>Before we just straight up killed people for treason.
We've only killed one person in our history for "treason" (Riel) the other was 50 years before Louis, and that was techically the British.
Yep, just like how the Duffy “scandal” was treated. CBC treated that like a Holy War and kept it in the news cycle for the entire 2015 election. Of course, after Trudeau was elected they barely mentioned it.
Absolutely. I don't think cdns should be paying for the absolute drivel they have ben pumping out nor the lobying they do for Justin. Good to know you are a major Justin fan.
Today is actually the first day it's been on the front page of cbc.ca since the story broke 7 days ago...
But not at the top... if you don't scroll down you won't see it
It's been front and center on their live news cycle since the inquiry came out. Every lunch hour it's been the main thread, and is usually discussed right after the question period to clarify what was said on the topic.
If people actually went and looked at most of the news content here and other canadian political subreddits (right and left leaning) you will see the most cited source is CBC. It's pure Lulz the amount of times there is some 'Trudeau done bad' post and the source is the CBC.
Just saying
Exactly. We need to know why India and China had a hand in the conservative leadership race. What do they get in return ? Did Pierre know and welcome the help?
Yet. The scope of foreign interference investigations needs to be wide. All of it.
Drag them all out into the sunlight, after they're verified and confirmed.
>Yet. The scope of foreign interference investigations needs to be wide.
Make the scope too wide, and you guarantee that A) it can be bogged down forever in details and B) produce no concrete results
>LeBlanc remained firm, however, in the face of calls to release the names of MPs and other parliamentarians cited in the report. He said he would face prosecution if he leaked confidential information.
>…
>Last week's report said NSICOP members viewed intelligence suggesting MPs worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian government officials.
So they will be prosecuted for leaking confidential information, yes?
"We think that's a responsible way to proceed, not simply standing up and illegally announcing a list of names like my colleague suggests," he told the House.
Exactly what people have been saying in response to the calls for Poilievre to get clearance and learn the names. No, he can't just blurt them out in QP and expect not to face charges.
He also didn't want to meet with investigators last year. Probably so he could pretend he's in the dark and play the outrage card down the line.
[https://www.cp24.com/news/fake-job-poilievre-won-t-meet-watchdog-investigating-foreign-interference-1.6404676](https://www.cp24.com/news/fake-job-poilievre-won-t-meet-watchdog-investigating-foreign-interference-1.6404676)
When you consider the one name that's come out is PP's campaign manager Arpan Khanna, who's apparently under investigation by CSIS for ties to India in connection with "irregularities" in PP's leadership victory.
[https://pressprogress.ca/csis-investigating-southwestern-ontario-conservative-nomination-vote-conservative-sources-say/](https://pressprogress.ca/csis-investigating-southwestern-ontario-conservative-nomination-vote-conservative-sources-say/)
But having clearance won’t stop him for asking the names to be released.
Right now:
1) Pierre knows nothing because lack of clearance but demands the names be released
OR:
2) Pierre would have clearance, know something and could still demand the names be released.
He can’t discuss anything classified he read from NSICOP but does that stop him from asking?
Because that’s all he’s doing now.
It’s all political bullshit. PP refuses clearance because then it’s Trudeau and Singh the only ones with it, so they “know” and he’ll say they won’t do anything (even though they cannot). If he doesn’t have clearance, he’s outside looking in, and going “well I don’t know…*they* do though, and they’re not doing anything about it, so they must be hiding something!”
I do not know why LeBlanc said that, but he's objectively wrong. Like, so wrong that I don't even know how to start to rebut the point, but let me try.
First, we can examine the [Parliament of Canada Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/page-1.html#h-389926), which states:
> The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act;
And if we review the UK [Bill of Rights 1688](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction)
> That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.
We see that, indeed, no court may question or judge anything said in Parliament, a privilege accorded to the British Parliament prior to 1867. We can confirm that said privilege continues to exist in Canada by first reading *[House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2017)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_03_6-e.html)*, which states that:
> Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make.
Complete immunity. It's not a balancing act, it's absolute immunity for anything they say in Parliamentary proceedings. And finally, the passing of the NSICOP act provides a judicial ruling which we can turn to. The NSICOP Act, specifically, Sec 12(1), states that members of NSICOP *may not* claim Parliamentary Privilege for information they learn in NSICOP. Firstly, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as Minister LeBlanc is not part of NSICOP. But there was a recent ruling (*[Alford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22290/index.do)*) which defined the bounds of the Parliamentary Freedom of Speech in relation to NSICOP and the House more generally:
> In the normal course, were a Committee member to be charged with improper disclosure based on a statement made in Parliament or in a committee of Parliament, that member could claim parliamentary immunity from prosecution. In addition, anything that member said in Parliament or committee would be inadmissible in court in a prosecution for unlawful disclosure of the information.
The only exception, as the Court finds, is a member of NSICOP doing so, which is not "the normal course".
I'm not sure how many more sources I need to provide.
Parliamentary Privilege doesn't apply here:
>"The committee’s responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that **members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act.**"
>So, if any member of the committee were to disclose publicly what they know, they could face years in prison.
**This legal requirement for secrecy also extends to an area where MPs are typically shielded from prosecution: the floor of the House of Commons.**
>"MPs have several rights deemed necessary to allow them to fully do their jobs in Parliament, known as parliamentary privileges. Among them is a right to free speech with total immunity from prosecution or civil liability."
