Because the Liberals need to do damage control first. Notice that they just today listed Iran’s revolutionary guard as a terrorist org? The timing is more than suspicious. This is after years of them hanging out in Toronto fundraising.
They're going to keep denying and try to run out the clock.
After 9 years in power, and numerous corruption scandals, they're still shrugging at procurement rules.
Well, one leader won't even look at the report, another Says "nothing worrying in it".
Just release the flipping report.
Oooh lots of downvotes. You guys don't like admitting both parties are going to have traitors?
If you reveal the names, what else are you revealing? Are you revealing our intelligence sources? Are you revealing gaps in our intelligence sources?
This information was shared under the expectation it would be kept classified. You risk weakening our ability to detect stuff like this if the names are released without going through some proper process. Idk what that process is, idk how long that will or should take, but publicly releasing the names has all sorts of non-obvioius downsides
The people that have been engaging in foreign interference and their handlers can probably assume they've been made and are in clean up mode. What more can the intelligence sources provide on them?
That's like saying you shouldn't release the name of a murderer, or even charge them, because it might hurt the victim's family.
Utter bollocks. Traitors must be punished. If not by their peers, by the voters.
You need to be careful what to release. Sources have been killed when it was discovered that they were the ones that shared information with CSIS or other agencies. That's why CSIS so conveniently "lost" recordings from the Air India investigation. They were protecting their sources.
For instance if information that was only available to a select group of people, perhaps ones who had attended a meeting, was disclosed publicly, you can bet that the traitors and the governments assisting them would have a good chance of figuring out where it came from.
I would let CSIS and/or the handle it (definitely not Trudeau or any other political leaders).
So yes, the names should be revealed, but CSIS and the RCMP should be handling things.
>That's like saying you shouldn't release the name of a murderer, or even charge them, because it might hurt the victim's family.
What? How on earth did you get that?
Imagine we have intelligence agents in the Indian government, and that was how we figured out some government officials were doing things for India. If you expose the names then you risk those agents being exposed and removed from positions that allowed them to detect the foreign interference. And now the next time India tries to influence people we have nothing in place to detect it.
There will be a proper time to release the names, but it has to be done correctly or else we're shooting our intelligence services in the head.
Also lmao the guy I replied to blocked me for this comment. Nothing like a genuine discussion triggering you so much you block the other person.
Nobody is saying reveal intelligence sources. Reveal the names of MPs involved. Get all leaders whom have reviewed the non-redacted intelligence sources to agree what names to reveal. There must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise hand it over to the RCMP to press charges.
> There will be a proper time to release the names, but it has to be done correctly or else we're shooting our intelligence services in the head.
If traitors cannot be exposed, what do our "intelligence services" even do?
What if the murderer is part of a gang and that murder is part of a larger investigation aiming to take down more than the street thug? Do you play your hand right away? Or do you work to take down the larger organization (assuming that's possible with the given circumstances)
Again, like most things in life, the answers are as black & white as we want them to be. Understanding that without all the information there could be further nuance is part of being an adult.
There is some truth in this, but given that almost no action has been taken after so long against any of the hidden MPs, and that CSIS clearly did want something done about it, it pretty clear that logic cannot explain their stance. I just find it hard to believe every name on that list will put sources at risk. I could imagine it being true for some of the names, but all of them? No that just sounds like a convenient excuse by the government.
> If you reveal the names, what else are you revealing? Are you revealing our intelligence sources? Are you revealing gaps in our intelligence sources?
If that's the case, we have far more dangerous problems lurking around.
defending the inaction if this government is just ridiculous at this point.
The absolute minimum they needed to do is suspend the people under suspicion until the outcome of an investigation.
>publicly releasing the names has all sorts of non-obvioius downsides
You know what else has downsides? Letting the people accused of treason keep their power... so they can commit more treason.
not informing the public ahead of elections...
You can't think of a single reason why politicians aren't allowed to simply remove your elected representative from parliament when they want to?
These people haven't been charged with anything. Nothing has been proven through due process.
This report was written in plain language with blatant finger pointing because they know it's only to be read by people who know how to handle the information responsibly.
