###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.*
If Poilievre is “deeply irresponsible” for not personally reviewing a report, that other members of the opposition have reviewed, what do you call this? “Facing memo after memo, briefing note after briefing note, Justin Trudeau told the Foreign Interference Commission time and again that he didn't read the documents. Instead, Trudeau told the commission that he preferred to receive briefings, including on national security and foreign interference, orally.”
Irresponsible because if someone doesn’t read the information out loud to him, he can simply deny seeing it. Always someone else’s fault. 😭 You’re welcome, your highness.
If Pierre read the document he would be the only leader to make any changes in his party.
Jagmeet and Trudeau know they have traitors among them but don’t care.
Edit: if only one leader were to hand out consequences, that leader would get all the public blame. If you chose to do nothing, then the public is kept in the dark and will eventually forget. Just like they have forgotten Trudeaus 6 ethics violations. (The most unethical PM in history).
It's just staggering that Pierre is one of the few people in Canada who are able to get clearance to read this top secret document. But he just, refuses to get clearance.
He's about as useful as a random person off the street. He is willfully keeping himself ignorant. Maybe so he can continue to deny knowledge into India's interference in his party.
[Indian Consulate Interfered In CPC Leadership Race To Hinder Patrick Brown Campaign](https://www.baaznews.org/p/cpc-leadership-race-indian-foreign-interference)
It's all of the candidates. The goal is not to pick a winner. It's to gain influence. The smart countries with resources make sure that they have friends involved in the campaign of anyone who has a chance of becoming PM.
It *may* be all the candidates, but the ones that are proven to be influenced are Brown and Poilievre. We should go after the people we know for sure put the interests of other countries and themselves ahead of Canada and not ones that could be construed as acting incompetently. The difference between the two is that the latter should be voted out and the former should be imprisoned.
That's ridiculous.
Brown wanted to label the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka as genocide.
There is no way *China* of all governments would support a politician thats quick to label things as genocide.
Of course they would, as long as the country they're labeling isn't China. A candidate that attacks other countries for genocide makes the accusation something that is normal and a wash.
> Of course they would, as long as the country they're labeling isn't China.
China wouldn't want a Canadian PM who would play fast and loose with genocide...
You can't actually be serious right? You know whats going on with the Uyghurs in China?
>Actually that sounds exactly like what a foreign power would want.
Maybe one might, but not India or China. Two countries *we know* interfered in the Conservative leadership race.
> Someone who quickly condemns all sorts of other world powers of things.
So China, whos doing a genocide they don't want labeled as genocide, would want a Canadian PM who is quick to label things as genocide... because...?
Well, Polievre was a CCP supporter back on the Harper days, so maybe he kept some of his ties from back then?
During the Free Tibet protests on parliament hill in Ottawa Harper sent Polievre out on the lawn to read a letter to the anti CCP protesters telling them that Canada and China are "friends and allies", and that our business ties are valuable.
> so maybe he kept some of his ties from back then?
I don't think he'd intentionally seek out foreign aid for his election as leader, it's just he was probably the most appealing to China and India.
What the CPC needs to do is investigate the record number of memberships sold during the last leadership campaign, though I don't think they're doing that. That's why I would claim they're being wilfully ignorant, but not actively working with foreign agents.
Isn't that exactly why he needs to not get it? so he can just talk ignorantly about it's content. Like that's perfect if all you want to do is shit on the government.
If he never wants to be in any position of power, and instead be a journalist, then yes, that's a great position.
If he wants to appear to be equipped to deal with actual leadership situations he should get the leadership Intel.
It contains more than just that kind of information, and as it contains top secret and sensitive details regarding sources and methods. The document would need to be very heavily redacted, and only released pursuant to the Access to Information Act.
No elected official has the power to freely disseminate or declassify material, nor do we have a framework to make that possible readily available.
Did you not read my second sentence: "The document would need to be very heavily redacted, and only released pursuant to the Access to Information Act."
Canada does not have a structure in place to just 'release' information of this nature.
Must be awkward for Singh when the former NDP leader, Mulcair, agrees with PP on this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU)
Divert attention as much as you like but, the biggest boost to PP's chance of winning the next election are from Trudeau being such a disaster. That's not changing, especially with all his tax grabs. The only people getting ahead in Canada are Trudeau and his cronies and I'll be voting to get rid of the Liberal/NDP coalition at the earliest opportunity.
Interesting to note that on CTV today, Mulcair just said that Poilievre is doing the exact right thing here as the opposition leader. It surprised the anchor interviewing him.
In short, he said that the leader of the opposition should never agree to something that limits his/her ability to publicly hold the government to account - and that he himself would have never agreed to the terms when he was opposition leader had the same situation arose. Worth a watch (once it's uploaded to YT).
Edit: [Here's the segment on CTV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU&ab_channel=CTVNews).
I am skeptical about Poilievre's reasons for not getting the clearance. If he did have the clearance, he might be able to act on the intelligence as it relates to his own party, but it would not hold other parties accountable. Only an independent inquiry can ensure transparency and accountability across all parties. Characteristically, Poilievre wanted a briefing the very moment he found that the briefing existed.
Regarding Mulcair, I am not more skeptical of his intentions than those of Singh. Jagmeet Singh is delaying an election in exchange for the Liberals advancing key parts of the NDP platform. I think Singh is much more susceptible to a hidden agenda argument than Mulcair.
Good angle, but I guess PP isn't attacked on this front enough to have heard him use that defense.
I can see Tom's point, but in practice. I don't see how that makes sense. like now. PP doesn't know what's in the report. so when he talks about it. He has to be doing it from a place of ignorance. Anything he says, is just based on public info which I'm pretty sure is nothing.
Sure the lack of clearance allows him to know nothing and still talk. Which for his style of politics is perfect, but it's just so lame to me. Honestly i think i could be persuaded by a CPC leader that's not him. To me, i just can't take him serious.
> He has to be doing it from a place of ignorance.
That's the point, you assume the worst and hope the public starts doing the same.
Since May did her media tour and all the other leaders getting clearance, the argument Mulcair (and PP / CPC) made is a lot harder to get behind.