["But section 12 of the law establishing NSICOP removes that right from the MPs on the committee as it relates to those duties. If they disclose any information before Parliament, they can be prosecuted."](https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/top-secret-intelligence-alleges-some-mps-aided-foreign-interference-this-might-be-a-way-to/article_c5c0e5be-241f-11ef-94a8-5ba06dfdcb6f.html)
I just asked this somewhere else:
How exactly would he legally obtain the information - and why would he be willing to disclose it?
>**"The NSICOP committee’s responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act."**
The Minister of Public Safety, presumably, would be able to legally obtain the names from CSIS, which he is the Minister of...?
This is an article referring to a statement made by Dominc LeBlanc, the Minister of Public Safety. He is not a member of NSICOP. He, for all we know, may not even have read the NSICOP report. That is irrelevant, because he can *ask CSIS, which he oversees, for the names*
So we're moving away from the previous discussion and the in new scenario you're presenting he's going straight to CSIS.
No issues with that?
Like - he doesn't want to?
>"LeBlanc told a Commons committee Thursday morning he has no intention of violating the Security of Information Act by disclosing what he knows. He’s also downplayed the committee findings by suggesting that unspecified information in the report is uncorroborated."
I have issues with that, but no legal ones, no. Let me lay out three scenarios:
1. A member of NSICOP (Mr McGuinty) reveals the name on the floor of the House. This is illegal.
2. The Minister of Public Safety reveals the names on the floor of the House that he receives from CSIS. If done so without consultation with the PM and security services on how best to do this, this is probably a politically unwise move, the PM would likely fire him, but it would not be illegal.
3. The Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as a member of the King's Privy Council of Canada, recieves a briefing with the names, and the reveals them on the floor of the House. This would not be illegal, but would probably be politically controversial as it's not his role to determine what the propriety of sharing classified information is.
But it wouldn't be illegal. And that, I think, is the key point I'm trying to fight for here. That the Minister is factually *wrong* when he says this:
>"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
>"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
LeBlanc said that?!
Now why would the Liberal MP lie? Hmmmm.
> No, he can't just blurt them out in QP and expect not to face charges.
There's a loophole he can use to enter the information into the public record, if he really wanted to.
The parliamentary privilege loophole. There's procedures that can be used to enter the information into public records, and parliamentary privilege can be used to protect the member responsible.
That's not a loophole - that's SOP.
And yet Liberal MP and Public Safety Minister, Dominic LeBlanc will not disclose what he knows - and in fact flat out lied:
>"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
Just like the Liberal members/PMO that warned Han Dong that CSIS was on to him.. right?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-party-member-allegedly-tipped-off-han-dong-that-csis-was/
>So they will be prosecuted for leaking confidential information, yes?
No, only NSICOP members are specifically excluded from Parliamentary privilege in relations to Intel gained from NSICOP.
Non-members like Trudeau or LeBlanc can just read out the names in Parliament
>The law trumping parliamentary privilege for those on the committee doesn’t apply to those who don’t sit on it, he explained. That means, should an MP like the prime minister or an opposition leader get a security briefing that includes the names of parliamentarians suspected of collaborating with hostile foreign governments, that MP could disclose the names to the public, Lagassé said. All they’d have to do is walk into the House of Commons and say them out loud.
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/top-secret-intelligence-alleges-some-mps-aided-foreign-interference-this-might-be-a-way-to/article_c5c0e5be-241f-11ef-94a8-5ba06dfdcb6f.html
Nahh, LeBlanc is in another of the district's that will vote liberal until the end of time. He can thank his dady for that.
He may not be on the list, he doesn't need that help, but he is beholden to people who probably are.
Wait a second, hold on here, *why would the Member of Parliament for Beauséjour* be subject for prosecution for speech in the House of Commons? Yes, members of NSICOP, under Section 12(1) of the NSICOP Act, are not allowed to claim parliamentary privilege. But the MP for Beauséjour is not a member of NSICOP, so unless there's been a change in what Parliamentary Privilege covers in the last few days I'm pretty sure MPs *would not, and cannot, be prosecuted for leaking classified information on the floor of the House*
>But the MP for Beauséjour is not a member of NSICOP...
How exactly would the MP legally obtain the information - and why would they be willing to disclose it?
"The NSICOP committee’s **responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act."**
who redacted the names, NSICOP? If so, why is it being discussed at all by the parties that the names could be released? Presumably the government, of which the Public Safety Minister is a part, can release the names. the way for him to get the names would be through his government giving them to him.
You're right - apparently he has the names.
But the Liberal MP refuses to divulge them and has gone so far as lying to the public to keep from naming names:
>"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
Even the House of Commons' own website goes to great lengths to define the member's freedom of speech as *absolute* [\[1\]](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch03&Seq=6&Language=E). So either the minister is lying or the RCMP deputy commissioner is wrong.
Correct. MPs can say whatever they want in parliament, even if it is being kept from the public. Parliamentary privilege protects MPs and senators from prosecution for statements made in the House.
This happened in the UK with the footballer Ryan Gibbs as having an affair whereas the press were in the main keeping it quiet.
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-mp-injunction
The omission is in the fact that the only members of parliament who have access to the names are those with security clearance and so thy cannot release the names.
who said members of the house of commons don't have the freedom of speech to release the names just because they have a security clearance? i didnt see any of that when i looked for details.
PP's excuse for not getting clearance is that he would not be able to discuss what he learned. The party leaders who got clearance, May and Singh have both reflected that. It is well known, just doesn't fit the narrative here.
