Before we get into the testimony of the Prime Minister, it’s important to remember how we got here. Almost 2 years ago there were a series of leaks embarrassing the government regarding foreign interference. The government claimed these leaks were incorrect or or at least incomplete and that the real situation was much more nuanced. That was not good enough for the opposition.
Government offered to provide information in the classified committee, but I was not acceptable either. Then the government appointed a special rapporteur and the opposition was quick to demolish the reputation of an 80-year-old former Governor General. And this is how we arrived at this commission. The opposition got what it wanted.
During these two years Poilievre and his team accused the government of not only being incompetent when it comes to foreign interference, but at the same time, also uber-competent in letting foreign interference happen to their benefit. It was not enough to accuse the government of being incompetent. No, they had to be corrupt.
There was nothing in the leaks that would suggest that the government acted in bad faith. Perhaps they had been slow, perhaps they had been naïve, but the information in the leaks actually never supported an accusation that the government had used foreign interference deliberately for a political advantage. For me this was a tell. You would only make this accusation if this would be something that you would be prepared to do if you had been in a similar situation.
So, I don’t blame the Prime Minister for going on the offence after two years of false accusations of being corrupt. Pointing out that your opponent wants to remain wilfully ignorant of what is happening in his own party is entirely justified. I was actually happy to see the Prime Minister finally putting up a fight against these accusations that have been lingering for months.
There are no benign explanations for Poilievre not to obtain a security clearance and get classified briefing. The only explanations that make any logical sense is that his party is neck deep in foreign interference itself. This is why they don’t want to be briefed but at the same time, demand the names need to be released in public when they full well know that is not an option.
Can’t agree more! You laid out the situation of the past few years calmly and clearly. The PM’s testimony was also calm and clear. To suggest the PM and liberals continue to take the high road while other parties wallow in the mud and sling it without discretion, is naive at best. It’s what got the USA a Trump presidency.
I suppose I ought to agree with you—you do make good points—but I have to admit I hard time feeling bad for Poilievre after the way he's handled things and taken every conceivable opportunity to score points and sling shit without consequence. Trudeau didn't want a public inquiry and didn't want to release names. That he took the opportunity to land a quick kick in the balls to Poilievre…well, like I say I have a hard time feeling bad for the little ratfuck.
Your response seems more hysterical than rational. It is illegal to share this information with the public. Trudeau likely weighed his options and sought an outcome that could trigger an outcome that wasfor the greater good of Canada’s FI situation— so either Poilievre steps down or he gets a security clearance and starts acting like a Prime Minister and not a whiny toddler. Trudeau is a politician. No one, especially those who follow politics, should be shocked that the PM skewered the LOO. Finally, I know of no other party leader or elected MP who could have responded as thoroughly and carefully, aside from his outing of Poilievre, during this inquiry.
Of course the PM's testimony was partisan. But compared to the firehose of partisan BS that Poilievre has been spewing for two years it was relatively restrained. Trudeau has endured character assassination and threats of violence on a level we have not seen before in Canada. At some point you gotta hit back.
I have my opinion and everyone else has their own.
I find yours to be both biased and sadly lacking a full picture view.
Here is mine.
JT sat and answered questions under oath on live TV.
Even the condescending ones from Chong's lawyer.
Poilievre wrote a letter and called the PM of Canada a liar while telling JT to release the names, which he knows can't be released without breaking our security laws.
Pierre also knows he can see the names if he can get a top level security clearance required.
Once again the PM stated this fact and questioned the sanity of such a cynical decision but hey under cynical in the dictionary there is a picture of Pierre rubbing a wood post.
He said when asked if there were liberals listed too.
The answer was yes.
(Maybe there are some disgruntled liberal MPs in the caucus because somebody sat them down and had a chat about it?)
I digress.
As far as investigations taking too long in Canada is concerned.
Getting it right takes time as it is complex.
Or would you prefer a kangaroo court kind of system.
Now for the gist of your partisan attack claim.
He caught himself being what he called getting partisan and said so, live on TV even though they were not partisan answers they were factual answers that raised questions that Poilievre needs to answer.
You might not like the answers/questions but at least JT was there and the answers were given.
Where were Poilievre's answers to these serious questions?
