this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

7203 readers
136 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
31
Five key takeaways from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's testimony on foreign interference (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's an unusual axe to choose to grind during testimony. Take it from two former CSIS directors:

Richard Fadden and Ward Elcock — two former CSIS directors — told CBC News' Power & Politics on Wednesday that Trudeau probably shouldn't have taken such a partisan turn in his testimony.

"He lapsed into really extreme partisanship when he made this accusation and he made it in terms that could not help but enrage the Conservative leader. So that was his objective. I think it worked," Fadden told host David Cochrane.

"Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners' work? I'm not so sure."

Source: CBC - "Why won't Trudeau release classified names — and why won't Poilievre get a security clearance?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

“Did it advance the cause of national security? Did it advance the interest of the inquiry and the commissioners’ work? I’m not so sure.”

If it leads to Polievre getting his fucking security clearance, I would argue it does.

There would be no "partisan turn" to take if he would meet this basic expectation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I agree. Poilievre's choice to not be cleared, like many of his other choices and positions, is asinine and idiotic.

The Liberal talking point of, "if only Poilievre would get the clearance, we could get to work on fixing this" is also asinine.

It's worth remembering that the CSIS-briefed, PM-known issue of election interference predates Poilievre by 5 years, and a span of 2 federal elections, one of which the Liberals enjoyed a majority government. The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there's nothing they can do because Poilievre won't do something he's made clear he won't do. Trudeau and the Liberals have been happy to sit on their hands on this issue, for years, and it has left parliament vulnerable to foreign influence. That's uniquely Trudeau and the Liberals' fault, and they ought to be taken to task for that. It's a huge deal.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The Liberals are being insincere when they throw their hands up and say there’s nothing they can do because Poilievre won’t do something he’s made clear he won’t do.

I don't think they've said this?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Hours of logjammed question periods of Poilievre saying "release the names" and Liberals saying "get the clearance". Liberals are framing the issue around Poilievre's obstinance, in the house, and now in testimony to the Foreign Interference Commission. It's not honest.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There's already another article posted about this, but I would think the concerns around releasing classified information are self-evident.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Two elections have passed since the PM was briefed on election interference, and he knew about the issue for years before Poilievre was leader of the CPC. The fact that they're talking about Poilievre at all seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess I'm not sure what you think he should have done differently?

Like, this whole situation is a mess, and there's a mix of possible "foreign influence" in play, ranging from "unsuccessful attempts" to "this person is an active foreign agent," and it's all based on classified CSIS intelligence. And these people are still elected officials, so it's there more that even could be done beyond perhaps booting them out of caucus?

Surely we can agree that the situation isn't as straightforward as we'd like it to be.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It would be nice if the current Election Interference Commission was initiated 7 years ago, after the PM was first briefed on election interference. Instead they sat on numerous subsequent briefings, and allowed 2 federal elections to take place (one of which they themselves called) where the issue was unresolved, and it remains unresolved today.

What could they have done differently? I don't know, I'm not an elected policymaker. All I see is the result, where, there's this ominous list of compromised parliamentarians that, from the outside, it doesn't seem like there is anything being done about. A provably compromised MP is still sitting in the House. There doesn't appear to be any consequence or even disincentive for foreign nations to interfere in Canadian politics. A Canadian citizen was murdered on Canadian soil by the Indian government, and all it has resulted in are meek discussions and shuffling around of ambassadors. This is a very bad situation for Canadian sovereignty.

The solutions might not be straightforward, but we should be demanding that our government do better. It's not a partisan thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

Okay yeah, I fully agree that they could have started much sooner. Getting things done quickly isn't exactly the Liberals' forté.