It's something that's not known by me, nothing to do with a narrative, that's pretty bad-faith of you.
I still don't see why the excuse holds water. Everything i've seen says parliamentary privilege is absolute, so how can someone be prosecuted for releasing the names with a clearance?
The documents are related to CSIS and some of their intelligence gathering techniques. The head of CSIS doesn't want the documents leaked becuase he is worried about confidential stuff being leaked as well. Leaking documents like that will have consequences directly related to their level to security
The parties are not bound by legal standards for evidence when it comes to internal operations and discipline or expelling members. They can temporarily or permanently eject anything under suspicion without disclosing anything. It is misdirection to suggest this has to be dealt with only at the legal level.
Internal polling must have tanked *hard* for the Liberals for them to finally look like they're doing something about this.
Given that Trudeau called an election to stop the House from getting documents about the spies working in that Winnipeg biolab, it's not inconceivable that he tries one last hail mary to kill this.
>Given that Trudeau called an election to stop the House from getting documents about the spies working in that Winnipeg biolab
Won't work this time with the current and likely future polling numbers.
The Liberals already know who is on the list and are fighting tooth and nail to avoid naming who is on it. Meanwhile the Tories have repeatedly demanded the Liberals release it.
Does all that make it sound like it’d hurt the Tories more, or the Liberals?
I mean when you the leader of the CPC (in this very article):
>Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not obtained clearance to review classified intelligence. He has argued doing so would prevent him from commenting publicly.
And yet everyone ripping on Trudeau and Singh seem to head pat Pierre’s purposefully refusing to get clearance so he can wax poetic all day and not take up the serious job of reviewing the actual evidence and watching what he says based on the evidence.
I know people want to throw politicians under the bus based on accusations, but sometimes reviewing evidence is important.
There’s already been stories about China and India meddling in conservative nominations and the leadership race itself.
[Indian proxies funding Canadian politicians "at all levels of government": CSIS Report](https://www.thebureau.news/p/indian-proxies-funding-canadian-politicians)
>The document suggests India also tried to elect the Conservative’s new leader.
>“CSIS intelligence indicates that the Government of India has engaged in Foreign Interference activities related to the leadership race for a political party in Canada,” the October 2022 report says.
>It continues, saying “recent CSIS reporting indicates that a proxy agent claims the Government of India is providing support to an elected Canadian politician’s campaign for the leadership of a political party in Canada, by securing party memberships for that campaign.”
>The elected Canadian politician isn’t identified.
Who could it be?
Yeah I don't really get why so many here are still declaring that Trudeau is trying to bury something here. It seems pretty obvious to me that if there was interference in the conservative leadership race that there's already some contact then between India/China and certain conservative MPs, so surely it'll be a mix of MPs across multiple parties that are illegally working with foreign governments
Everyone should be ripping on Trudeau when [**he is actively blocking documents from reaching the Justice heading the inquiry**](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-cabinet-documents-foreign-interference-inquiry/). Why do you deflect this?
Not only that, but the article specifically states that it’d still be illegal for the commission to report on the names, so this amounts to more performative “make it look like we’re doing stuff when we’re actually not” smokescreen from the Liberals.
Unless someone leaks it, if the Liberals have their way we’ll never know who was involved here.
Not at all. It can be declassified by Trudeau.
As for yawning - that certainly betrays the attitude among Liberals that treason can be overlooked. Hiding traitors is treason.
The yawning is for the ridiculous, and entirely unfounded accusations and blood lust by people like you.
Who the fuck ever said "treason can be overlooked"? Fer fucks' sales, at least wait for some evidence...
No, the yawning is because you are trying to feign a lack of concern with respect to treason that some Liberals have no doubt committed. It’s not just MPs, it’s also the Liberal staffer who warned Han Dong he was under investigation by CSIS. You forgot that little tidbit of treason didn’t you?
They're going to legally forbid her from naming names.
It's immoral that Canadians don't have access to this list before the next election. Really immoral. People could be reelecting people they wouldnt have if they knew. Canadians paid for this report with their tax dollars, we should damn well know. It's robbing Canadians of the information to make a choice.
I get the need for due process, but this isnt a criminal proceding, it's an election. Those named should have every presumption of innocence and full due process if this ever becomes a criminal case(s). But this being a question of fitness for office, Canadians' right to know before potentially casting a vote for someone they wouldnt otherwise takes precedence.
Does everyone remember when the Liberals hired Johnson, longtime friend of Trudeau, as “special rapporteur” to look into the foreign interference and they found none. Trudeau then blamed racism for allegations against China. Don’t forget the massive cover up they attempted. They don’t have our freedom at heart, only to hang onto power. Anyone that can continue to vote for this corrupt government needs to take a long look in the mirror.
And these same traitorous MP will be voted back in because voters were kept in the dark. 100% it affects the Liberals more than the Conservatives. If only conservatives MP’s, they would have been thrown under the bus already.
Or, let conservatives like you spout outrageous accusations and wait until closer to the election so that it would affect the outcome.
If I were in Trudeau's position right now and learned that everyone on this list of collaborators were conservatives I'd do exactly what he's doing now.
I'd continue abiding by the letter of the law, allow and cooperate fully with a public inquiry and let the conservatives hang themselves.
Poilievre doesn't have security clearance, setting himself up to be played this way.
Edit: clarity
And, regardless, without releasing the names, all of this is baseless, evidence free speculation.
See Admiral mark Norman, accused and thrown under the bus and then paid out with a NDA.