That's right.
The lack of security clearance guy has none because he was not there.
Again.
Tie this with the fact that prior reports state unequivocally that Pierre is the CPC leader because of, not in spite of, foreign interference from India.
The testimony by the PM, the RCMP report and subsequent expulsion of Indian diplomats show this interference went all the way to the diplomatic top here and to Modi in India as well.
This is serious.
This is not partisan.
You can be like the CPC and take the side of Modi and India over that of Canada if you want.
I choose Canada.
Shall we talk about Russian and Chinese foreign interference as being partisan too.
What about that really dreadful stuff that flows up from the religious right (Christo Fascist) MAGA movement to the south of us.
That's where the most dangerous stuff comes from.
Look at the CPC MP roster.
That's all that are left there.
Trudeau came when requested.
He sat and accepted questions.
He answered all that he could legally answer.
Foreign Interference is nothing new.
It's been part of our lives for over thirty years.
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better. It wasn’t a partisan attack; it was a truthful answer. Mr Poilievre needs to get top level Security clearance to deal with members of his caucus & potential members! It’s about Canada’s Security, not a hissy fit from someone who claims he wants to be a leader of a 5-Eyes country! He will not be trusted by our allies, should he become PM and our Security will be compromised , especially with Russia, our Northern neighbour and the CPC not supporting Ukraine!
His whole appearance took on a campaign atmosphere as he testified. I was particularly struck by his taking out his glasses to read a pdf then catching himself and performing the present day equivalent of "the thinker" by tapping his glasses arm on his teeth …
But, so fucking what? This has become a "knock 'em down; drag 'em through the mud" political campaign. Content is secondary to performance. And given the way the oppositional-defiant leader is portraying himself as the saviour of Canada and the Prime Minister as a traitor, what else can we expect? Based on this performance, I expect the election to be called sooner rather than later …
When PP openly calls the PM a liar - clearly a political ploy - the PM needs to respond. Disinfomation cannot be allowed to stand. You are, however, correct that the rules everyone is sort of following weren't designed for a situation like this. But they were written when politicians mostly acted in good faith.
Okay, here is second long comment (expanded from the response to Ryan) because there is a misunderstanding on why the names and concerns (accusations?) cannot be made public. Evan is wrong in his column about this, but he is not alone. Many people in the media and the Twitter sphere have the same incorrect understanding. It has nothing to do with on going investigations.
There are three reasons the classified information cannot be released.
First, protection of sources and methods. This is not a movie phrase, but very real. “Sources” are actual people. People who, in some cases, are risking their lives to help Canada. We owe it to these people, real persons, to keep information that could identify them secret. This makes the demand by Poilievre even more infuriating. His partisan motivations are more important than the lives of the persons who risk their lives to assist Canada!
Second, the information may not be ours to reveal. It is very likely that allies have shared this information with Canada. We cannot betray our allies by unilaterally releasing this info.
Third, the information will be nuanced, incomplete and sometimes incorrect. These are not statements like MP X committed treason on Wednesday at 3pm. The information in these reports is more along the lines of “MP had 3 conversations with a diplomat of country X of over a short period of time, the nature of the discussions is unknown, but the MP changed his position and voted against bill 12 that country X dislikes. It is possible that country X has influence over the MP, but a clear quid pro pro could not be established”. The party leaders need to make a risk evaluation on what to do with it. In some cases it will be doing nothing and continuing to observe. It is impossible to adjudicate this kind of information in public.
Poilievre counts on an uninformed public to get away with “release the names”. He has been in parliament long enough to know that his demand cannot be implemented by the government. There is a reason for asking for something that you know is not possible. I cannot think of any benign reason .
You are absolutely correct in stating that PM Trudeau made partisan comments. I applaud him 100% for it. It’s long past time that Poilievre should be publicly shamed for his refusal to get a proper security clearance. Make it a big story, because what passes for journalism these days continues to obligingly avoid the issue.
PP's refusal to hold to ANY standard is NOT reason enough to hold Trudeau to one?!
COMPLETELY lost your perspective much Evan?
Pan out FFS.