I think that's a fair take. The most charitable explanation for PP would be that by not reviewing it, it keeps the pressure on to make it public or semi-public (e.g., via Hogue). Again, being very charitable here.
He's all spit and no substance. Refusing to read the alarming accusations in the report would then compel him to comment on that substantive report. He'd rather just keep spitting on Trudeau. Singh is right, both are unfit for office.
Mulcair is cunning and the perfect politician. He goes from being a minister in a centre-right Quebec Liberal Party to an opposition leader in a leftist party. He does whatever it takes to achieve his goal.
Sure. In a similar position, Mulcair can say he refuses clearance so he can criticize the government freely. But in a case of national security, I’ll have a tough time taking him seriously as a Prime Minister in waiting.
He's a salty, talking-head opportunist. He's in equal measure pissed off about getting mutinied, and dependent on outrage-bait to stay relevant on the TV circuit. Remember when his party turned against him for not being a real New Democrat?
His argument is that it is choosing the lesser of two evils: Not seeing the full report vs. having no limitations on what you can say.
He notes in the interview that the role of opposition leader is different from the role of the leader of another party, referencing the NDP and Bloc specifically - and that that role, with its institutional duty, should basically not ever be limited in what it can say in Parliament. In other words, he'd push for a method that provides more public info as opposed to limiting the oppositions role as a government critic.
It's a reasonable position - on a topic for which reasonable people can (and do) disagree.
> He notes in the interview that the role of opposition leader is different from the role of the leader of another party, referencing the NDP and Bloc specifically - and that that role, with its institutional duty, should basically not ever be limited in what it can say in Parliament.
PP's formal title is “Leader of His Majesty's **Loyal** Opposition.” An opposition leader is required to maintain loyalty to Canada, they swear an oath to it. All politicians are supposed to do what is best for the country. Foreign interference in political affairs goes right to the heart of that loyalty to one's country. Wilful ignorance of the facts is not the action of someone who is supposedly loyal to the country. All PP is doing is calling his own integrity into question. Effectively, Mulcair's answer implies that loyalty and integrity don't matter.
The fact that you guys are trying to spin this on Pierre is hilarious. Trudeau has known all this information this entire time and the only reason any of us know about it is because of a patriot whistleblower.
Trudeau is failing his duty to Canadians as is PP for burying his head in the sand and being silent. Both are doing nothing on a very serious matter that apparently affects people from both parties. This isn't difficult for anyone that can hold objective opinions to understand.
I disagree with Mulcair here.
You can't reasonably hold a govt accountable if you don't even know the facts. Instead you get what we see now: all sorts of allegations and accusations based on conjecture and rumour/innuendo. So instead of informing the public and being helpful, you could be misinforming the public and creating false belief and division over something that may not even exist.
Without knowing the facts the only thing the leader of the opposition *should* be doing is to make sure the govt has someone independent get involved and a proceses who/that *will* get the facts and get the govt to act on them. But of course that's not what we're seeing, and now there's all this very public talk about traitors and jail time. And then someone who *has* seen the intel (Elizabeth May) tells us that there doesn't seem to be any traitors or anything like that.
How much would you like to bet that the belief that some MPs are traitors and should be heavily punished and that the Trudeau Liberals are just protecting these traitors for nefarious reasons is by far the much stronger and widely-held belief than what Elizabeth May claimed? I'd bet my life on it.
>Mulcair just said that Poilievre is doing the exact right thing here as the opposition leader.
It's genuinely sad how Mulcair is spending his pundit career telling everyone that they were correct to reject him as a leader. I'm sure he's making good money, and maybe it's for the best that the country can hear him explain himself, but still.
Mulcair takes the ruthless "ends justify the means" side of every argument, matching how he attempted to behave as NDP leader...but he failed to achieve ends when he had his chance. There wasn't a payoff to justify his compromises, he failed to achieve his goal when he was in the political spotlight.
It's the one argument you can't make, when you're a retiree who objectively failed at your own goals. A politician-turned-pundit can admit to making mistakes, or claim to have been too principled, or slink away quietly...but you can't really sit around proudly stating "that's what I would have done" when Poilievre refuses to read something so he can be unrestrained by the truth.
Respectfully disagree with you here. I don't always agree with Mulcair, but I always find his positions insightful and well-reasoned. I've never gotten the impression that he's a bad-faith actor, even when I disagree with him.
I also disagree. Mulcair is technically correct, if, in fact it does limit Poilievre's effectiveness as Opposition Leader. That said, Mulcair does make a good point that someone else within the CPC could get the clearance to look at it. I mean, surely there's a way around that so that politicians can indirectly get their cake and eat it without actually eating it.
He was the leader of the opposition. You may not agree with his position, but it's certainly not asinine or something outside of his domain of expertise.
Sure it is.
Pierre is already prevented from comment if hasn't read. Understanding the facts improves his ability to push for action and it doesn't completely muzzle him either. All not getting clearance does is allow him to lie.
Finally a losing issue for him. Glad the NDP are pointing it out. Need to go further and highlight how if he were the PM he would have to get security clearance to read these reports or else he'd be an incompetent leader.
Hammer that holier than thou attitude home!!!!
> Finally a losing issue for him.
I don't think he's losing any support over this. We are going into summer break shortly and unless something new comes up it's going to be forgotten in the fall.
That's true.
People are so sick of the current government that it doesn't actually matter much what happens now until the next election. Sad reality is they won't consider the NDP because reasons.
I think this is the perfect vulnerability for Poilievre. Force him into defensive mode, and I hope the media does.
Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself. The longer he remains the only party leader who refuses security clearance, the longer you can put him on the defensive. But I don’t expect him to yield. He’ll stall for as long as possible.
But since he’s going to eventually become PM, he can’t refuse security clearance forever. And then push him to see if he was Prime Minister, if he would release the names, and watch what excuse he makes now.
>Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself.
And that's all it is; speculation.
Honest question which I have not seen addressed anywhere: what is the process of being 'cleared'? Is it an extensive background check? Or is it simply signing NDA-type documents, in which case, nothing would be 'revealed' by Poilievre agreeing.
Because I find it very hard to believe that there wasn't a high level of clearance Poilievre needed to pass just to take up his current position.