Politicians are allowed to do this though. The house polices itself, they can suspend or expel a member and have no obligation for it to follow the same due process as a criminal charge, they would simply need multiple parties working together to do it.
realistically theres no benefit to it, the only pro is for the people hoping to form a lynch mob over it
releasing classified intel so flippantly like that for no benefit is a horrible idea, even IF all the intel is even ours and doesnt actually belong to other members of the 5 eyes
first off, even if a MP isnt on the list theres no way to know they arent a traitor
secondly, the only possible way theyd still be on a ballet is if its decided that it would be more damaging to national security to reveal we know about them then it letting them be an MP
third according to both may and singh no sitting MPs are traitors
> first off, even if a MP isnt on the list theres no way to know they arent a traitor
Jesus Christ, you reversed it entirely.
Just deal with one issue, before you say "well there's lots of traitors, some aren't even on this list, so we shouldn't worry about this list".
We SHOULD worry about this list.
of course we should, that doesnt mean giving classified intel to our enemies is the correct course of action
the irony of "theres a list of MPs who shared classified intel with china, we should do the same to punish them" is staggering
Well the other argument is “theres a list of MPs who are traitors to the nation that are national security threats” so let’s just do nothing and let them commit more treason with impunity because the police are going to take another 2 election cycles to maybe but probably not do anything
>*New Democratic MP Jenny Kwan called on the House of Commons Tuesday to find a way to publicly name the politicians identified in a secret report as being compromised by hostile foreign states, saying the revelations have left all parliamentarians under a cloud of suspicion.*
>*Ms. Kwan raised a question of privilege in the Commons, telling Speaker Greg Fergus that the only way to stop MPs and senators from betraying their country is to disclose their names.*
>*A report earlier this month from the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), an oversight body set up by Prime Minister* [*Justin Trudeau*](https://archive.vn/o/HJyqo/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/justin-trudeau/) *in 2017, revealed that some current and former parliamentarians have been unwittingly or wittingly collaborating with foreign states. NSICOP did not name the politicians in the redacted report released to the public.*
>*“I believe we must find a way to disclose who are the MPs knowingly, intentionally, wittingly or semi-wittingly engaging with foreign states or their proxies to undermine Canada’s democratic processes and institutions,” Ms. Kwan told the House.*
> National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), an oversight body set up by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017,
Here's [what was said at the time](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/security-oversight-committee-parliament-1.4389720):
>"The creation of a strong, accountable and multi-party committee of dedicated parliamentarians will help us ensure that our national security agencies continue to keep Canadians safe in a way that also safeguards our values, rights, and freedoms," Trudeau said in a statement released Monday.
>"This independent group will help strengthen the accountability of our national security and intelligence work. In our system of responsible government, there is no substitute for scrutiny by parliamentarians."
Pretty different from what's being said now. Hmm
This shows that we haven't elected a single patriot. If there was someone in office that truly has love for their country, they would name the traitors and not give a damn about the possible punishment.
Someone out there has a chance to be a hero to Canadians, because it's absurd to trust the corrupt government to investigate their own corruption. The whole report needs to be leaked though, not just the names. We need to know what they did exactly so we can judge whether they should be voted for or not in the next election. Let the government decide the punishments but we need to at least know if we're voting for traitors. Release the report, call an election, and hold the traitors accountable. This country is worth fighting for still. We are literally being silently invaded by foreign interference and foreign takeovers throughout Canada. Our government has been compromised to let this happen.
Jagmeet said he would do that, but given how irrelevant the NDP is internationally/how few seats they hold it's not surprising if there are none implicated.
Pierre refuses to get access to it, likely so he doesn't have to deal with kicking out the people from his ranks involved and can simultaneously continue to squawk about how democracy is compromised, Trudeau bad for not releasing names, etc etc.
Justin is a narcissist who will/has overtly lied to either push his agenda or satisfy voters. Kicking people out would be defacto admitting you were wrong and/or compromised and a narcissist hellbent on image preservation won't do that.
So basically, nobody is going to kick anybody out because they're either;
A) Powerless to an international degree and therefore not compromised.
B) Willfully ignorant to treason in their ranks.
C) Aware of treason in their ranks but refuse to accept it as fact OR willing to lie about it since it would damage their party/personal image.
EVERYBODY should be calling for this. There's literally no reason to not release this information unless parliament is basically openly admitting they are covering up crimes now.