NO ONE can fucking win when they're judged to be omniscient and all-powerful while simultaneously satan-adjacent! He's just a man, but the Liberals generally are by far and away good, serious people who above all else DO NOT bring Putin and propaganda to mind. HOWEVER, they are not only in government, but also one of the "parties" in competition in our system, and so are within bounds to flush out any and all "bush league" elements that disqualify the OTHER parties, especially the psycho, salivating, and lying asshole cons. We DID NOT used to call them that but now we do for a fucking REASON, as you bloody well KNOW.
You remain part of the problem Evan, i.e. part of the feeding frenzy, part of the depressingly stupid mob "mentality" in action, albeit more articulately and more at length than most.
Exactly what I was thinking. WTF are the parties reluctant to get down in the muck supposed to do in these times of disinformation? Continue to play by “the rules of decorum” that are no longer in effect? I’m not saying that everyone should reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator because that’s not going to help anyone. But surely they should be able to call out the behaviour of an adversary for what it is - blatant political maneuvering by a lifelong politician whose desperation to be PM seems to know no bounds. You can call JT’s testimony opportunistic if you want but this is still politics at the end of day. If the adversary is insistent on changing the way the game is played, you’ve got to figure out a way to respond effectively or make yourself irrelevant.
Regarding naming names, I think there’s a lot of scope for behavior that should require an MP to step down (or be pushed out) that isn’t necessarily illegal. Our ethics standards for representatives should be higher than “isn’t committing actively illegal acts”.
People do things all the time that are perfectly legal, to the point where any sort of legal investigation is ridiculous, but which should also be disqualifying from public office.
I also disagree strongly that the interests of the legal system take precedence here. Could naming names potentially interfere with prosecution? Maybe. But that entire argument implies that maybe not getting criminal convictions at some far future date is worse having the government influenced by foreign actors in the meantime
I would happily forfeit every possible conviction if the trade off was immediately, publicly, and transparently cleaning house
There are number of reasons why the names of these MPs and concerns regarding these MPs cannot be public, ever. It has nothing to do with on-going (criminal) investigations, but is related to nature of classified information.
First, protection of sources and methods. This is not a movie phrase, but very real. “Sources” are actual people. People who, in some cases, are risking their lives to help Canada. We owe it to these people, real persons, to keep information that could identify them secret.
Second, the information may not be ours to reveal. It is very likely that allies have shared this information with Canada. We cannot betray our allies by unilaterally releasing this info.
Third, the information will be nuanced, incomplete and sometimes incorrect. The party leaders need to make a risk evaluation on what to do with it. In some cases it will be doing nothing and continuing to observe. It is impossible to adjudicate this kind of information in public.
I keep hoping someone will dig into Poilievre's leadership campaign that had an unprecedented number of new Conservative Party members vote for him. This fact was surprising at the time, but how much more so now?
The CPC seems to be aligned with their fellow conservative Modi; Harper was/is a huge supporter of the Modi govt.
We must acknowledge that the politics of the Indian diaspora in Canada are off the charts re complexity and nuance. All three parties have been engaged for decades now. Serious shenanigans!
Poilievre screamed about alleged Chinese interference benefiting Libs, but then fell silent when attention shifted to Indian. Why?
And as long as Poilievre refuses security clearance, he maintains plausible deniability if evidence ever emerges that his leadership was tainted -- "I had no idea!"
Most of us have no idea what's been going on. Ah Canada, bless our naivete. Can we remain a trusting people?
As I understand the rules, anyone who wants to read the particular report (can only be party leaders, of course) must sign national security commitments which bind one to not disclosing or commenting upon what they read. Therefore, if PP sees anything that is comment worthy he cannot speak on that subject. Do I have that right? If I am correct, then there is no point in PP reading the report as he cannot do anything with the information that he would receive.
This is incorrect. Jagmeet Singh and Elisabeth May have shown how to do this.
But it all goes back to the purposes of the report. The purpose of the report is not to talk about it. The purpose of the report is to inform a leader if he should make a certain person a candidate, or critic, or which committees to appoint to. Not everything is partisan politics.
Every accusation is an admission.
Before we get into the testimony of the Prime Minister, it’s important to remember how we got here. Almost 2 years ago there were a series of leaks embarrassing the government regarding foreign interference. The government claimed these leaks were incorrect or or at least incomplete and that the real situation was much more nuanced. That was not good enough for the opposition.