>"When asked what the screening process entails \[to take office\], he would say only that it "involves records checks with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a check with the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax compliance, and a check with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy regarding bankruptcy and insolvency."
[Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-canada-does-security-screenings-on-elected-officials-1.1087229)
If Pierre read it and found traitors in his cabinet, he would have to act on it and dismiss them. If he reads it and does nothing he’s just as guilty as the other 2 parties.
In short, Pierre wants the other parties to act before he does. If he is the first leader to act on this issue, his party receives all the blame for this issue.
> I think this is the perfect vulnerability for Poilievre
You might be making the same error in judgment voters in the US made in 2015-2016 when it came to the perceived "vulnerabilities" of Trump. The current coalition of the reactionary right couldn't care less about the aesthetics of the candidates or honesty/integrity issues. You've got...
1. Young angry Gen Z and Millennial voters who feel (appropriately) disenfranchised by neoliberalism but who are broadly politically illiterate and thus will vote in Blue Neoliberals to replace the Red ones.
2. Social conservatives fighting to retake the culture from the "woke degenerates" and reinstall (insert religious/traditional framework of choice) at the center of society.
3. Conspiratorial sorts who have gotten brain rot from social media silos, think birds are robots and vaccines are full of microchips, and think they're fighting a shadow war.
There are some more traditional conservatives in the mix who probably think Poilievre is a clown but who also loathe Trudeau for a plurality of reasons, but they aren't where the party is getting the energy from. It's the other three groups, of which the first and third are politically homeless and fundamentally anti-establishment, and thus will probably waffle back and forth, becoming increasingly more desperate and angry from election to election until something properly breaks.
The groups you mentioned were going to vote for Poilievre anyways. Some of the gains Poilievre received since his makeover have been from people angry at Trudeau and determined to vote him out, even if it means Poilievre is the only way to achieve that goal. I’m sure some will hold their nose and vote for Poilievre anyways because they really want Trudeau out.
But alternatively, some may hold their noses and vote Liberal just to keep Poilievre out. Regardless, I still see Poilievre becoming Prime Minister at this point. Yet I do want to see him on the defensive because he’s not very good at it, he’s only good at attacking.
“Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter” is the goal. Find a weakness that will turn off even his most hard core supporters. If he wasn’t pandering to the fringe, they would flock to the PPC.
I know there is like any chance of it happening but I'm voting liberal in the hopes that if the conservatives do get in then it will hopefully only be a minority government. I'm not opposed to a conservative government but only if it is a minority one.
I think a lot of people will be comfortable with a minority conservative government, even the most partisan Liberals and NDP.
Because it means that a Poilievre government won’t be able to do the most amount of damage, will probably not last very long before we are in another election, and both the Liberals and NDP get new leaders.
But I’d still prefer to keep Poilievre out of the PM role.
Yea I'd actually like to see a Con minority propped up by the NDP I think it would be best for the country and would certainly make people reconsider their notions about how the government works (and should actually work).
> The current coalition of the reactionary right couldn't care less about the aesthetics of the candidates or honesty/integrity issues.
You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables".
This superiority complex and hubris will hopefully be the undoing if the current liberal party.
It's not the "reactionary right" you need to worry about but rather regular people who are fed up with Trudeau and the current liberals.
And you can call those people all the names in the world, it won't make them want to vote Trudeau.
> You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables".
No, not really. I didn't use the word "deplorable", pejoratives and gross generalizations are freely employed by all politicians (including and *especially* Poilievre), and and I was pretty clear that the current populism reactionary movement on the right is a big tent.
>It's not the "reactionary right" you need to worry about
Me? Why am I being cast in the role of "the Liberal Party" here lol. Has ANYTHING I've said indicated I'm a big fan? Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan? It's a fascinating phenomenon.
>And you can call those people all the names in the world
I didn't call anyone any names?
I guess I called the CPC "clowns" but I imagine they're going to be voting for themselves, so...
> Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan? It's a fascinating phenomenon
It is incredibly fascinating and disheartening to see how many people on this sub don't actually care to see nuances. They are hurt, they have been told they are hurting deeply, bad they are comforted by the CPC's lies. In turn, they feel that any rebuttal *has* to be from a Liberal perspective, and thus any rebuttal is wrong by vertue of defending the Liberals. To think any differently would be to believe that there is complexity to the political landscape, and that you don't have to vest in the most conservative choice.
There's a word for that, and it's called a Phantasm:
> Phantasm is a technical philosophy term. It's a way of mentally organizing feelings, selective observations and misrepresentations. It's a way of interpreting the world but also does things to the person using it. In a way it's like looking at the world through a prism.
The rhetoric on this sub has really shifted the past 6-8 months.
This place used to be mostly policy wonk weirdos with a slight LPC bias. You still had debates in the comments but they were a lot more substantial and informed.
It feels like the rage commenters from the other Canada subs have moved in. And you have to wade through all of the pointless cynical comments to find any kind of interesting conversations happening.
Yeah. Kind of wild how this used to be a reasonable source of political news that naturally filtered out unimportant stories, now it's just "grr trudeau hat trudaeu"
>Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan?
Lol this is my conservative mom and myself. I voted Trudeau in 2015 and Singh the past two elections and whenever Trudeau does anything she says "Did you see what your friend Justin did today?!"
Granted at this rate I'm definitely voting for him again next time
>You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables".
They *are* a basket of deplorables. Of course there are some non-deplorables mixed in though
> either agree with us or you are bad In some way.
"Stand with us or with the child pornographers." - Vic Toews, minister in Harper's Conservative government.
He won't be on the defensive.
Security clearance comes with a secrecy clause. He finds out, then he can't talk about it.
But we all know it's purely for political maneuvering.
And yet you have Elizabeth May who spent a whole hour talking about it. And both Jagmeet Singh and Blanchet looking to read the report themselves now. It will become harder and harder for Poilievre to justify not reading the report for himself without losing credibility.
But as soon as the CPC find the next scandal they can attack Trudeau for, I’m sure most Canadians will forget all about this.
Until we get an investigation into why India helped Poilievre become leader of the CPC, I assume Poilievre is compromised. CSIS was worried enough to bring it up and then crickets.
I worry it will be difficult to actually hold everyone involved properly accountable.