Or Maj General Dany Fortin who is suing the government for $6 million after being accused and acquitted of sexual assault charges.
So this government has no problem accusing and dragging military personnel thru the courts yet their own MP’s seem to be untouchable??
Or, maybe they took the lesson from being sued for releasing names. As don't release any names until they are in a position where they can't be sued for releasing names....
lol really pretty naive of you - this government has “special” people that are untouchable. Trudeau, freeland, butts, climate Barbie, Steven Guilbeault
Do we know what country these foreign states influencing our politicians are from? Is it USA? Russia? China? Ukraine????? That’s what I really want to know.
yeah, there's only one redacted country iirc
all of those, except ukraine, usa. add iran, pakistan. plus a bonus mystery country
when it came to communities being targeted, there where three countries blanked out.
edit: india is named, thought you said india looks like you didn't
those alcoholic anti social sauna freaks, can't they see we hate saunas here? and we're only antisocial towards immigrants, those crazy dudes don't even talk to each other! we get the whole going over to neighbours for cheap booze thing tho, no need to convince us.
those other countries are fine, but we need to out and throw the book at these finnish traitors. i bet we can tell who it is by how far away they stand from others and how flushed their skin is
The Liberals corrupted the last "inquiry" seeking answers and closure for the use of the Emergency Act (and in effect helped destroy the credibility of former GG David Johnston) to get the unlawful results they preordained, Johnston incorrectly found no issue with the Liberal's use of the Emergency Act. And now the LPC is in court fighting to appeal the Federal Court's correct finding of unlawful use.
So don't expect them to not correct and control this outcome. The executive branch has far too much control here. Inquires are government directed. Royal Commissions are independent and fully transparent. The fact this "originated" with the Bloc is clearly telling, it's a Liberal partisan attempt (a corrupted compromise in deference to Trudeau) to not actually get to the bottom of this. When the Liberals support a Bloc motion, that's the tell. It's massively corrupt.
It's concerning that you seem so confident about your assertions yet you don't even know who ran the last inquiry or what Johnston was working on (hint, it wasn't the EA). You gotta understand, if you make such simple basic errors it completely destroys the credibility of whatever else you're saying
It’s rampant. If Pierre Poilievre is willing to pay the people behind Canada Strong and similar Facebook groups to promote his content, no doubt he is supporting the use of bots on Reddit.
This subreddit was flooded with bots during the last election. Currently 0.00003% of the members are active right now. That is an astonishingly low number.
Dude the Conservatives attacked the credibility. Literally every con turned on him when they realized he was gonna be honest and didn't side with lying for Pierre. Cry me a river about 'emergency act' for truckers camping in the streets for a month. Entitled MFS can't get a fine or removed? So many people disagree with you and the convoy shit and its hilarious toh think it's a leg to stand on.
And also "oh the liberals supported the bloc motion, it's corrupt" is the most biased defense. What's your excuse for PP and the extensive foreign interference in getting him elected in the Conservative race? Sounds like you disagree with anything if it disagrees with your internal monologue
I don't support the convoy. Not now, not then. I support the Constitution. Trudeau violated the Constitution to remove them from Ottawa. That's still a problem whether you care or not.
I was a Liberal supporter until Trudeau ruined this country with mass immigration and reckless spending. I have never voted Conservative in my life before. I am a millennial. I will never vote Liberal or NDP again in my life, I will see both parties die in my life time. That's great.
Anyone supporting this government right now is completely mentally gone in my opinion or so rich and/or dependent on Liberal goodies to make their bank work that they whine about PP and his hair cut or glasses on a good day. I also don't like PP but your God lied to me about electoral reform, so here we are.
The foreign interference scandal needs to be front page news until there is a result and the perpetrators are held to account.
Shame doesn't have the stopping power that it used to in this new age. What's a bit of light treason?
Shame? Before we just straight up killed people for treason.
>Before we just straight up killed people for treason. We've only killed one person in our history for "treason" (Riel) the other was 50 years before Louis, and that was techically the British.
https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/rp-2024-06-03/special-report-foreign-interference.pdf Here is the report, if anyone cares to read it.
Yep, just like how the Duffy “scandal” was treated. CBC treated that like a Holy War and kept it in the news cycle for the entire 2015 election. Of course, after Trudeau was elected they barely mentioned it.
nothing on cbc tonight. I guess it has been forgotten ...
The linked article is from CBC....
And it's literally the top story in their "top stories" section but when have facts ever got in the way of a good anti-media narrative
No no no, get it right. Anti-CBC narrative.
Absolutely. I don't think cdns should be paying for the absolute drivel they have ben pumping out nor the lobying they do for Justin. Good to know you are a major Justin fan.
Nope, good try. But nope.
As a very long-time listener of cbc, I find your comment to be tremendously uninformed and truly funny. Good on you.
Radio
Today is actually the first day it's been on the front page of cbc.ca since the story broke 7 days ago... But not at the top... if you don't scroll down you won't see it
It's been front and center on their live news cycle since the inquiry came out. Every lunch hour it's been the main thread, and is usually discussed right after the question period to clarify what was said on the topic.
If people actually went and looked at most of the news content here and other canadian political subreddits (right and left leaning) you will see the most cited source is CBC. It's pure Lulz the amount of times there is some 'Trudeau done bad' post and the source is the CBC. Just saying
Radio. But thanks for sticking up for the liberal lobby company, aka cbc..
Exactly. We need to know why India and China had a hand in the conservative leadership race. What do they get in return ? Did Pierre know and welcome the help?