Government offered to provide information in the classified committee, but I was not acceptable either. Then the government appointed a special rapporteur and the opposition was quick to demolish the reputation of an 80-year-old former Governor General. And this is how we arrived at this commission. The opposition got what it wanted.
During these two years Poilievre and his team accused the government of not only being incompetent when it comes to foreign interference, but at the same time, also uber-competent in letting foreign interference happen to their benefit. It was not enough to accuse the government of being incompetent. No, they had to be corrupt.
There was nothing in the leaks that would suggest that the government acted in bad faith. Perhaps they had been slow, perhaps they had been naïve, but the information in the leaks actually never supported an accusation that the government had used foreign interference deliberately for a political advantage. For me this was a tell. You would only make this accusation if this would be something that you would be prepared to do if you had been in a similar situation.
So, I don’t blame the Prime Minister for going on the offence after two years of false accusations of being corrupt. Pointing out that your opponent wants to remain wilfully ignorant of what is happening in his own party is entirely justified. I was actually happy to see the Prime Minister finally putting up a fight against these accusations that have been lingering for months.
There are no benign explanations for Poilievre not to obtain a security clearance and get classified briefing. The only explanations that make any logical sense is that his party is neck deep in foreign interference itself. This is why they don’t want to be briefed but at the same time, demand the names need to be released in public when they full well know that is not an option.
Can’t agree more! You laid out the situation of the past few years calmly and clearly. The PM’s testimony was also calm and clear. To suggest the PM and liberals continue to take the high road while other parties wallow in the mud and sling it without discretion, is naive at best. It’s what got the USA a Trump presidency.
I suppose I ought to agree with you—you do make good points—but I have to admit I hard time feeling bad for Poilievre after the way he's handled things and taken every conceivable opportunity to score points and sling shit without consequence. Trudeau didn't want a public inquiry and didn't want to release names. That he took the opportunity to land a quick kick in the balls to Poilievre…well, like I say I have a hard time feeling bad for the little ratfuck.
I reluctantly agree. The PM has tried to take the high road with Poilievre and it’s gotten him nowhere. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
In adds or in scrums sure. Not in the form of formal testimony.
Not that you're asking anyone to weep for Poilievre, of course.
Your response seems more hysterical than rational. It is illegal to share this information with the public. Trudeau likely weighed his options and sought an outcome that could trigger an outcome that wasfor the greater good of Canada’s FI situation— so either Poilievre steps down or he gets a security clearance and starts acting like a Prime Minister and not a whiny toddler. Trudeau is a politician. No one, especially those who follow politics, should be shocked that the PM skewered the LOO. Finally, I know of no other party leader or elected MP who could have responded as thoroughly and carefully, aside from his outing of Poilievre, during this inquiry.
Of course the PM's testimony was partisan. But compared to the firehose of partisan BS that Poilievre has been spewing for two years it was relatively restrained. Trudeau has endured character assassination and threats of violence on a level we have not seen before in Canada. At some point you gotta hit back.
Nope.
You have your opinion.
I have my opinion and everyone else has their own.
I find yours to be both biased and sadly lacking a full picture view.
Here is mine.
JT sat and answered questions under oath on live TV.
Even the condescending ones from Chong's lawyer.
Poilievre wrote a letter and called the PM of Canada a liar while telling JT to release the names, which he knows can't be released without breaking our security laws.
Pierre also knows he can see the names if he can get a top level security clearance required.
Once again the PM stated this fact and questioned the sanity of such a cynical decision but hey under cynical in the dictionary there is a picture of Pierre rubbing a wood post.
He said when asked if there were liberals listed too.
The answer was yes.
(Maybe there are some disgruntled liberal MPs in the caucus because somebody sat them down and had a chat about it?)
I digress.
As far as investigations taking too long in Canada is concerned.
Getting it right takes time as it is complex.
Or would you prefer a kangaroo court kind of system.
Now for the gist of your partisan attack claim.
He caught himself being what he called getting partisan and said so, live on TV even though they were not partisan answers they were factual answers that raised questions that Poilievre needs to answer.
You might not like the answers/questions but at least JT was there and the answers were given.