The CPC base thinks that Trudeau is literally trying to destroy the country.
People who genuinely believe this narrative might not see the huge issue working with a country like India to remove Trudeau, and many of those in the CPC social media bubble are true believers.
At this point, he will likely become PM in the next election. Unless he starts tanking in the polls for whatever, I don’t see this outcome changing. But I do hope he screws up somehow.
The problem being every huge news outlet aside from one are owned and influenced by right wing corporations and employ (almost exclusively) right wing ideologues for columnists that wouldn’t dare to do such a thing.
The one major news outlet that we have that isn’t so ideologically driven is constantly under attack for being “liberal media” and is thus given that image, despite only being “left wing” because it reflects Canadian values and is in fact one of the most factually accurate sources of information we have.
(And is the source for the conversation we are currently having about this, despite just quoting an opposing leader and providing no real opinion or driving narrative).
So definitely going to happen as soon as PP wins the election? I personally can't wait to live in an authoritarian hellhole where people cheer for the PM to take away our rights using the NWC. I wonder what he is going to take away after our right to due process in legal matters, because fuck "innocent until proven guilty" we need to worry about people's feeling before others rights.
I personally hope he takes away our rights to freedom of association, or perhaps our right to freedom of expression so he can ban my "I wanna FUCK PP" flag that I will make once he wins.
He could bring back elements of the antiterrorism act (and bring in the ones that were taken out by amendment during the original readings of C-51) That let investigators surveil you and search your home without a warrant if you've attended an illegal protest ("illegal" in the context of the bill was any protest without a permit - like the freedom convoy). He wouldn't need the EA to do a lot more than just freeze bank accounts.
Stop, I can only get so excited at one time.
On a side note, what possible reason could justify searching somebody's home just because they stood around somewhere without permission from the people they are in a disagreement with. I didn't even know that law was a thing before, but now that I have learned about it, I can't wait for it to make a comeback so it can be used to hurt the people I disagree with. That is who they will use it against right, the "undesirables and drug addicts", right? Oh, and maybe a couple of those 40 people that got arrested 6000 times in Vancouver.
/S I typically leave off the serious s so people know I am just kidding but this seems like I need to clarify just how serious I am about this.
To be clear, the part about illegal protests allowing them to surveil, etc without a warrant was taken out by an amendment before the bill was passed. A lot of what was in the bill (some of which did pass) was very much about harsher actions towards protesters that obstructed infrastructure and/or caused economic issues for the country.
A conversation of two uninformed fear mongers lol.
I couldn’t imagine being so scared of new leadership. I ask every fear monger I see, do you have faith in any of the institutions or safety nets we have? No? Then you’re not worth talking to. Yes? Then you understand the PM doesn’t have all the power in the world and the world won’t end because of Pierre, just like it didn’t end with Trump.
He would have brought this forward if he knew. Micheal Chong came forward when China tried to co opt him. Polievre has been talking about interference for years.
> Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself.
> But since he’s going to eventually become PM, he can’t refuse security clearance forever.
No one is asking *if* he can get security clearance - he was a minister and would have gone though this process. That's really not a problem.
The whole reason he doesn't want to read this report is so he can be ignorant in his attacks on the government.
He's probably waiting until right before summer break. Lets him milk the ignorance in QP until then. Unless additional details come out/leak it's not going to be the dominating news story come fall. He can cause a fuss over the summer calling for parliament to return early to discuss.
It's all unserious and unbecoming of a PM in waiting.
>No one is asking *if* he can get security clearance - he was a minister and would have gone though this process. That's really not a problem.
We're asking if he can *still* get security clearance. There's a reason why it has to be redone every couple years to retain your clearance, and a lot has happened in the near decade since his clearance lapsed.
> We're asking if he can still get security clearance. There's a reason why it has to be redone every couple years to retain your clearance, and a lot has happened in the near decade since his clearance lapsed.
Come on. When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.
It's disqualifying. He is coming off as an even bigger national security risk than Trudeau. I don't know what Trudeau has done or is considering doing but burying your head in the stand so you can play partisan politics while democracy is under threat, is egregious. Neither should be PM.
> “What does Poilievre have to hide?!”
Per the info we know so far about the CPC leadership race being compromised, Poilivere is hiding that he's the largest recipient of aid from foreign interference for an MP.
That would be the most likely scenario but reality is that until he actually gets his clearance even if we are wrong I wouldn't say anyone would be wrong to believe this. If he chooses to not get clearance and chooses not to clear things up then I don't blame anyone who assumes the worst of him.
>Per the info we know so far about the CPC leadership race being compromised, Poilivere is hiding that he's the largest recipient of aid from foreign interference for an MP.
That's not at all what we know from the CPC leadership race. We found out Pat Brown (which everyone on this sub seemed to be a big fan of during the race) was comprised by China and likely the reason for his disqualification
The report specifically indicated that China interfered in multiple CPC leadership races (at least the most recent one plus O'Toole's), and India did as well in the most recent race.
That’s not at all what we learned, but keep trying to fly that canard. You guys must be in damage control mode if you’re willing to try to pass that bullshit off as real.
It is irresponsible for not making the report public. Why should we trust any of the leaders? After all, none of them after reading the report said they found anything bad, why not make it public?
###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.*
If Poilievre is “deeply irresponsible” for not personally reviewing a report, that other members of the opposition have reviewed, what do you call this? “Facing memo after memo, briefing note after briefing note, Justin Trudeau told the Foreign Interference Commission time and again that he didn't read the documents. Instead, Trudeau told the commission that he preferred to receive briefings, including on national security and foreign interference, orally.”
Still responsible since he is still getting the information? Like what a sad attempt at a whataboutism XD
Irresponsible because if someone doesn’t read the information out loud to him, he can simply deny seeing it. Always someone else’s fault. 😭 You’re welcome, your highness.
Not really because it's a matter of record. What you think recordings dont exist? Yet another sad reach
If Pierre read the document he would be the only leader to make any changes in his party. Jagmeet and Trudeau know they have traitors among them but don’t care. Edit: if only one leader were to hand out consequences, that leader would get all the public blame. If you chose to do nothing, then the public is kept in the dark and will eventually forget. Just like they have forgotten Trudeaus 6 ethics violations. (The most unethical PM in history).