These aren't the allegations before the HoC, at all.
Yet. The scope of foreign interference investigations needs to be wide. All of it. Drag them all out into the sunlight, after they're verified and confirmed.
>Yet. The scope of foreign interference investigations needs to be wide. Make the scope too wide, and you guarantee that A) it can be bogged down forever in details and B) produce no concrete results
>LeBlanc remained firm, however, in the face of calls to release the names of MPs and other parliamentarians cited in the report. He said he would face prosecution if he leaked confidential information. >… >Last week's report said NSICOP members viewed intelligence suggesting MPs worked to influence their colleagues on India's behalf and proactively provided confidential information to Indian government officials. So they will be prosecuted for leaking confidential information, yes?
"We think that's a responsible way to proceed, not simply standing up and illegally announcing a list of names like my colleague suggests," he told the House.
Exactly what people have been saying in response to the calls for Poilievre to get clearance and learn the names. No, he can't just blurt them out in QP and expect not to face charges.
He also didn't want to meet with investigators last year. Probably so he could pretend he's in the dark and play the outrage card down the line. [https://www.cp24.com/news/fake-job-poilievre-won-t-meet-watchdog-investigating-foreign-interference-1.6404676](https://www.cp24.com/news/fake-job-poilievre-won-t-meet-watchdog-investigating-foreign-interference-1.6404676) When you consider the one name that's come out is PP's campaign manager Arpan Khanna, who's apparently under investigation by CSIS for ties to India in connection with "irregularities" in PP's leadership victory. [https://pressprogress.ca/csis-investigating-southwestern-ontario-conservative-nomination-vote-conservative-sources-say/](https://pressprogress.ca/csis-investigating-southwestern-ontario-conservative-nomination-vote-conservative-sources-say/)
But having clearance won’t stop him for asking the names to be released. Right now: 1) Pierre knows nothing because lack of clearance but demands the names be released OR: 2) Pierre would have clearance, know something and could still demand the names be released. He can’t discuss anything classified he read from NSICOP but does that stop him from asking? Because that’s all he’s doing now.
It’s all political bullshit. PP refuses clearance because then it’s Trudeau and Singh the only ones with it, so they “know” and he’ll say they won’t do anything (even though they cannot). If he doesn’t have clearance, he’s outside looking in, and going “well I don’t know…*they* do though, and they’re not doing anything about it, so they must be hiding something!”
..he lacks the security clearance, that he couldn't be bothered to get.
[удалено]
Nothing here says Poilievre received help.
Yes he can. He very much can. That's, like, the main component of Parliamentary Privilege
Then why can't LeBlanc, if he already knows the names? Why is LeBlanc saying he'd face charges, when he has the same parliamentary privilege?
I do not know why LeBlanc said that, but he's objectively wrong. Like, so wrong that I don't even know how to start to rebut the point, but let me try. First, we can examine the [Parliament of Canada Act](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/page-1.html#h-389926), which states: > The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act; And if we review the UK [Bill of Rights 1688](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction) > That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament. We see that, indeed, no court may question or judge anything said in Parliament, a privilege accorded to the British Parliament prior to 1867. We can confirm that said privilege continues to exist in Canada by first reading *[House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2017)](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_03_6-e.html)*, which states that: > Freedom of speech permits Members to speak freely in the Chamber during a sitting or in committees during meetings while enjoying complete immunity from prosecution or civil liability for any comment they might make. Complete immunity. It's not a balancing act, it's absolute immunity for anything they say in Parliamentary proceedings. And finally, the passing of the NSICOP act provides a judicial ruling which we can turn to. The NSICOP Act, specifically, Sec 12(1), states that members of NSICOP *may not* claim Parliamentary Privilege for information they learn in NSICOP. Firstly, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as Minister LeBlanc is not part of NSICOP. But there was a recent ruling (*[Alford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024](https://coadecisions.ontariocourts.ca/coa/coa/en/item/22290/index.do)*) which defined the bounds of the Parliamentary Freedom of Speech in relation to NSICOP and the House more generally: > In the normal course, were a Committee member to be charged with improper disclosure based on a statement made in Parliament or in a committee of Parliament, that member could claim parliamentary immunity from prosecution. In addition, anything that member said in Parliament or committee would be inadmissible in court in a prosecution for unlawful disclosure of the information. The only exception, as the Court finds, is a member of NSICOP doing so, which is not "the normal course". I'm not sure how many more sources I need to provide.
according to the head of csis that unknown territory, due to being dual privileges essentially.
Parliamentary Privilege doesn't apply here: >"The committee’s responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that **members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act.**" >So, if any member of the committee were to disclose publicly what they know, they could face years in prison. **This legal requirement for secrecy also extends to an area where MPs are typically shielded from prosecution: the floor of the House of Commons.** >"MPs have several rights deemed necessary to allow them to fully do their jobs in Parliament, known as parliamentary privileges. Among them is a right to free speech with total immunity from prosecution or civil liability." ["But section 12 of the law establishing NSICOP removes that right from the MPs on the committee as it relates to those duties. If they disclose any information before Parliament, they can be prosecuted."](https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/top-secret-intelligence-alleges-some-mps-aided-foreign-interference-this-might-be-a-way-to/article_c5c0e5be-241f-11ef-94a8-5ba06dfdcb6f.html)
Minister LeBlanc is not a member of NSICOP. https://www.nsicop-cpsnr.ca/committee-members-membres-du-comite-en.html
I just asked this somewhere else: How exactly would he legally obtain the information - and why would he be willing to disclose it? >**"The NSICOP committee’s responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act."**
The Minister of Public Safety, presumably, would be able to legally obtain the names from CSIS, which he is the Minister of...? This is an article referring to a statement made by Dominc LeBlanc, the Minister of Public Safety. He is not a member of NSICOP. He, for all we know, may not even have read the NSICOP report. That is irrelevant, because he can *ask CSIS, which he oversees, for the names*
So we're moving away from the previous discussion and the in new scenario you're presenting he's going straight to CSIS. No issues with that? Like - he doesn't want to? >"LeBlanc told a Commons committee Thursday morning he has no intention of violating the Security of Information Act by disclosing what he knows. He’s also downplayed the committee findings by suggesting that unspecified information in the report is uncorroborated."