Where were Poilievre's answers to these serious questions?
That's right.
The lack of security clearance guy has none because he was not there.
Again.
Tie this with the fact that prior reports state unequivocally that Pierre is the CPC leader because of, not in spite of, foreign interference from India.
The testimony by the PM, the RCMP report and subsequent expulsion of Indian diplomats show this interference went all the way to the diplomatic top here and to Modi in India as well.
This is serious.
This is not partisan.
You can be like the CPC and take the side of Modi and India over that of Canada if you want.
I choose Canada.
Shall we talk about Russian and Chinese foreign interference as being partisan too.
What about that really dreadful stuff that flows up from the religious right (Christo Fascist) MAGA movement to the south of us.
That's where the most dangerous stuff comes from.
Look at the CPC MP roster.
That's all that are left there.
Trudeau came when requested.
He sat and accepted questions.
He answered all that he could legally answer.
Foreign Interference is nothing new.
It's been part of our lives for over thirty years.
Thank you. I couldn’t have said it better. It wasn’t a partisan attack; it was a truthful answer. Mr Poilievre needs to get top level Security clearance to deal with members of his caucus & potential members! It’s about Canada’s Security, not a hissy fit from someone who claims he wants to be a leader of a 5-Eyes country! He will not be trusted by our allies, should he become PM and our Security will be compromised , especially with Russia, our Northern neighbour and the CPC not supporting Ukraine!
His whole appearance took on a campaign atmosphere as he testified. I was particularly struck by his taking out his glasses to read a pdf then catching himself and performing the present day equivalent of "the thinker" by tapping his glasses arm on his teeth …
But, so fucking what? This has become a "knock 'em down; drag 'em through the mud" political campaign. Content is secondary to performance. And given the way the oppositional-defiant leader is portraying himself as the saviour of Canada and the Prime Minister as a traitor, what else can we expect? Based on this performance, I expect the election to be called sooner rather than later …
When PP openly calls the PM a liar - clearly a political ploy - the PM needs to respond. Disinfomation cannot be allowed to stand. You are, however, correct that the rules everyone is sort of following weren't designed for a situation like this. But they were written when politicians mostly acted in good faith.
Okay, here is second long comment (expanded from the response to Ryan) because there is a misunderstanding on why the names and concerns (accusations?) cannot be made public. Evan is wrong in his column about this, but he is not alone. Many people in the media and the Twitter sphere have the same incorrect understanding. It has nothing to do with on going investigations.
There are three reasons the classified information cannot be released.
First, protection of sources and methods. This is not a movie phrase, but very real. “Sources” are actual people. People who, in some cases, are risking their lives to help Canada. We owe it to these people, real persons, to keep information that could identify them secret. This makes the demand by Poilievre even more infuriating. His partisan motivations are more important than the lives of the persons who risk their lives to assist Canada!
Second, the information may not be ours to reveal. It is very likely that allies have shared this information with Canada. We cannot betray our allies by unilaterally releasing this info.
Third, the information will be nuanced, incomplete and sometimes incorrect. These are not statements like MP X committed treason on Wednesday at 3pm. The information in these reports is more along the lines of “MP had 3 conversations with a diplomat of country X of over a short period of time, the nature of the discussions is unknown, but the MP changed his position and voted against bill 12 that country X dislikes. It is possible that country X has influence over the MP, but a clear quid pro pro could not be established”. The party leaders need to make a risk evaluation on what to do with it. In some cases it will be doing nothing and continuing to observe. It is impossible to adjudicate this kind of information in public.
Poilievre counts on an uninformed public to get away with “release the names”. He has been in parliament long enough to know that his demand cannot be implemented by the government. There is a reason for asking for something that you know is not possible. I cannot think of any benign reason .
You are absolutely correct in stating that PM Trudeau made partisan comments. I applaud him 100% for it. It’s long past time that Poilievre should be publicly shamed for his refusal to get a proper security clearance. Make it a big story, because what passes for journalism these days continues to obligingly avoid the issue.
PP's refusal to hold to ANY standard is NOT reason enough to hold Trudeau to one?!
COMPLETELY lost your perspective much Evan?
Pan out FFS.