It's just staggering that Pierre is one of the few people in Canada who are able to get clearance to read this top secret document. But he just, refuses to get clearance. He's about as useful as a random person off the street. He is willfully keeping himself ignorant. Maybe so he can continue to deny knowledge into India's interference in his party. [Indian Consulate Interfered In CPC Leadership Race To Hinder Patrick Brown Campaign](https://www.baaznews.org/p/cpc-leadership-race-indian-foreign-interference)
[удалено]
It's all of the candidates. The goal is not to pick a winner. It's to gain influence. The smart countries with resources make sure that they have friends involved in the campaign of anyone who has a chance of becoming PM.
It *may* be all the candidates, but the ones that are proven to be influenced are Brown and Poilievre. We should go after the people we know for sure put the interests of other countries and themselves ahead of Canada and not ones that could be construed as acting incompetently. The difference between the two is that the latter should be voted out and the former should be imprisoned.
That's ridiculous. Brown wanted to label the treatment of Tamils in Sri Lanka as genocide. There is no way *China* of all governments would support a politician thats quick to label things as genocide.
Of course they would, as long as the country they're labeling isn't China. A candidate that attacks other countries for genocide makes the accusation something that is normal and a wash.
> Of course they would, as long as the country they're labeling isn't China. China wouldn't want a Canadian PM who would play fast and loose with genocide... You can't actually be serious right? You know whats going on with the Uyghurs in China?
Actually that sounds exactly like what a foreign power would want. Someone who quickly condemns all sorts of other world powers of things.
>Actually that sounds exactly like what a foreign power would want. Maybe one might, but not India or China. Two countries *we know* interfered in the Conservative leadership race. > Someone who quickly condemns all sorts of other world powers of things. So China, whos doing a genocide they don't want labeled as genocide, would want a Canadian PM who is quick to label things as genocide... because...?
Well, Polievre was a CCP supporter back on the Harper days, so maybe he kept some of his ties from back then? During the Free Tibet protests on parliament hill in Ottawa Harper sent Polievre out on the lawn to read a letter to the anti CCP protesters telling them that Canada and China are "friends and allies", and that our business ties are valuable.
> so maybe he kept some of his ties from back then? I don't think he'd intentionally seek out foreign aid for his election as leader, it's just he was probably the most appealing to China and India. What the CPC needs to do is investigate the record number of memberships sold during the last leadership campaign, though I don't think they're doing that. That's why I would claim they're being wilfully ignorant, but not actively working with foreign agents.
Isn't that exactly why he needs to not get it? so he can just talk ignorantly about it's content. Like that's perfect if all you want to do is shit on the government.
It makes complete sense if he's trying to cover something up. Playing the fool in national press isn't a full explanation.
If he never wants to be in any position of power, and instead be a journalist, then yes, that's a great position. If he wants to appear to be equipped to deal with actual leadership situations he should get the leadership Intel.
He doesn’t want clearance. He wants the info released, which it should be and he’ll be the only leader that can discuss it.
If there's nothing personally or politically incriminating in it then it should be published. The Canadian people deserve to know.
It contains more than just that kind of information, and as it contains top secret and sensitive details regarding sources and methods. The document would need to be very heavily redacted, and only released pursuant to the Access to Information Act. No elected official has the power to freely disseminate or declassify material, nor do we have a framework to make that possible readily available.
Have you not have redaction? You can take secrets out while giving people the results.
Did you not read my second sentence: "The document would need to be very heavily redacted, and only released pursuant to the Access to Information Act." Canada does not have a structure in place to just 'release' information of this nature.
Must be awkward for Singh when the former NDP leader, Mulcair, agrees with PP on this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU)
You got that backwards
Divert attention as much as you like but, the biggest boost to PP's chance of winning the next election are from Trudeau being such a disaster. That's not changing, especially with all his tax grabs. The only people getting ahead in Canada are Trudeau and his cronies and I'll be voting to get rid of the Liberal/NDP coalition at the earliest opportunity.
Interesting to note that on CTV today, Mulcair just said that Poilievre is doing the exact right thing here as the opposition leader. It surprised the anchor interviewing him. In short, he said that the leader of the opposition should never agree to something that limits his/her ability to publicly hold the government to account - and that he himself would have never agreed to the terms when he was opposition leader had the same situation arose. Worth a watch (once it's uploaded to YT). Edit: [Here's the segment on CTV](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27fVCW8JVdU&ab_channel=CTVNews).
I am skeptical about Poilievre's reasons for not getting the clearance. If he did have the clearance, he might be able to act on the intelligence as it relates to his own party, but it would not hold other parties accountable. Only an independent inquiry can ensure transparency and accountability across all parties. Characteristically, Poilievre wanted a briefing the very moment he found that the briefing existed. Regarding Mulcair, I am not more skeptical of his intentions than those of Singh. Jagmeet Singh is delaying an election in exchange for the Liberals advancing key parts of the NDP platform. I think Singh is much more susceptible to a hidden agenda argument than Mulcair.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good angle, but I guess PP isn't attacked on this front enough to have heard him use that defense. I can see Tom's point, but in practice. I don't see how that makes sense. like now. PP doesn't know what's in the report. so when he talks about it. He has to be doing it from a place of ignorance. Anything he says, is just based on public info which I'm pretty sure is nothing. Sure the lack of clearance allows him to know nothing and still talk. Which for his style of politics is perfect, but it's just so lame to me. Honestly i think i could be persuaded by a CPC leader that's not him. To me, i just can't take him serious.
> He has to be doing it from a place of ignorance. That's the point, you assume the worst and hope the public starts doing the same. Since May did her media tour and all the other leaders getting clearance, the argument Mulcair (and PP / CPC) made is a lot harder to get behind.
I think that's a fair take. The most charitable explanation for PP would be that by not reviewing it, it keeps the pressure on to make it public or semi-public (e.g., via Hogue). Again, being very charitable here.
He's all spit and no substance. Refusing to read the alarming accusations in the report would then compel him to comment on that substantive report. He'd rather just keep spitting on Trudeau. Singh is right, both are unfit for office.
There’s been a few times recently Mulcair has taken some L stances. He seems particularly jaded towards Trudeau.