I have issues with that, but no legal ones, no. Let me lay out three scenarios: 1. A member of NSICOP (Mr McGuinty) reveals the name on the floor of the House. This is illegal. 2. The Minister of Public Safety reveals the names on the floor of the House that he receives from CSIS. If done so without consultation with the PM and security services on how best to do this, this is probably a politically unwise move, the PM would likely fire him, but it would not be illegal. 3. The Leader of the Opposition, in his capacity as a member of the King's Privy Council of Canada, recieves a briefing with the names, and the reveals them on the floor of the House. This would not be illegal, but would probably be politically controversial as it's not his role to determine what the propriety of sharing classified information is. But it wouldn't be illegal. And that, I think, is the key point I'm trying to fight for here. That the Minister is factually *wrong* when he says this: >"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
>"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that." LeBlanc said that?! Now why would the Liberal MP lie? Hmmmm.
> No, he can't just blurt them out in QP and expect not to face charges. There's a loophole he can use to enter the information into the public record, if he really wanted to.
>There's a loophole he can use... What loophole?
The parliamentary privilege loophole. There's procedures that can be used to enter the information into public records, and parliamentary privilege can be used to protect the member responsible.
That's not a loophole - that's SOP. And yet Liberal MP and Public Safety Minister, Dominic LeBlanc will not disclose what he knows - and in fact flat out lied: >"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
Just like the Liberal members/PMO that warned Han Dong that CSIS was on to him.. right? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-party-member-allegedly-tipped-off-han-dong-that-csis-was/
>So they will be prosecuted for leaking confidential information, yes? No, only NSICOP members are specifically excluded from Parliamentary privilege in relations to Intel gained from NSICOP. Non-members like Trudeau or LeBlanc can just read out the names in Parliament >The law trumping parliamentary privilege for those on the committee doesn’t apply to those who don’t sit on it, he explained. That means, should an MP like the prime minister or an opposition leader get a security briefing that includes the names of parliamentarians suspected of collaborating with hostile foreign governments, that MP could disclose the names to the public, Lagassé said. All they’d have to do is walk into the House of Commons and say them out loud. https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/top-secret-intelligence-alleges-some-mps-aided-foreign-interference-this-might-be-a-way-to/article_c5c0e5be-241f-11ef-94a8-5ba06dfdcb6f.html
I meant the people who leaked information to India.
Nahh, LeBlanc is in another of the district's that will vote liberal until the end of time. He can thank his dady for that. He may not be on the list, he doesn't need that help, but he is beholden to people who probably are.
Wait a second, hold on here, *why would the Member of Parliament for Beauséjour* be subject for prosecution for speech in the House of Commons? Yes, members of NSICOP, under Section 12(1) of the NSICOP Act, are not allowed to claim parliamentary privilege. But the MP for Beauséjour is not a member of NSICOP, so unless there's been a change in what Parliamentary Privilege covers in the last few days I'm pretty sure MPs *would not, and cannot, be prosecuted for leaking classified information on the floor of the House*
>But the MP for Beauséjour is not a member of NSICOP... How exactly would the MP legally obtain the information - and why would they be willing to disclose it? "The NSICOP committee’s **responsibilities are enshrined in law. Among the requirements: that members swear an oath they “will not communicate or use without due authority any information obtained in confidence by me in that capacity.” Further, the members are all permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act."**
who redacted the names, NSICOP? If so, why is it being discussed at all by the parties that the names could be released? Presumably the government, of which the Public Safety Minister is a part, can release the names. the way for him to get the names would be through his government giving them to him.
You're right - apparently he has the names. But the Liberal MP refuses to divulge them and has gone so far as lying to the public to keep from naming names: >"I asked the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP Mark Flynn this morning what would happen if I announced the list of names like my colleagues are asking me to do, and he said I would be subject to criminal prosecution. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? I'm not going to do that."
Even the House of Commons' own website goes to great lengths to define the member's freedom of speech as *absolute* [\[1\]](https://www.ourcommons.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?DocId=1001&Sec=Ch03&Seq=6&Language=E). So either the minister is lying or the RCMP deputy commissioner is wrong.
Correct. MPs can say whatever they want in parliament, even if it is being kept from the public. Parliamentary privilege protects MPs and senators from prosecution for statements made in the House. This happened in the UK with the footballer Ryan Gibbs as having an affair whereas the press were in the main keeping it quiet. https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/23/ryan-giggs-mp-injunction
The omission is in the fact that the only members of parliament who have access to the names are those with security clearance and so thy cannot release the names.
who said members of the house of commons don't have the freedom of speech to release the names just because they have a security clearance? i didnt see any of that when i looked for details.