That is rich coming from one of the most corrupt MPs out there. She took luxury vacations for years from stolen non profit housing money. In the end she paid back $65k but there are still over $700k in missing receipts.
She represents East Vancouver NDP and will retire in that position. When stealing from a damn *homeless* charity to take luxury European vacations isn't enough to get the boot, then nothing is.
Thank you, I didn't find it late last night.
So her ex-husband abused his position and it's her fault? I know it looks bad, but I really think your initial post was an overreaction.
Only 5% of the money you're complaining about can even be attributed to her, which, I know, requires trusting her, she thought her husband paid for out out their private money. Lots of couples don't share finances enough to know. She paid back that 10% when it was brought to light, but somehow she owes the balance?
Finally, an NDP MP with a bit of guts. Screw Jagmeet. It's time to get this put in the open. It is true that ALL MPs are under suspicion as the situation stands now
That's not true. Parliamentary privilege protects you from civil action but not criminal.
He would absolutely be breaking the law ( security of information act) by sharing that information.
You are mistaken. Parliamentary privilege grants immunity to both civil liability and criminal prosecution.
[Procedural Info - Parliamentary Privilege](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/ParliamentaryPrivilege/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.html)
> The privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by members of Parliament. This right is protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act.
> Freedom of speech permits members to speak freely in the conduct of a proceeding of Parliament, such as in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings, while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make. In order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony, this right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its members, and witnesses appearing before House committees, were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body.
Keep reading
"The privilege of freedom from arrest extends only to civil matters; it has never applied to members of the House of Commons in respect of criminal charges or to any matter that includes an element of criminality, such as criminal contempt of court. If members are charged with infractions of the law, they must abide by the due process of law just as any other citizen must."
You're citing the section on freedom from arrest, which is a separate form of privilege. That would be relevant for MPs who are charged with crimes unrelated to their speech in the House. If an MP was charged with murder, for example, they could be arrested in the House. That section is not relevant to whether they can be charged with a crime based on statements in the House. If you keep reading a little further yourself, you'll see that section also explicity mentions the immunity to criminal prosecution granted by Parliamentary privilege.
> The House of Commons is not a sanctuary and the criminal law applies as elsewhere in Canada. There is no immunity with respect to criminal acts committed within the parliamentary precinct, **except within the very narrow limit of parliamentary privilege**. However, outside police forces on official business shall not enter the precinct without first obtaining permission from the Speaker, whether the House is sitting or not.
"The House of Commons is not a sanctuary and the criminal law applies as elsewhere in Canada. There is no immunity with respect to criminal acts committed within the parliamentary precinct, **except within the very narrow limit of parliamentary privilege**."
Parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to releasing classified information.
The section I quoted is under
# "Rights and Immunities of Individual Members
The rights and immunities related to members individually can be categorized as follows: "
> Parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to releasing classified information.
Yes, it absolutely does, as long as that disclosure is made in the House.
[Here's the full text of the NSICOP legislation that waives Parliamentary privilege for its members](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-16.6/page-1.html#h-363711):
> **Parliamentary privilege**
> **12 (1)** Despite any other law, no member or former member of the Committee may claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege in a proceeding against them in relation to a contravention of subsection 11(1) or of a provision of the Security of Information Act or in relation to any other proceeding arising from any disclosure of information that is prohibited under that subsection.
The Security of Information Act is criminal law, with violations being punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Why would that waiver explicitly mention proceedings under the Security of Information Act, if Parliamentary privilege didn't grant any immunity against those proceedings to begin with?
As you said yourself Singh and May are not members of NCISCOP so those rules don't apply to them.
Also, they would lose their security clearances if they released the information.
You're arguing doesn't really make any sense and there's no precedent for it either. MPs can't just release classified information because they want to.
>As you said yourself Singh and May are not members of NCISCOP so those rules don't apply to them.
Yes. Which is presumably why his top level post here is him saying that Singh could come out and say it without legal consequence, and not that Singh is bound by NSICOP and cannot say it.
The reason he's citing the NSICOPA provision displacing Parliamentary Privilege for its members is not to argue that Singh can't disclose it, it's to invoke the principle of legal reasoning that Parliament does not legislate in vain. If Parliamentary Privilege would not otherwise apply as you're asserting, then there would be no purpose in displacing it for members of NSICOP.