NO ONE can fucking win when they're judged to be omniscient and all-powerful while simultaneously satan-adjacent! He's just a man, but the Liberals generally are by far and away good, serious people who above all else DO NOT bring Putin and propaganda to mind. HOWEVER, they are not only in government, but also one of the "parties" in competition in our system, and so are within bounds to flush out any and all "bush league" elements that disqualify the OTHER parties, especially the psycho, salivating, and lying asshole cons. We DID NOT used to call them that but now we do for a fucking REASON, as you bloody well KNOW.
You remain part of the problem Evan, i.e. part of the feeding frenzy, part of the depressingly stupid mob "mentality" in action, albeit more articulately and more at length than most.
Exactly what I was thinking. WTF are the parties reluctant to get down in the muck supposed to do in these times of disinformation? Continue to play by “the rules of decorum” that are no longer in effect? I’m not saying that everyone should reduce themselves to the lowest common denominator because that’s not going to help anyone. But surely they should be able to call out the behaviour of an adversary for what it is - blatant political maneuvering by a lifelong politician whose desperation to be PM seems to know no bounds. You can call JT’s testimony opportunistic if you want but this is still politics at the end of day. If the adversary is insistent on changing the way the game is played, you’ve got to figure out a way to respond effectively or make yourself irrelevant.
Regarding naming names, I think there’s a lot of scope for behavior that should require an MP to step down (or be pushed out) that isn’t necessarily illegal. Our ethics standards for representatives should be higher than “isn’t committing actively illegal acts”.
People do things all the time that are perfectly legal, to the point where any sort of legal investigation is ridiculous, but which should also be disqualifying from public office.
I also disagree strongly that the interests of the legal system take precedence here. Could naming names potentially interfere with prosecution? Maybe. But that entire argument implies that maybe not getting criminal convictions at some far future date is worse having the government influenced by foreign actors in the meantime
I would happily forfeit every possible conviction if the trade off was immediately, publicly, and transparently cleaning house
There are number of reasons why the names of these MPs and concerns regarding these MPs cannot be public, ever. It has nothing to do with on-going (criminal) investigations, but is related to nature of classified information.
First, protection of sources and methods. This is not a movie phrase, but very real. “Sources” are actual people. People who, in some cases, are risking their lives to help Canada. We owe it to these people, real persons, to keep information that could identify them secret.
Second, the information may not be ours to reveal. It is very likely that allies have shared this information with Canada. We cannot betray our allies by unilaterally releasing this info.
Third, the information will be nuanced, incomplete and sometimes incorrect. The party leaders need to make a risk evaluation on what to do with it. In some cases it will be doing nothing and continuing to observe. It is impossible to adjudicate this kind of information in public.
I keep hoping someone will dig into Poilievre's leadership campaign that had an unprecedented number of new Conservative Party members vote for him. This fact was surprising at the time, but how much more so now?
The CPC seems to be aligned with their fellow conservative Modi; Harper was/is a huge supporter of the Modi govt.
We must acknowledge that the politics of the Indian diaspora in Canada are off the charts re complexity and nuance. All three parties have been engaged for decades now. Serious shenanigans!
Poilievre screamed about alleged Chinese interference benefiting Libs, but then fell silent when attention shifted to Indian. Why?
And as long as Poilievre refuses security clearance, he maintains plausible deniability if evidence ever emerges that his leadership was tainted -- "I had no idea!"
Most of us have no idea what's been going on. Ah Canada, bless our naivete. Can we remain a trusting people?
So here's my question about the PP thing.
As I understand the rules, anyone who wants to read the particular report (can only be party leaders, of course) must sign national security commitments which bind one to not disclosing or commenting upon what they read. Therefore, if PP sees anything that is comment worthy he cannot speak on that subject. Do I have that right? If I am correct, then there is no point in PP reading the report as he cannot do anything with the information that he would receive.
Kinda reminds me of Joseph Heller's Catch 22.
Strange country we have here.
This is incorrect. Jagmeet Singh and Elisabeth May have shown how to do this.
But it all goes back to the purposes of the report. The purpose of the report is not to talk about it. The purpose of the report is to inform a leader if he should make a certain person a candidate, or critic, or which committees to appoint to. Not everything is partisan politics.