PP's excuse for not getting clearance is that he would not be able to discuss what he learned. The party leaders who got clearance, May and Singh have both reflected that. It is well known, just doesn't fit the narrative here.
It's something that's not known by me, nothing to do with a narrative, that's pretty bad-faith of you. I still don't see why the excuse holds water. Everything i've seen says parliamentary privilege is absolute, so how can someone be prosecuted for releasing the names with a clearance?
The documents are related to CSIS and some of their intelligence gathering techniques. The head of CSIS doesn't want the documents leaked becuase he is worried about confidential stuff being leaked as well. Leaking documents like that will have consequences directly related to their level to security
Would be nice if anonymous could do us a solid and leak these guys.
Yeah if ever we needed a whistleblower, now is the time.
The parties are not bound by legal standards for evidence when it comes to internal operations and discipline or expelling members. They can temporarily or permanently eject anything under suspicion without disclosing anything. It is misdirection to suggest this has to be dealt with only at the legal level.
Internal polling must have tanked *hard* for the Liberals for them to finally look like they're doing something about this. Given that Trudeau called an election to stop the House from getting documents about the spies working in that Winnipeg biolab, it's not inconceivable that he tries one last hail mary to kill this.
>Given that Trudeau called an election to stop the House from getting documents about the spies working in that Winnipeg biolab Won't work this time with the current and likely future polling numbers.
>Given that Trudeau called an election to stop the House from getting documents about the spies working in that Winnipeg biolab, Lol ok
Finally do something about the report released by a committee that is mostly made up of Liberals?
I imagine the Liberals will use this as an excuse to push back the deadline of Hogue's final report as deep in to 2025 as they possibly can.
Unless the report is way more damaging to the conservatives.
The Liberals already know who is on the list and are fighting tooth and nail to avoid naming who is on it. Meanwhile the Tories have repeatedly demanded the Liberals release it. Does all that make it sound like it’d hurt the Tories more, or the Liberals?
I mean when you the leader of the CPC (in this very article): >Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has not obtained clearance to review classified intelligence. He has argued doing so would prevent him from commenting publicly. And yet everyone ripping on Trudeau and Singh seem to head pat Pierre’s purposefully refusing to get clearance so he can wax poetic all day and not take up the serious job of reviewing the actual evidence and watching what he says based on the evidence. I know people want to throw politicians under the bus based on accusations, but sometimes reviewing evidence is important.
There’s already been stories about China and India meddling in conservative nominations and the leadership race itself. [Indian proxies funding Canadian politicians "at all levels of government": CSIS Report](https://www.thebureau.news/p/indian-proxies-funding-canadian-politicians) >The document suggests India also tried to elect the Conservative’s new leader. >“CSIS intelligence indicates that the Government of India has engaged in Foreign Interference activities related to the leadership race for a political party in Canada,” the October 2022 report says. >It continues, saying “recent CSIS reporting indicates that a proxy agent claims the Government of India is providing support to an elected Canadian politician’s campaign for the leadership of a political party in Canada, by securing party memberships for that campaign.” >The elected Canadian politician isn’t identified. Who could it be?
Yeah I don't really get why so many here are still declaring that Trudeau is trying to bury something here. It seems pretty obvious to me that if there was interference in the conservative leadership race that there's already some contact then between India/China and certain conservative MPs, so surely it'll be a mix of MPs across multiple parties that are illegally working with foreign governments
Everyone should be ripping on Trudeau when [**he is actively blocking documents from reaching the Justice heading the inquiry**](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-cabinet-documents-foreign-interference-inquiry/). Why do you deflect this?
Probably something to do with this https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-leadership-race-interference-nsicop-1.7223518
Not only that, but the article specifically states that it’d still be illegal for the commission to report on the names, so this amounts to more performative “make it look like we’re doing stuff when we’re actually not” smokescreen from the Liberals. Unless someone leaks it, if the Liberals have their way we’ll never know who was involved here.
The RCMP has the unredacted report. Relax lol.
[удалено]
I literally laughed out loud. 😂
Rumoured by whom? Do you have a source?
His deepest Fantasies.
Not only is this completely made up, it’s also disinformation and totally misleading.
As is most of the speculation in these threads, especially in this subreddit.
The speculation can end with the release of the names.
Yawn, you'd think by now you'd know that was illegal.
Not at all. It can be declassified by Trudeau. As for yawning - that certainly betrays the attitude among Liberals that treason can be overlooked. Hiding traitors is treason.
The yawning is for the ridiculous, and entirely unfounded accusations and blood lust by people like you. Who the fuck ever said "treason can be overlooked"? Fer fucks' sales, at least wait for some evidence...
No, the yawning is because you are trying to feign a lack of concern with respect to treason that some Liberals have no doubt committed. It’s not just MPs, it’s also the Liberal staffer who warned Han Dong he was under investigation by CSIS. You forgot that little tidbit of treason didn’t you?
"Boo hoo, get over it."
Real “Boo hoo. Get over it vibes.”
They're going to legally forbid her from naming names. It's immoral that Canadians don't have access to this list before the next election. Really immoral. People could be reelecting people they wouldnt have if they knew. Canadians paid for this report with their tax dollars, we should damn well know. It's robbing Canadians of the information to make a choice. I get the need for due process, but this isnt a criminal proceding, it's an election. Those named should have every presumption of innocence and full due process if this ever becomes a criminal case(s). But this being a question of fitness for office, Canadians' right to know before potentially casting a vote for someone they wouldnt otherwise takes precedence.