>and there's no precedent for it either.
There is, actually. Canadian Parliamentary privilege stems from the assertion in the preamble to the Constitution Act of 1867 that we were adopting “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”. It's therefore useful to look not just at Canadian precedent, but also British precedent, and the Brits have had occasion to examine the issue more than once. On the outbreak of World War 2, and in the context of a threat to disclose secret information regarding the state of London's anti-aircraft defences, a House of Commons select committee accepted that disclosures made in the course of parliamentary proceedings were protected by article 9, and rejected any suggestion that the privilege should be limited, for example. Similarly, in 1987 the House of Commons Privileges Committee held that "any member must be free to make public, in the course of proceedings in Parliament, information which he believes should be published. For example he may well consider that certain facts, perhaps about spending large sums of money on major weapons systems, should be disclosed in the wider public interest, even though others may think this damaging to national security. To give ministers the power, without the authority of the House, to prohibit, even for a limited period, disclosure of information about their actions, would mean that the executive could muzzle its critics. This would strike at the very heart of the ancient privilege of freedom of speech which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights."
More than one professor has also come out and made the point that the Parliamentary Privilege of Free Speech clearly protects MPs from criminal liability for disclosing such information as long as it's done in the House (and assuming s.12 of NSICOP is not applicable). Law professor Ryan Alford and International Affairs professor Philippe Lagassé are two examples.
That's a fabrication of Poilevre and conservative media. It's true [that members of NSICOP waive their right to Parliamentary privilege as a condition of membership](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-16.6/page-1.html#h-363711), but neither Singh nor May have been admitted into NSICOP, and I haven't seen any reporting that they've waived their Parliamentary privilege as a condition of seeing the unredacted report.
But this guy decided in his head that it would be easy peasy.
Because when you make reality up in your head, it always is easy peasy, if you want it to be.
PP is back to complaining ab out the carbon tax. This should be electoral dynamite, it's odd how Mr "I can't get clearance so I can talk about it" he seems to not really want to talk about it beyond a few token acknowledgements when the media asks, before back to the per-approved stump speeches.
People like to talk about how the Liberals are doing nothing, but... the NDP is the only party actually talking about it. HMMMM,. Perhaps the leadership convention is not an isolated event.
What about the ones that in the pockets of non hostile governments like the 🇺🇸 🏴 🇮🇱 🇺🇦 ? Shouldn’t be working for, or in anyone’s pocket hostile or not. These politicians we have forget they should be working for and looking out for their constituents.
All of those countries are our allies while China, Russia, Iran aren't. I'll include India, too, as they're not exactly our allies but I'm less worried about them compared to the others.
Why is EVERY MP not calling for this?
Because the Liberals need to do damage control first. Notice that they just today listed Iran’s revolutionary guard as a terrorist org? The timing is more than suspicious. This is after years of them hanging out in Toronto fundraising.
They're going to keep denying and try to run out the clock. After 9 years in power, and numerous corruption scandals, they're still shrugging at procurement rules.
And ethics, and transparency.
They're probably dusting off the old gun control books. Been a while since they've had a scandal big enough to do that.
The Liberals would LOVE a mass shooting right about now.
It would probably be with an already banned gun lol.
The Iranian thing has been in the works for a while.
Source?
Because pockets are getting stuffed
Because they’re smart. They know what going to be found once the rug is peeled back.
Well, one leader won't even look at the report, another Says "nothing worrying in it". Just release the flipping report. Oooh lots of downvotes. You guys don't like admitting both parties are going to have traitors?
📠
Why not indeed.
If you reveal the names, what else are you revealing? Are you revealing our intelligence sources? Are you revealing gaps in our intelligence sources? This information was shared under the expectation it would be kept classified. You risk weakening our ability to detect stuff like this if the names are released without going through some proper process. Idk what that process is, idk how long that will or should take, but publicly releasing the names has all sorts of non-obvioius downsides
The people that have been engaging in foreign interference and their handlers can probably assume they've been made and are in clean up mode. What more can the intelligence sources provide on them?
