sharkman Posted June 13 Report Share Posted June 13 “The report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a key Canadian intelligence oversight body, says there were "two specific instances where [People's Republic of China] officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada." Most of the details regarding the allegations in the NSICOP report have been redacted.“ https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7223518 There are probably a lot of juicy bits in the redacted material. But it’s time for the Canadian media to revisit the 2022 CPC leadership race. Because there should have been more contestants than the official number allowed. 3 applicants were disqualified who had similar platforms to Poilievre, and no doubt would have divided his support. The reasons given for disqualification were nonsense. That race was dirty. Look up G. Abraham. Its said that Poilievre won’t even read the report. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 13 Author Report Share Posted June 13 And of course it shouldn't be too difficult to determine whether the disqualified Conservative contestants were treated equally or not. For instance, the 300,000 amount to run that suddenly had a requirement of an extra $45,000 tacked on at the last minute. Simply look at the records. Did all of the contestants who qualified have this $45,000 added on, and if so was it at the last minute or were they given plenty of time to raise it? Scratch that, the records may be inaccessible or oops, got erased somehow. A reporter would want to contact the cancelled contestants and the ones who qualified, do a little digging. Like this: https://www.saanichnews.com/news/campaign-life-coalition-calls-abbotsford-leadership-hopeful-cancel-culture-victim-314957 "Fonseca said that additional fees were added to the $300,000 and that was the reason Abraham was disqualified. “What they told us is that the party tacked onto the total donations a 15 per cent administration fee that candidates would have to obtain on top of the $300,000, making the real total that a candidate had to raise $345K or even $353K, depending how it’s calculated,” he said." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 13 Report Share Posted June 13 No wonder worm-boy doesn't want to get his intelligence briefing. 😆 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 13 Author Report Share Posted June 13 (edited) Yeah, his troubles are mounting. I suppose I'm bringing up an old issue that didn't get much attention from the media at the time, but the appearances of an alleged fixed leadership race could taint the party. Denying 3 applicants who lawfully applied to enter the contest to protect one candidate's chances to win? They better hope all loose ends were hidden well. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-six-candidates-make-the-cut-to-run-for-federal-conservative-leadership/ "The party’s leadership election organizing committee was responsible for verifying whether candidates had met the requirements to raise $300,000 and collect 500 nomination signatures by April 29 in order to stay in the race. But committee chair Ian Brodie declined to explain why Mr. Etienne, Mr. Bourgault and Mr. Abraham did not make the cut." ... "Mr. Bourgault said the party told him he “did not meet the registration fees and compliance deposit” which together amounted to $300,000. But he said his team submitted well above that: $367,453 before the deadline." If this is true, it's a disgusting abuse of power. Do we really have to become as unethical as the Liberal party has been? If Poilievre was such an amazing leader he should have been given the chance to win the contest fair and square, not have the result fixed just to make sure Canadians got the "right" result. The last thing we need is another PM with a tainted past. Edited June 13 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted June 13 Report Share Posted June 13 the NDP invokes Section 46 of the Criminal Code : Treason Jagmeet Singh says he is 'more concerned' after reading NSICOP report, calls named MPs 'traitors' 'Some of this behaviour absolutely appears to be criminal and should be prosecuted,' the NDP leader said OTTAWA — NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said he is more convinced than ever that fellow parliamentarians are “wittingly” engaging in foreign interference after reading the unredacted version of a bombshell report and that they are “traitors” to Canada. “In short, there are a number of MPs who have knowingly provided help to foreign governments, some to the detriment of Canada and Canadians. There are also politicians at all levels of government who have benefited from foreign interference,” he said. “Some of this behaviour absolutely appears to be criminal and should be prosecuted.” Pressed by a reporter, he went even further in saying that those MPs are “indeed traitors to the country.” https://nationalpost.com/news/nsicop-report-jagmeet-singh stand by, the Yardarm 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbie Posted June 13 Report Share Posted June 13 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservative-mp-bob-saroya-took-trip-to-china-paid-for-by-communist/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 13 Report Share Posted June 13 10 hours ago, sharkman said: “The report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), a key Canadian intelligence oversight body, says there were "two specific instances where [People's Republic of China] officials allegedly interfered in the leadership races of the Conservative Party of Canada." Most of the details regarding the allegations in the NSICOP report have been redacted.“ https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7223518 There are probably a lot of juicy bits in the redacted material. But it’s time for the Canadian media to revisit the 2022 CPC leadership race. Because there should have been more contestants than the official number allowed. 