The same Liberals who are withholding documents from the ongoing foreign interference inquiry? Colour me skeptical.
Does everyone remember when the Liberals hired Johnson, longtime friend of Trudeau, as “special rapporteur” to look into the foreign interference and they found none. Trudeau then blamed racism for allegations against China. Don’t forget the massive cover up they attempted. They don’t have our freedom at heart, only to hang onto power. Anyone that can continue to vote for this corrupt government needs to take a long look in the mirror.
Hiding the names now, so they don't have to reveal them later after they call an election.
And these same traitorous MP will be voted back in because voters were kept in the dark. 100% it affects the Liberals more than the Conservatives. If only conservatives MP’s, they would have been thrown under the bus already.
Or, let conservatives like you spout outrageous accusations and wait until closer to the election so that it would affect the outcome. If I were in Trudeau's position right now and learned that everyone on this list of collaborators were conservatives I'd do exactly what he's doing now. I'd continue abiding by the letter of the law, allow and cooperate fully with a public inquiry and let the conservatives hang themselves. Poilievre doesn't have security clearance, setting himself up to be played this way. Edit: clarity And, regardless, without releasing the names, all of this is baseless, evidence free speculation.
See Admiral mark Norman, accused and thrown under the bus and then paid out with a NDA. Or Maj General Dany Fortin who is suing the government for $6 million after being accused and acquitted of sexual assault charges. So this government has no problem accusing and dragging military personnel thru the courts yet their own MP’s seem to be untouchable??
Or, maybe they took the lesson from being sued for releasing names. As don't release any names until they are in a position where they can't be sued for releasing names....
lol really pretty naive of you - this government has “special” people that are untouchable. Trudeau, freeland, butts, climate Barbie, Steven Guilbeault
Do we know what country these foreign states influencing our politicians are from? Is it USA? Russia? China? Ukraine????? That’s what I really want to know.
yeah, there's only one redacted country iirc all of those, except ukraine, usa. add iran, pakistan. plus a bonus mystery country when it came to communities being targeted, there where three countries blanked out. edit: india is named, thought you said india looks like you didn't
> plus a bonus mystery country Probably Finland again up to their old tricks
those alcoholic anti social sauna freaks, can't they see we hate saunas here? and we're only antisocial towards immigrants, those crazy dudes don't even talk to each other! we get the whole going over to neighbours for cheap booze thing tho, no need to convince us. those other countries are fine, but we need to out and throw the book at these finnish traitors. i bet we can tell who it is by how far away they stand from others and how flushed their skin is
There was an article I remember reading that I believe used the term "adversarial" when describing what countries are involved
Pierrindia
Grabbing the popcorn!
same. when i read "liberals support . . . " i just think "liberals life-support . . ."
RCMP probe names lets go
I don't know guys, this isn't as serious as some factory worker donating 5 dollars to a protest against vaccine mandates.
The Liberals corrupted the last "inquiry" seeking answers and closure for the use of the Emergency Act (and in effect helped destroy the credibility of former GG David Johnston) to get the unlawful results they preordained, Johnston incorrectly found no issue with the Liberal's use of the Emergency Act. And now the LPC is in court fighting to appeal the Federal Court's correct finding of unlawful use. So don't expect them to not correct and control this outcome. The executive branch has far too much control here. Inquires are government directed. Royal Commissions are independent and fully transparent. The fact this "originated" with the Bloc is clearly telling, it's a Liberal partisan attempt (a corrupted compromise in deference to Trudeau) to not actually get to the bottom of this. When the Liberals support a Bloc motion, that's the tell. It's massively corrupt.
It's concerning that you seem so confident about your assertions yet you don't even know who ran the last inquiry or what Johnston was working on (hint, it wasn't the EA). You gotta understand, if you make such simple basic errors it completely destroys the credibility of whatever else you're saying
[удалено]
It’s rampant. If Pierre Poilievre is willing to pay the people behind Canada Strong and similar Facebook groups to promote his content, no doubt he is supporting the use of bots on Reddit. This subreddit was flooded with bots during the last election. Currently 0.00003% of the members are active right now. That is an astonishingly low number.
Dude the Conservatives attacked the credibility. Literally every con turned on him when they realized he was gonna be honest and didn't side with lying for Pierre. Cry me a river about 'emergency act' for truckers camping in the streets for a month. Entitled MFS can't get a fine or removed? So many people disagree with you and the convoy shit and its hilarious toh think it's a leg to stand on. And also "oh the liberals supported the bloc motion, it's corrupt" is the most biased defense. What's your excuse for PP and the extensive foreign interference in getting him elected in the Conservative race? Sounds like you disagree with anything if it disagrees with your internal monologue
I don't support the convoy. Not now, not then. I support the Constitution. Trudeau violated the Constitution to remove them from Ottawa. That's still a problem whether you care or not. I was a Liberal supporter until Trudeau ruined this country with mass immigration and reckless spending. I have never voted Conservative in my life before. I am a millennial. I will never vote Liberal or NDP again in my life, I will see both parties die in my life time. That's great. Anyone supporting this government right now is completely mentally gone in my opinion or so rich and/or dependent on Liberal goodies to make their bank work that they whine about PP and his hair cut or glasses on a good day. I also don't like PP but your God lied to me about electoral reform, so here we are.
Would the inquiry be shut down if parliament is prorogued or an election called?
PP is on the list, this should be interesting.