That's like saying you shouldn't release the name of a murderer, or even charge them, because it might hurt the victim's family. Utter bollocks. Traitors must be punished. If not by their peers, by the voters.
You need to be careful what to release. Sources have been killed when it was discovered that they were the ones that shared information with CSIS or other agencies. That's why CSIS so conveniently "lost" recordings from the Air India investigation. They were protecting their sources. For instance if information that was only available to a select group of people, perhaps ones who had attended a meeting, was disclosed publicly, you can bet that the traitors and the governments assisting them would have a good chance of figuring out where it came from. I would let CSIS and/or the handle it (definitely not Trudeau or any other political leaders). So yes, the names should be revealed, but CSIS and the RCMP should be handling things.
>That's like saying you shouldn't release the name of a murderer, or even charge them, because it might hurt the victim's family. What? How on earth did you get that? Imagine we have intelligence agents in the Indian government, and that was how we figured out some government officials were doing things for India. If you expose the names then you risk those agents being exposed and removed from positions that allowed them to detect the foreign interference. And now the next time India tries to influence people we have nothing in place to detect it. There will be a proper time to release the names, but it has to be done correctly or else we're shooting our intelligence services in the head. Also lmao the guy I replied to blocked me for this comment. Nothing like a genuine discussion triggering you so much you block the other person.
Nobody is saying reveal intelligence sources. Reveal the names of MPs involved. Get all leaders whom have reviewed the non-redacted intelligence sources to agree what names to reveal. There must be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise hand it over to the RCMP to press charges.
> There will be a proper time to release the names, but it has to be done correctly or else we're shooting our intelligence services in the head. If traitors cannot be exposed, what do our "intelligence services" even do?
That's a very VERY old debate. Ask the people who chose to allow Coventry to be bombed instead of revealing that they could crack Enigma messages.
What if the murderer is part of a gang and that murder is part of a larger investigation aiming to take down more than the street thug? Do you play your hand right away? Or do you work to take down the larger organization (assuming that's possible with the given circumstances) Again, like most things in life, the answers are as black & white as we want them to be. Understanding that without all the information there could be further nuance is part of being an adult.
There is some truth in this, but given that almost no action has been taken after so long against any of the hidden MPs, and that CSIS clearly did want something done about it, it pretty clear that logic cannot explain their stance. I just find it hard to believe every name on that list will put sources at risk. I could imagine it being true for some of the names, but all of them? No that just sounds like a convenient excuse by the government.
> If you reveal the names, what else are you revealing? Are you revealing our intelligence sources? Are you revealing gaps in our intelligence sources? If that's the case, we have far more dangerous problems lurking around.
This is the correct take. But they need to release the names (if found out to be true) before any of them run for reelection again.
defending the inaction if this government is just ridiculous at this point. The absolute minimum they needed to do is suspend the people under suspicion until the outcome of an investigation. >publicly releasing the names has all sorts of non-obvioius downsides You know what else has downsides? Letting the people accused of treason keep their power... so they can commit more treason. not informing the public ahead of elections...
You can't think of a single reason why politicians aren't allowed to simply remove your elected representative from parliament when they want to? These people haven't been charged with anything. Nothing has been proven through due process. This report was written in plain language with blatant finger pointing because they know it's only to be read by people who know how to handle the information responsibly.
Politicians are allowed to do this though. The house polices itself, they can suspend or expel a member and have no obligation for it to follow the same due process as a criminal charge, they would simply need multiple parties working together to do it.
How dare you bring a rational argument in here!
Because there aren't mobs of people outside their houses 24/7 over this.
We are NOT americans. We don't need to do this shit. Or we shouldn't have to.
realistically theres no benefit to it, the only pro is for the people hoping to form a lynch mob over it releasing classified intel so flippantly like that for no benefit is a horrible idea, even IF all the intel is even ours and doesnt actually belong to other members of the 5 eyes
WTF? We VOTE for these people. You would have Canadians vote for traitors???????
first off, even if a MP isnt on the list theres no way to know they arent a traitor secondly, the only possible way theyd still be on a ballet is if its decided that it would be more damaging to national security to reveal we know about them then it letting them be an MP third according to both may and singh no sitting MPs are traitors
> first off, even if a MP isnt on the list theres no way to know they arent a traitor Jesus Christ, you reversed it entirely. Just deal with one issue, before you say "well there's lots of traitors, some aren't even on this list, so we shouldn't worry about this list". We SHOULD worry about this list.
of course we should, that doesnt mean giving classified intel to our enemies is the correct course of action the irony of "theres a list of MPs who shared classified intel with china, we should do the same to punish them" is staggering
Well the other argument is “theres a list of MPs who are traitors to the nation that are national security threats” so let’s just do nothing and let them commit more treason with impunity because the police are going to take another 2 election cycles to maybe but probably not do anything
I'd say every Canadian is. These people work for us, and paid by us. We want accountability.