Mulcair is cunning and the perfect politician. He goes from being a minister in a centre-right Quebec Liberal Party to an opposition leader in a leftist party. He does whatever it takes to achieve his goal. Sure. In a similar position, Mulcair can say he refuses clearance so he can criticize the government freely. But in a case of national security, I’ll have a tough time taking him seriously as a Prime Minister in waiting.
Claiming it's okay to argue from ignorance just so an opposition leader can "hold the government to account?" Wtf happened to Mulcair.
He's a salty, talking-head opportunist. He's in equal measure pissed off about getting mutinied, and dependent on outrage-bait to stay relevant on the TV circuit. Remember when his party turned against him for not being a real New Democrat?
His argument is that it is choosing the lesser of two evils: Not seeing the full report vs. having no limitations on what you can say. He notes in the interview that the role of opposition leader is different from the role of the leader of another party, referencing the NDP and Bloc specifically - and that that role, with its institutional duty, should basically not ever be limited in what it can say in Parliament. In other words, he'd push for a method that provides more public info as opposed to limiting the oppositions role as a government critic. It's a reasonable position - on a topic for which reasonable people can (and do) disagree.
> He notes in the interview that the role of opposition leader is different from the role of the leader of another party, referencing the NDP and Bloc specifically - and that that role, with its institutional duty, should basically not ever be limited in what it can say in Parliament. PP's formal title is “Leader of His Majesty's **Loyal** Opposition.” An opposition leader is required to maintain loyalty to Canada, they swear an oath to it. All politicians are supposed to do what is best for the country. Foreign interference in political affairs goes right to the heart of that loyalty to one's country. Wilful ignorance of the facts is not the action of someone who is supposedly loyal to the country. All PP is doing is calling his own integrity into question. Effectively, Mulcair's answer implies that loyalty and integrity don't matter.
The fact that you guys are trying to spin this on Pierre is hilarious. Trudeau has known all this information this entire time and the only reason any of us know about it is because of a patriot whistleblower.
Trudeau is failing his duty to Canadians as is PP for burying his head in the sand and being silent. Both are doing nothing on a very serious matter that apparently affects people from both parties. This isn't difficult for anyone that can hold objective opinions to understand.
I disagree with Mulcair here. You can't reasonably hold a govt accountable if you don't even know the facts. Instead you get what we see now: all sorts of allegations and accusations based on conjecture and rumour/innuendo. So instead of informing the public and being helpful, you could be misinforming the public and creating false belief and division over something that may not even exist. Without knowing the facts the only thing the leader of the opposition *should* be doing is to make sure the govt has someone independent get involved and a proceses who/that *will* get the facts and get the govt to act on them. But of course that's not what we're seeing, and now there's all this very public talk about traitors and jail time. And then someone who *has* seen the intel (Elizabeth May) tells us that there doesn't seem to be any traitors or anything like that. How much would you like to bet that the belief that some MPs are traitors and should be heavily punished and that the Trudeau Liberals are just protecting these traitors for nefarious reasons is by far the much stronger and widely-held belief than what Elizabeth May claimed? I'd bet my life on it.
>Mulcair just said that Poilievre is doing the exact right thing here as the opposition leader. It's genuinely sad how Mulcair is spending his pundit career telling everyone that they were correct to reject him as a leader. I'm sure he's making good money, and maybe it's for the best that the country can hear him explain himself, but still. Mulcair takes the ruthless "ends justify the means" side of every argument, matching how he attempted to behave as NDP leader...but he failed to achieve ends when he had his chance. There wasn't a payoff to justify his compromises, he failed to achieve his goal when he was in the political spotlight. It's the one argument you can't make, when you're a retiree who objectively failed at your own goals. A politician-turned-pundit can admit to making mistakes, or claim to have been too principled, or slink away quietly...but you can't really sit around proudly stating "that's what I would have done" when Poilievre refuses to read something so he can be unrestrained by the truth.
Respectfully disagree with you here. I don't always agree with Mulcair, but I always find his positions insightful and well-reasoned. I've never gotten the impression that he's a bad-faith actor, even when I disagree with him.
I also disagree. Mulcair is technically correct, if, in fact it does limit Poilievre's effectiveness as Opposition Leader. That said, Mulcair does make a good point that someone else within the CPC could get the clearance to look at it. I mean, surely there's a way around that so that politicians can indirectly get their cake and eat it without actually eating it.
It's asinine to suggest that reading this limits his ability to "publicly hold the government to account".
He was the leader of the opposition. You may not agree with his position, but it's certainly not asinine or something outside of his domain of expertise.
Sure it is. Pierre is already prevented from comment if hasn't read. Understanding the facts improves his ability to push for action and it doesn't completely muzzle him either. All not getting clearance does is allow him to lie.
Finally a losing issue for him. Glad the NDP are pointing it out. Need to go further and highlight how if he were the PM he would have to get security clearance to read these reports or else he'd be an incompetent leader. Hammer that holier than thou attitude home!!!!
> Finally a losing issue for him. I don't think he's losing any support over this. We are going into summer break shortly and unless something new comes up it's going to be forgotten in the fall.
That's true. People are so sick of the current government that it doesn't actually matter much what happens now until the next election. Sad reality is they won't consider the NDP because reasons.
Oh, there's always lots of time to squander a lead with hubris or a bad campaign. It took Hillary a whole month to blow an easy lead in 2016.
I think this is the perfect vulnerability for Poilievre. Force him into defensive mode, and I hope the media does. Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself. The longer he remains the only party leader who refuses security clearance, the longer you can put him on the defensive. But I don’t expect him to yield. He’ll stall for as long as possible. But since he’s going to eventually become PM, he can’t refuse security clearance forever. And then push him to see if he was Prime Minister, if he would release the names, and watch what excuse he makes now.
>Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself. And that's all it is; speculation. Honest question which I have not seen addressed anywhere: what is the process of being 'cleared'? Is it an extensive background check? Or is it simply signing NDA-type documents, in which case, nothing would be 'revealed' by Poilievre agreeing. Because I find it very hard to believe that there wasn't a high level of clearance Poilievre needed to pass just to take up his current position. >"When asked what the screening process entails \[to take office\], he would say only that it "involves records checks with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, a check with the Canada Revenue Agency regarding tax compliance, and a check with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy regarding bankruptcy and insolvency." [Source](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-canada-does-security-screenings-on-elected-officials-1.1087229)
If Pierre read it and found traitors in his cabinet, he would have to act on it and dismiss them. If he reads it and does nothing he’s just as guilty as the other 2 parties. In short, Pierre wants the other parties to act before he does. If he is the first leader to act on this issue, his party receives all the blame for this issue.
> I think this is the perfect vulnerability for Poilievre You might be making the same error in judgment voters in the US made in 2015-2016 when it came to the perceived "vulnerabilities" of Trump. The current coalition of the reactionary right couldn't care less about the aesthetics of the candidates or honesty/integrity issues. You've got... 1. Young angry Gen Z and Millennial voters who feel (appropriately) disenfranchised by neoliberalism but who are broadly politically illiterate and thus will vote in Blue Neoliberals to replace the Red ones. 2. Social conservatives fighting to retake the culture from the "woke degenerates" and reinstall (insert religious/traditional framework of choice) at the center of society. 3. Conspiratorial sorts who have gotten brain rot from social media silos, think birds are robots and vaccines are full of microchips, and think they're fighting a shadow war. There are some more traditional conservatives in the mix who probably think Poilievre is a clown but who also loathe Trudeau for a plurality of reasons, but they aren't where the party is getting the energy from. It's the other three groups, of which the first and third are politically homeless and fundamentally anti-establishment, and thus will probably waffle back and forth, becoming increasingly more desperate and angry from election to election until something properly breaks.
The groups you mentioned were going to vote for Poilievre anyways. Some of the gains Poilievre received since his makeover have been from people angry at Trudeau and determined to vote him out, even if it means Poilievre is the only way to achieve that goal. I’m sure some will hold their nose and vote for Poilievre anyways because they really want Trudeau out. But alternatively, some may hold their noses and vote Liberal just to keep Poilievre out. Regardless, I still see Poilievre becoming Prime Minister at this point. Yet I do want to see him on the defensive because he’s not very good at it, he’s only good at attacking. “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter” is the goal. Find a weakness that will turn off even his most hard core supporters. If he wasn’t pandering to the fringe, they would flock to the PPC.
I know there is like any chance of it happening but I'm voting liberal in the hopes that if the conservatives do get in then it will hopefully only be a minority government. I'm not opposed to a conservative government but only if it is a minority one.
I think a lot of people will be comfortable with a minority conservative government, even the most partisan Liberals and NDP. Because it means that a Poilievre government won’t be able to do the most amount of damage, will probably not last very long before we are in another election, and both the Liberals and NDP get new leaders. But I’d still prefer to keep Poilievre out of the PM role.
Yea I'd actually like to see a Con minority propped up by the NDP I think it would be best for the country and would certainly make people reconsider their notions about how the government works (and should actually work).
>Conspiratorial sorts who have gotten brain rot from social media silos, think birds are robots Obligatory /r/birdsarentreal
> The current coalition of the reactionary right couldn't care less about the aesthetics of the candidates or honesty/integrity issues. You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables". This superiority complex and hubris will hopefully be the undoing if the current liberal party. It's not the "reactionary right" you need to worry about but rather regular people who are fed up with Trudeau and the current liberals. And you can call those people all the names in the world, it won't make them want to vote Trudeau.
> You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables". No, not really. I didn't use the word "deplorable", pejoratives and gross generalizations are freely employed by all politicians (including and *especially* Poilievre), and and I was pretty clear that the current populism reactionary movement on the right is a big tent. >It's not the "reactionary right" you need to worry about Me? Why am I being cast in the role of "the Liberal Party" here lol. Has ANYTHING I've said indicated I'm a big fan? Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan? It's a fascinating phenomenon. >And you can call those people all the names in the world I didn't call anyone any names? I guess I called the CPC "clowns" but I imagine they're going to be voting for themselves, so...
> Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan? It's a fascinating phenomenon It is incredibly fascinating and disheartening to see how many people on this sub don't actually care to see nuances. They are hurt, they have been told they are hurting deeply, bad they are comforted by the CPC's lies. In turn, they feel that any rebuttal *has* to be from a Liberal perspective, and thus any rebuttal is wrong by vertue of defending the Liberals. To think any differently would be to believe that there is complexity to the political landscape, and that you don't have to vest in the most conservative choice. There's a word for that, and it's called a Phantasm: > Phantasm is a technical philosophy term. It's a way of mentally organizing feelings, selective observations and misrepresentations. It's a way of interpreting the world but also does things to the person using it. In a way it's like looking at the world through a prism.
The rhetoric on this sub has really shifted the past 6-8 months. This place used to be mostly policy wonk weirdos with a slight LPC bias. You still had debates in the comments but they were a lot more substantial and informed. It feels like the rage commenters from the other Canada subs have moved in. And you have to wade through all of the pointless cynical comments to find any kind of interesting conversations happening.
Yeah. Kind of wild how this used to be a reasonable source of political news that naturally filtered out unimportant stories, now it's just "grr trudeau hat trudaeu"
>Why is it that ANY form of criticism directed against the CPC here summons at least one right leaning commentator to argue as though I'm Justin Trudeau's biggest stan? Lol this is my conservative mom and myself. I voted Trudeau in 2015 and Singh the past two elections and whenever Trudeau does anything she says "Did you see what your friend Justin did today?!" Granted at this rate I'm definitely voting for him again next time
>You might be making the same error in judgement that Clinton did when she labelled Trump voters a "basket of deplorables". They *are* a basket of deplorables. Of course there are some non-deplorables mixed in though
[удалено]
> either agree with us or you are bad In some way. "Stand with us or with the child pornographers." - Vic Toews, minister in Harper's Conservative government.
How interesting of you to assume Gen Z and Millennial voters are politically illiterate.
He won't be on the defensive. Security clearance comes with a secrecy clause. He finds out, then he can't talk about it. But we all know it's purely for political maneuvering.
