Trust in our Institutions

[dimsum]

Singh weighs in:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6410969

 

[RangerRay]

Singh weighs in:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6410969

One of the few times I agree with him. If only I believed him given his previous aiding the government in stonewalling the China committee investigations. Even more shameful coupled with the CCP’s targeting of Jenny Kwan.

 

[KevinB]

I think we’re arguing the same thing.

The false documentation alleged wasn’t the age or the citizenship (or lack thereof), it was that they weren’t from his district - because it was an internal LPC candidate election.

TIL that non-citizens can vote in those.

But why can they? If they can’t vote in an election why should they be allowed to vote for a specific candidate

 

[The Bread Guy]

But why can they? If they can’t vote in an election why should they be allowed to vote for a specific candidate

Because the election rules are set by government, while the nomination rules are set by the individual parties. That's part of the discussion about whether Big Government should have a hand in telling political parties how to do their business. Some say the integrity of how candidates are picked is just important as the integrity of how members are elected by voters, while others say politics should be left to the parties, not the government of the day (or, to use an American analogy, Team Elephant wouldn't want a Team Donkey government to tell them how to do politics internally, and vice versa).

Singh weighs in:

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6410969

So far, Team Red is "concerned" & letting the cops do their work (whatever that might be at this point) without naming names, and Team Orange says "kick the f@#$%^&*kers out". Interesting response from Team Blue on this one re: naming names, via a Canadian Press story ....

Freeland says committee finding that some MPs aided foreign interference 'concerning'

OTTAWA — It is "concerning" that a parliamentary committee report says some Canadian MPs "wittingly" aided foreign state actors, but it is up to law enforcement to decide if they broke the law, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland said Tuesday.

ca.news.yahoo.com

Granted, we don't know if this is the entire response from Team Blue, but without evidence to the contrary, I trust (with about 99.9% certainty) that CP would have mentioned any clear "yeah, name 'em all" or "no, we shouldn't disrupt investigations/presume guilt until proven" answers.

 

[brihard]

Gonna keep my comments limited on this, but, uh… Wow. And holy crap.

Canada now faces a dilemma of crisis proportions between protecting our most sensitive intelligence gathering methods and sources, and protecting integrity of our absolute core governmental infrastructure. We have a very specific process for protecting national security secrets from disclosure in court. When balanced against our Charter rights for full disclosure in criminal proceedings, that can be a major inhibitor to prosecuting national security offences where the very evidence is the material that cannot be disclosed without permanently (perhaps fatally) burning not just individual sources, but intelligence collection methods more generally.

This is an extreme example of the perils that come with not solving the intelligence to evidence dilemma. No country has truly cracked that nut, but we have it worse than most of our allies.

God, what a mess.

 

[OldSolduer]

Watch for the LPC to take a run at CSIS trying to undermine it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Time for the GG/King to step in ?

 

[Remius]

Time for the GG/King to step in ?

And do what exactly?

 

[OldSolduer]

And do what exactly?

Nothing - I do not think there is anything either one could do

 

[Halifax Tar]

And do what exactly?

Dissolve parliament ? Maybe that wouldn't help anything...

Surly to god there is something they can do in a situation like this ?

 

[QV]

Imagine if there isn't anybody doing anything...

 

[brihard]

I must have been typing at the same time as Catherine Tunney at CBC. Good article on this issue and more digestible than the minutiae I get into. Tunney knows her stuff.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nsicop-intelligence-1.7225237

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I think maybe in this case, if MPs are involved, it is worth burning sources/methods to take people to court. And set an example.

 

[QV]

I haven't witnessed any public reaction to this. Nobody is talking about this in my work circle. It's just meh.

 

[lenaitch]

Because the election rules are set by government, while the nomination rules are set by the individual parties. That's part of the discussion about whether Big Government should have a hand in telling political parties how to do their business. Some say the integrity of how candidates are picked is just important as the integrity of how members are elected by voters, while others say politics should be left to the parties, not the government of the day (or, to use an American analogy, Team Elephant wouldn't want a Team Donkey government to tell them how to do politics internally, and vice versa).

There is legislation governing party financing; they could legislate the nomination rules if there was the will.

Those calling for heads on a spike might not be so enthusiastic if it turns out they are wearing their team ball hat.

 

[Halifax Tar]

There is legislation governing party financing; they could legislate the nomination rules if there was the will.

Those calling for heads on a spike might not be so enthusiastic if it turns out they are wearing their team ball hat.

I don't care what team they are on the treasonous bastards should be, well we don't do that anymore.

 

[lenaitch]

I don't care what team they are on the treasonous bastards should be, well we don't do that anymore.

Agreed. I worded that poorly. I meant to say those parliamentarians or politicians calling for heads to roll. It's a great sound bite to stand up and beat on the government of the day but they want to hope their bench is clean.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

So it would be the GG, who would utilize the Reserve Powers that have been handed down by the King, to intervene.

The issue is that:

-The LPC/NDP coalition still hold the confidence of the house, and thus a dissolution of Parliament would be seen as defying the will of Canadians who elected this torrid mess of traitors in the first place;

-None of these accusations have led to a criminal conviction for anyone currently holding office, and those accused may not be high enough in the pecking order to necessitate anything more than a by-election/cabinet appointment;

-Treason charges are on the books, however, they are pretty difficult to prosecute. The burden of proof is substantial and simply being a useful idiot who happens to have a security clearance is not enough to hang someone for it (except we don't do that here anymore...for some reason);

-The GG herself, by nature of the farciful and partisan method in which we select our viceroy, would be hard pressed to do anything to bite the hand that feeds her $1000 steaks on RCAF001. Should she even have an inkling to use those Reserve Powers, one could easily see a very expedient PM's recommendation to HM the King to swap the viceroy for someone "better suited" to the role.

This is a terrible mess that I don't believe any of the Fathers of Confederation thought possible when drafting the BNA 1867. Then again, we had a pretty well entrenched constitutional monarchy that utilized checks and balances, vice the "quasi-republican oligarchy with democratic theatre" we allowed to flourish in the past 70 years.

 

[Remius]

Agreed. I worded that poorly. I meant to say those parliamentarians or politicians calling for heads to roll. It's a great sound bite to stand up and beat on the government of the day but they want to hope their bench is clean.

Which may be why some are reluctant to ask too many questions or reveal names.

 

[The Bread Guy]

There is legislation governing party financing; they could legislate the nomination rules if there was the will.

Those calling for heads on a spike might not be so enthusiastic if it turns out they are wearing their team ball hat.

Agreed re: anything’s possible given the will, but it’s the most partisan folks, I suspect, who’ll howl loudest about Team A wanting to change Team B and C’s rules.