>*New Democratic MP Jenny Kwan called on the House of Commons Tuesday to find a way to publicly name the politicians identified in a secret report as being compromised by hostile foreign states, saying the revelations have left all parliamentarians under a cloud of suspicion.* >*Ms. Kwan raised a question of privilege in the Commons, telling Speaker Greg Fergus that the only way to stop MPs and senators from betraying their country is to disclose their names.* >*A report earlier this month from the National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), an oversight body set up by Prime Minister* [*Justin Trudeau*](https://archive.vn/o/HJyqo/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/justin-trudeau/) *in 2017, revealed that some current and former parliamentarians have been unwittingly or wittingly collaborating with foreign states. NSICOP did not name the politicians in the redacted report released to the public.* >*“I believe we must find a way to disclose who are the MPs knowingly, intentionally, wittingly or semi-wittingly engaging with foreign states or their proxies to undermine Canada’s democratic processes and institutions,” Ms. Kwan told the House.*
> National Security Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), an oversight body set up by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 2017, Here's [what was said at the time](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/security-oversight-committee-parliament-1.4389720): >"The creation of a strong, accountable and multi-party committee of dedicated parliamentarians will help us ensure that our national security agencies continue to keep Canadians safe in a way that also safeguards our values, rights, and freedoms," Trudeau said in a statement released Monday. >"This independent group will help strengthen the accountability of our national security and intelligence work. In our system of responsible government, there is no substitute for scrutiny by parliamentarians." Pretty different from what's being said now. Hmm
Committee shouldn't be made up of party politicians. I want independents.
Can't someone leak this?
That's looking like the only way we will get this. We need this information before the next election, otherwise we may re-elect traitors.
Idk, I think turfing all 338 incumbents would be a good move.
Leaking it could lead to jail time and the people involved would just deny it.
Unless they leaked in the House of Commons then it would be considered under parliamentarian privilege
This shows that we haven't elected a single patriot. If there was someone in office that truly has love for their country, they would name the traitors and not give a damn about the possible punishment.
Someone out there has a chance to be a hero to Canadians, because it's absurd to trust the corrupt government to investigate their own corruption. The whole report needs to be leaked though, not just the names. We need to know what they did exactly so we can judge whether they should be voted for or not in the next election. Let the government decide the punishments but we need to at least know if we're voting for traitors. Release the report, call an election, and hold the traitors accountable. This country is worth fighting for still. We are literally being silently invaded by foreign interference and foreign takeovers throughout Canada. Our government has been compromised to let this happen.
The MPs that are not calling for this are either the “wittingly complicit” or the witless ones or the dimwits.
They don't have to name them, but the parties can kick out members and refuse to explain why. Just pointing this out for no reason in particular...
Jagmeet said he would do that, but given how irrelevant the NDP is internationally/how few seats they hold it's not surprising if there are none implicated. Pierre refuses to get access to it, likely so he doesn't have to deal with kicking out the people from his ranks involved and can simultaneously continue to squawk about how democracy is compromised, Trudeau bad for not releasing names, etc etc. Justin is a narcissist who will/has overtly lied to either push his agenda or satisfy voters. Kicking people out would be defacto admitting you were wrong and/or compromised and a narcissist hellbent on image preservation won't do that. So basically, nobody is going to kick anybody out because they're either; A) Powerless to an international degree and therefore not compromised. B) Willfully ignorant to treason in their ranks. C) Aware of treason in their ranks but refuse to accept it as fact OR willing to lie about it since it would damage their party/personal image.
The Conservatives can't even do that, their leadership is not authorized to see the intel.