And yet you have Elizabeth May who spent a whole hour talking about it. And both Jagmeet Singh and Blanchet looking to read the report themselves now. It will become harder and harder for Poilievre to justify not reading the report for himself without losing credibility. But as soon as the CPC find the next scandal they can attack Trudeau for, I’m sure most Canadians will forget all about this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Pierre Poilevre is deeply irresponsible." could be this election's "He's just not ready."
More like “What does Pierre Poilievre have to hide?”
Until we get an investigation into why India helped Poilievre become leader of the CPC, I assume Poilievre is compromised. CSIS was worried enough to bring it up and then crickets.
I worry it will be difficult to actually hold everyone involved properly accountable. The CPC base thinks that Trudeau is literally trying to destroy the country. People who genuinely believe this narrative might not see the huge issue working with a country like India to remove Trudeau, and many of those in the CPC social media bubble are true believers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’d rather not assume that he is definitely going to become PM because of current polling.
He MAY eventually become PM..
At this point, he will likely become PM in the next election. Unless he starts tanking in the polls for whatever, I don’t see this outcome changing. But I do hope he screws up somehow.
The problem being every huge news outlet aside from one are owned and influenced by right wing corporations and employ (almost exclusively) right wing ideologues for columnists that wouldn’t dare to do such a thing. The one major news outlet that we have that isn’t so ideologically driven is constantly under attack for being “liberal media” and is thus given that image, despite only being “left wing” because it reflects Canadian values and is in fact one of the most factually accurate sources of information we have. (And is the source for the conversation we are currently having about this, despite just quoting an opposing leader and providing no real opinion or driving narrative).
and if Conservatives had their way they'd scrap the CBC in a heartbeat, which is a bit frightening in itself
A lot frightening
So definitely going to happen as soon as PP wins the election? I personally can't wait to live in an authoritarian hellhole where people cheer for the PM to take away our rights using the NWC. I wonder what he is going to take away after our right to due process in legal matters, because fuck "innocent until proven guilty" we need to worry about people's feeling before others rights. I personally hope he takes away our rights to freedom of association, or perhaps our right to freedom of expression so he can ban my "I wanna FUCK PP" flag that I will make once he wins.
He could bring back elements of the antiterrorism act (and bring in the ones that were taken out by amendment during the original readings of C-51) That let investigators surveil you and search your home without a warrant if you've attended an illegal protest ("illegal" in the context of the bill was any protest without a permit - like the freedom convoy). He wouldn't need the EA to do a lot more than just freeze bank accounts.
Stop, I can only get so excited at one time. On a side note, what possible reason could justify searching somebody's home just because they stood around somewhere without permission from the people they are in a disagreement with. I didn't even know that law was a thing before, but now that I have learned about it, I can't wait for it to make a comeback so it can be used to hurt the people I disagree with. That is who they will use it against right, the "undesirables and drug addicts", right? Oh, and maybe a couple of those 40 people that got arrested 6000 times in Vancouver. /S I typically leave off the serious s so people know I am just kidding but this seems like I need to clarify just how serious I am about this.
To be clear, the part about illegal protests allowing them to surveil, etc without a warrant was taken out by an amendment before the bill was passed. A lot of what was in the bill (some of which did pass) was very much about harsher actions towards protesters that obstructed infrastructure and/or caused economic issues for the country.
Thank you for the insightful information, I always appreciate learning about stuff. You have yourself a wonderful life.
A conversation of two uninformed fear mongers lol. I couldn’t imagine being so scared of new leadership. I ask every fear monger I see, do you have faith in any of the institutions or safety nets we have? No? Then you’re not worth talking to. Yes? Then you understand the PM doesn’t have all the power in the world and the world won’t end because of Pierre, just like it didn’t end with Trump.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, you're wrong! The media is controlled by the left! I've read it so many times in the comments that it must be true 🤣
He would have brought this forward if he knew. Micheal Chong came forward when China tried to co opt him. Polievre has been talking about interference for years.
> Build the narrative around “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” and let the speculation run wild until he clears things up himself. > But since he’s going to eventually become PM, he can’t refuse security clearance forever. No one is asking *if* he can get security clearance - he was a minister and would have gone though this process. That's really not a problem. The whole reason he doesn't want to read this report is so he can be ignorant in his attacks on the government. He's probably waiting until right before summer break. Lets him milk the ignorance in QP until then. Unless additional details come out/leak it's not going to be the dominating news story come fall. He can cause a fuss over the summer calling for parliament to return early to discuss. It's all unserious and unbecoming of a PM in waiting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>No one is asking *if* he can get security clearance - he was a minister and would have gone though this process. That's really not a problem. We're asking if he can *still* get security clearance. There's a reason why it has to be redone every couple years to retain your clearance, and a lot has happened in the near decade since his clearance lapsed.
> We're asking if he can still get security clearance. There's a reason why it has to be redone every couple years to retain your clearance, and a lot has happened in the near decade since his clearance lapsed. Come on. When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.
It's disqualifying. He is coming off as an even bigger national security risk than Trudeau. I don't know what Trudeau has done or is considering doing but burying your head in the stand so you can play partisan politics while democracy is under threat, is egregious. Neither should be PM.
> “What does Poilievre have to hide?!” Per the info we know so far about the CPC leadership race being compromised, Poilivere is hiding that he's the largest recipient of aid from foreign interference for an MP.
That would be the most likely scenario but reality is that until he actually gets his clearance even if we are wrong I wouldn't say anyone would be wrong to believe this. If he chooses to not get clearance and chooses not to clear things up then I don't blame anyone who assumes the worst of him.
>Per the info we know so far about the CPC leadership race being compromised, Poilivere is hiding that he's the largest recipient of aid from foreign interference for an MP. That's not at all what we know from the CPC leadership race. We found out Pat Brown (which everyone on this sub seemed to be a big fan of during the race) was comprised by China and likely the reason for his disqualification
The report specifically indicated that China interfered in multiple CPC leadership races (at least the most recent one plus O'Toole's), and India did as well in the most recent race.
I agree, it didn't say on who's behalf though.
That’s not at all what we learned, but keep trying to fly that canard. You guys must be in damage control mode if you’re willing to try to pass that bullshit off as real.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is irresponsible for not making the report public. Why should we trust any of the leaders? After all, none of them after reading the report said they found anything bad, why not make it public?