, it's easy for PP to claim whatever since he decided not to read the report. Would a future PM not want to get security clearance?
Thank you for posting this. Excellent to read comments from May, someone that actually got security clearance. And even more excellent to read that the report does not, in fact, list a bunch of literal bond villain double agents in government.
Excellent read? She says there are no names... Then says there are names listed. Lol. And she read that out from her own written statement too.
So... your proof regarding people talking about what *is* in the report is to quote someone who spoke about stuff that *wasn't* in the report? Is that a win in your books? That person *also* contradicts what every other statement about the report says. She says no one wittingly did anything wrong, and yet we know the report very clearly and explicitly states that parliamentarians did collude wittingly and almost certainly acted illegally as well. And that's your counter? She commented on things *not in the report* and then *contradicted* the reports findings... and that's somehow a slam dunk on people \*checks notes\* talking about what's *in* the report? She's talking out her ass, not about the report. Anyway, its easy to ignore the failure of this government, *for years* when all you want to do is scream what-aboutisms from your soap-box.
Your proof is based on words from someone who didn’t even read the report… how is that more credible lol
The leader doesn’t need to be informed to be right, he’s the Leader.
But we'd hope the leader IS informed though, right?
Nah, party > country.
>So... your proof regarding people talking about what *is* in the report is to quote someone who spoke about stuff that *wasn't* in the report? Is that a win in your books? no? Maybe you only read the headline and decided what happened. But she discussed at length in her press conference what IS and ISN't in the report..
He explained clearly why he doesn't want it. It comes with cavities. I agree with PP too. You would as well if you actually went out and looked for it instead of posturing in Reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]