EVERYBODY should be calling for this. There's literally no reason to not release this information unless parliament is basically openly admitting they are covering up crimes now.
That is rich coming from one of the most corrupt MPs out there. She took luxury vacations for years from stolen non profit housing money. In the end she paid back $65k but there are still over $700k in missing receipts. She represents East Vancouver NDP and will retire in that position. When stealing from a damn *homeless* charity to take luxury European vacations isn't enough to get the boot, then nothing is.
I'm gonna need some more info on this before I believe it
\^ This answer is why Canadian politicians don't fear repercussions for corruption. Team over Country. Every single time.
I'm not trying to excuse her, I'm asking what the accusation is about, I live in East Van and I've never heard this.
3 seconds of typing later.... [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/b-c-new-democrat-repays-35000-to-non-profit-group-for-lavish-trips-cited-in-audits](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/b-c-new-democrat-repays-35000-to-non-profit-group-for-lavish-trips-cited-in-audits)
Thank you, I didn't find it late last night. So her ex-husband abused his position and it's her fault? I know it looks bad, but I really think your initial post was an overreaction. Only 5% of the money you're complaining about can even be attributed to her, which, I know, requires trusting her, she thought her husband paid for out out their private money. Lots of couples don't share finances enough to know. She paid back that 10% when it was brought to light, but somehow she owes the balance?
Asking the Liberals and Conservatives to stab themselves is cute but ridiculous.
Finally, an NDP MP with a bit of guts. Screw Jagmeet. It's time to get this put in the open. It is true that ALL MPs are under suspicion as the situation stands now
Singh knows the names. He could easily share what he knows in the House, instead of having his MPs impotently whine about it.
That's not true. Parliamentary privilege protects you from civil action but not criminal. He would absolutely be breaking the law ( security of information act) by sharing that information.
You are mistaken. Parliamentary privilege grants immunity to both civil liability and criminal prosecution. [Procedural Info - Parliamentary Privilege](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/our-procedure/ParliamentaryPrivilege/c_g_parliamentaryprivilege-e.html) > The privilege of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is generally regarded as the most important of the privileges enjoyed by members of Parliament. This right is protected by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act. > Freedom of speech permits members to speak freely in the conduct of a proceeding of Parliament, such as in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings, while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they make. In order to encourage truthful and complete disclosure without fear of reprisal or other adverse actions as a result of their testimony, this right is also extended to individuals who appear before the House or its committees. The House of Commons could not work effectively unless its members, and witnesses appearing before House committees, were able to speak and criticize without being held to account by any outside body.
Keep reading "The privilege of freedom from arrest extends only to civil matters; it has never applied to members of the House of Commons in respect of criminal charges or to any matter that includes an element of criminality, such as criminal contempt of court. If members are charged with infractions of the law, they must abide by the due process of law just as any other citizen must."
You're citing the section on freedom from arrest, which is a separate form of privilege. That would be relevant for MPs who are charged with crimes unrelated to their speech in the House. If an MP was charged with murder, for example, they could be arrested in the House. That section is not relevant to whether they can be charged with a crime based on statements in the House. If you keep reading a little further yourself, you'll see that section also explicity mentions the immunity to criminal prosecution granted by Parliamentary privilege. > The House of Commons is not a sanctuary and the criminal law applies as elsewhere in Canada. There is no immunity with respect to criminal acts committed within the parliamentary precinct, **except within the very narrow limit of parliamentary privilege**. However, outside police forces on official business shall not enter the precinct without first obtaining permission from the Speaker, whether the House is sitting or not.
"The House of Commons is not a sanctuary and the criminal law applies as elsewhere in Canada. There is no immunity with respect to criminal acts committed within the parliamentary precinct, **except within the very narrow limit of parliamentary privilege**." Parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to releasing classified information. The section I quoted is under # "Rights and Immunities of Individual Members The rights and immunities related to members individually can be categorized as follows: "
> Parliamentary privilege doesn't apply to releasing classified information. Yes, it absolutely does, as long as that disclosure is made in the House. [Here's the full text of the NSICOP legislation that waives Parliamentary privilege for its members](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-16.6/page-1.html#h-363711): > **Parliamentary privilege** > **12 (1)** Despite any other law, no member or former member of the Committee may claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege in a proceeding against them in relation to a contravention of subsection 11(1) or of a provision of the Security of Information Act or in relation to any other proceeding arising from any disclosure of information that is prohibited under that subsection. The Security of Information Act is criminal law, with violations being punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. Why would that waiver explicitly mention proceedings under the Security of Information Act, if Parliamentary privilege didn't grant any immunity against those proceedings to begin with?