3 applicants were disqualified who had similar platforms to Poilievre, and no doubt would have divided his support. The reasons given for disqualification were nonsense. That race was dirty. Look up G. Abraham. Its said that Poilievre won’t even read the report. Where there is smoke, there usually is fire. no, there shouldn't have been any more than we're allowed. And that really wouldn't be how a foreign party would interfere. Poilievre won't sign off on the report because doing so would severely limit his ability to comment on it in the future. His position is that it should be open for everybody to see. Certainly when he becomes prime minister he can see it without having to sign those documents and if the liberals haven't taken action he can at that point but if he signs it now he is limited as to what he can talk about later Is that the interference will turn out to be key staff members who were supposed to be volunteers being paid agents of the Chinese. This is a pretty common game they play, and then that person controls what information the candidate winds up seeing and influences their votes later on. But we deserve to know the level of interference, and who the names are. If a conservative conspired with a foreign government Or took money inappropriately they should be out of caucus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Poilievre won't sign off on the report because doing so would severely limit his ability to comment on it in the future. Yes, we know. God forbid he actually learned what was really going on and could speak informed on it. It's much better to just rant about it vaguely. Do you get it now? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 8 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Yes, we know. God forbid he actually learned what was really going on and could speak informed on it. It's much better to just rant about it vaguely. Or, y'know, retain the right to speak of it and demand everyone get to know what's going on. But as a lib supporter i'm sure you'd prefer that info be kept from the public. Quote Do you get it now? Yes - the message clearly is that the left can't meme Imagine claiming that it's a bad thing demanding that everyone know the truth. Eyeball must be so conflicted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 (edited) We in Canada have had many clains about foreign interference - Fenians, for example. I frankly think that our Canadian federal/provincial/municipal voting systems are honest. People in Canada trust. ==== In 1995, Parizeau lost. To change society, it requires more than 50%. Edited June 14 by August1991 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, Moonbox said: Yes, we know. God forbid he actually learned what was really going on and could speak informed on it. It's much better to just rant about it vaguely. Do you get it now? Here you go - hyper partisan right winger Tom Mulcair ( ) Explains why he thinks PP is precisely right not to sign the documents and neither would have he when he was leader of the opposition. They get a little off that specific topic in the middle but he addresses it at the beginning and the end. Like i said - hamstringing yourself as leader of the opposition would be a BAD idea. Here's tom: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 3 hours ago, CdnFox said: Imagine claiming that it's a bad thing demanding that everyone know the truth. Eyeball must be so conflicted Amused mostly but it's also kind of sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, August1991 said: We in Canada have had many clains about foreign interference - Fenians, for example. I frankly think that our Canadian federal/provincial/municipal voting systems are honest. People in Canada trust. Maybe it would help if governments could learn to trust the people they govern. Its a two way street. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 58 minutes ago, eyeball said: Amused mostly but it's also kind of sad. Sad? Are you sad because former NDP leader mulcair says PP made the right call? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted June 14 Author Report Share Posted June 14 12 hours ago, August1991 said: We in Canada have had many clains about foreign interference - Fenians, for example. I frankly think that our Canadian federal/provincial/municipal voting systems are honest. People in Canada trust. ==== In 1995, Parizeau lost. To change society, it requires more than 50%. This sounds perfectly reasonable without some context, or further analysis. August, how do you feel about the Chinese police stations that were on Canadian soil? Does that seem like foreign interference of some sort? Or what about the reports of Chinese military being allowed to conduct drills on Canadian soil? In your judgement does any of this raise a red flag? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 13 hours ago, August1991 said: We in Canada have had many clains about foreign interference - Fenians, for example. I frankly think that our Canadian federal/provincial/municipal voting systems are honest. People in Canada trust. ==== In 1995, Parizeau lost. To change society, it requires more than 50%. I think our voting systems are honest but that isn't what this is about. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 13 hours ago, eyeball said: Maybe it would help if governments could learn to trust the people they govern. Its a two way street. You literally want them to wear body cameras 24/7. I think it's safe to say that you don't trust them either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 15 hours ago, CdnFox said: Here you go - hyper partisan right winger Tom Mulcair ( ) Explains why he thinks PP is precisely right not to sign the documents and neither would have he when he was leader of the opposition. Yes, he says he wouldn't get a briefing either, because it hamstrings what he can say. Don't get the briefing, you can run your mouth, openly speculate and lob vague accusations to your heart's content. Since when is anyone listening to Tom Mulcair, either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 49 minutes ago, Moonbox said: Yes, he says he wouldn't get a briefing either, because it hamstrings what he can say. Don't get the briefing, you can run your mouth, openly speculate and lob vague accusations........ ....... and ask questions of the gov't in the house on the subject. And push for inquiries and take other actions you can't if you've signed that document. AND comment on the affair. And if you sign it and slip up at all then you could face charges, so you avoid that risk An opposition leader woukl have to be a fool to sign it. Quote Since when is anyone listening to Tom Mulcair, either? For quite a while now Political commentator and expert, he's been on the media circuit for quite some time. I disagree with his politics quite a bit but when it comes to the workings of the gov't itself he's pretty knowledgeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 15 hours ago, eyeball said: Maybe it would help if governments could learn to trust the people they govern. Its a two way street. What a novel concept! 🙄 Like Sweden trusted their people during coronamania, instead of flip-flopping non-scientific rules all over the place and shutting everything down? Geez, trusting the public is what some of us were advocating for during the last 3+ years and you were AGAINST it then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 19 minutes ago, CdnFox said: ....... and ask questions of the gov't in the house on the subject. That are probably answered in the briefings. Political performance is so much easier when you can just plug your ears and remain purposefully ignorant. 22 minutes ago, CdnFox said: AND comment on the affair. And if you sign it and slip up at all then you could face charges, so you avoid that risk You'd hope that a prospective Prime Minister would have the common sense to not slip up, wouldn't you? LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goddess Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 Feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that if they read the unredacted report (and this is just one report, there's actually a lot of documentation they CAN'T see) and get a name - they not only cannot reveal it but they also cannot act on it in any way, ie: removing that person from caucus. I noticed that when Singh was questioned whether he would be removing anyone from his caucus now that he had seen the report, he didn't answer and dodged the question. There's still 1000 documents that Trudeau is refusing to hand over, both to the Committee and to Justice Hogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Moonbox said: That are probably answered in the briefings. Out of sight of the public, where no pressure can be put on the government to actually address the issue. I have little doubt that the liberals support that tremendously. They would love to have less public accountability on the issue. I'm sure they're supporters feel likewise. However it is not the job of the opposition to assist the government in hiding discussions. These are questions that should be asked in full view of the government including why they haven't addressed it Chris to claim that he is remaining purposefully ignorant. He is simply refusing to be neutered and give up his right as opposition to demand answers on behalf of the public in plain sight. Not everyone believes in the concept of sweeping everything under the rug like you do. 31 minutes ago, Moonbox said: You'd hope that a prospective Prime Minister would have the common sense to not slip up, wouldn't you? LOL! You would hope that a perspective prime minister would be smart enough not to put himself in a position where he might. God knows the current one isn't that smart Edited June 14 by CdnFox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said: You would hope that a perspective prime minister would be smart enough not to put himself in a position where he might. So when he becomes Prime Minister, he's going to avoid being briefed on anything sensitive to avoid so he's not in the position to slip? 😑 14 minutes ago, CdnFox said: God knows the current one isn't that smart No argument there, though I'd say you're understating the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnFox Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 Just now, Moonbox said: So when he becomes Prime Minister, he's going to avoid being briefed on anything sensitive to avoid so he's not in the position to slip? 😑 As prime minister he'll be briefed regardless. But i think it's pretty obvious even to you that as prime minister it's not really his job to ask the prime minister tough questions in the house And as a point of fact Trudeau has said he doesn't read the briefings anyway, I get that you desperately want it to be horribly wrong for Poilievre to continue to actually do his job and hold the government to account. It isn't. Most experts agree that this is probably the smart move for him as a member of the opposition. And as I have posted it's not just partisan experts who feel that way. Even those who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum feel that way If he signs off on this document specifically then he will lose the ability to question the government on the issue and will be severely limited in discussing it. He has chosen that that is unacceptable and that is probably the right choice. Attempting to turn that into something nefarious is purely silliness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.