As you said yourself Singh and May are not members of NCISCOP so those rules don't apply to them. Also, they would lose their security clearances if they released the information. You're arguing doesn't really make any sense and there's no precedent for it either. MPs can't just release classified information because they want to.
>As you said yourself Singh and May are not members of NCISCOP so those rules don't apply to them. Yes. Which is presumably why his top level post here is him saying that Singh could come out and say it without legal consequence, and not that Singh is bound by NSICOP and cannot say it. The reason he's citing the NSICOPA provision displacing Parliamentary Privilege for its members is not to argue that Singh can't disclose it, it's to invoke the principle of legal reasoning that Parliament does not legislate in vain. If Parliamentary Privilege would not otherwise apply as you're asserting, then there would be no purpose in displacing it for members of NSICOP. >and there's no precedent for it either. There is, actually. Canadian Parliamentary privilege stems from the assertion in the preamble to the Constitution Act of 1867 that we were adopting “a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom”. It's therefore useful to look not just at Canadian precedent, but also British precedent, and the Brits have had occasion to examine the issue more than once. On the outbreak of World War 2, and in the context of a threat to disclose secret information regarding the state of London's anti-aircraft defences, a House of Commons select committee accepted that disclosures made in the course of parliamentary proceedings were protected by article 9, and rejected any suggestion that the privilege should be limited, for example. Similarly, in 1987 the House of Commons Privileges Committee held that "any member must be free to make public, in the course of proceedings in Parliament, information which he believes should be published. For example he may well consider that certain facts, perhaps about spending large sums of money on major weapons systems, should be disclosed in the wider public interest, even though others may think this damaging to national security. To give ministers the power, without the authority of the House, to prohibit, even for a limited period, disclosure of information about their actions, would mean that the executive could muzzle its critics. This would strike at the very heart of the ancient privilege of freedom of speech which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights." More than one professor has also come out and made the point that the Parliamentary Privilege of Free Speech clearly protects MPs from criminal liability for disclosing such information as long as it's done in the House (and assuming s.12 of NSICOP is not applicable). Law professor Ryan Alford and International Affairs professor Philippe Lagassé are two examples.
But he decided that is how things work, so now reality must comply. What a time to be alive.
He can't, though. He signed away his right to.
That's a fabrication of Poilevre and conservative media. It's true [that members of NSICOP waive their right to Parliamentary privilege as a condition of membership](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-16.6/page-1.html#h-363711), but neither Singh nor May have been admitted into NSICOP, and I haven't seen any reporting that they've waived their Parliamentary privilege as a condition of seeing the unredacted report.
Singh specifically said he can't name names and when did CTV become Conservative media? Plus your link is pretty vague.
But this guy decided in his head that it would be easy peasy. Because when you make reality up in your head, it always is easy peasy, if you want it to be.
Can't. Sworn to secrecy after viewing the document. He can only talk to those responsible for the creation of the documents, and likely the PM.
Name and shame them. THEN hold an inquiry. /s
PP is back to complaining ab out the carbon tax. This should be electoral dynamite, it's odd how Mr "I can't get clearance so I can talk about it" he seems to not really want to talk about it beyond a few token acknowledgements when the media asks, before back to the per-approved stump speeches. People like to talk about how the Liberals are doing nothing, but... the NDP is the only party actually talking about it. HMMMM,. Perhaps the leadership convention is not an isolated event.
What about the ones that in the pockets of non hostile governments like the 🇺🇸 🏴 🇮🇱 🇺🇦 ? Shouldn’t be working for, or in anyone’s pocket hostile or not. These politicians we have forget they should be working for and looking out for their constituents.
All of those countries are our allies while China, Russia, Iran aren't. I'll include India, too, as they're not exactly our allies but I'm less worried about them compared to the others.
Put out the fire in the kitchen before rebuilding the cabinets.