Trudeau Popularity - or not. Nanos research

[Good2Golf]

Have at ‘er. And my longer reply on the prosecutorial concerns would probably be a better fit there anyway. I mixed up which thread I was in.

In fairness to you, you didn’t mention toques, gloves, raincoats, or future organization of the Army primary reserve, so there is that.

 

[lenaitch]

There's apparently a video of a debate with him and Pollivre, where he's reduced to a stammering wreck after Pollivre confronts him with his contradictions and double speak.

Bob Rae once called politics a blood sport. The recent history of academics involved at the higher level hasn't been pretty.

What have we become ? How did we get here ? How do we get back ?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1798018014903714110

The way politics and governance is going on in many other countries, one take could be that 'we're all growed up'.

If they summarily kick people out of government, they will pretty much preclude any hope of a criminal conviction and probably be tied up in litigation into the next century.

Maybe the government needs a Mafia-type 'fixer' to solve difficult internal problems.

 

[Good2Golf]

Maybe the government needs a Mafia-type 'fixer' to solve difficult internal problems.

Mr. Kaplan might be able to help…

 

[Jarnhamar]

What have we become ? How did we get here ? How do we get back?

Finding the traitors and ruining their lives would be a good start.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Finding the traitors and ruining their lives would be a good start.

Getting ready...

 

[RangerRay]

Unpopular as the answer is, they’re correct that the government doesn’t get to just charge people.

That would be a decision by select investigators within the RCMP and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. I can’t find anything specifying that a treason charge requires attorney general consent, but I’m browsing on my phone and may have just not found it. Sure as hell the AG would be in the loop.

Police and crown could not move on this unless they had a body of disclosable evidence. That would have to be negotiated with the intelligence community: domestic for sure, and potentially foreign allies. Crown would need intelligence partners to lift caveats prohibiting disclosure. This would be a conscious choice to accept the loss of some sources and methods. In the strictest sense it’s the Attoeney General who holds the legal authority to exercise national secure privilege to exclude evidence; in practice, that’s coordinated between police, crown, and originating agencies through a team at Department of Justice who deal with national security litigation. This is a process used in other national security prosecutions.

All that to say- there are a lot of moving parts and some of the gears grind each other, and I’m just scratching the surface. The intelligence community defaults against disclosure; it would likely require a serious political decision and direction to the heads of IC agencies to authorize disclosure sufficiently to prosecute, knowing the downstream impact that would have on future security intelligence collection.

All of that is based on the system as it exists presently. Changing that system would require some very sober and deliberate legislative reform to amend how national security evidence can be handled by the courts. It that doesn’t solve the ‘right now’ problem.

The party leaders could simply and without fanfare and comment eject certain members from their causes, say that they can divulge why, and let the public draw their own inferences from that. But this entire venture remains an effort to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Or they could be quietly “encouraged” to “resign” to “spend more time with the family”. I could get behind that, as long as they’re no longer in government.

But I think I would be dreaming in this day and age. There is no shame or honour in politics anymore. Never admit a fault.

 

[dimsum]

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

From that article:

He did suggest that Poilievre go through the process of obtaining a security clearance so he can review the confidential information cited in the report.

 

[YZT580]

From that article:

perfect idea. He would then be locked into the secret act and be unable to comment at all. If nothing else, it has become glaringly obvious that a closed self-policing system doesn't work.

 

[brihard]

perfect idea. He would then be locked into the secret act and be unable to comment at all.

That’s horseshit. I’ve spoken on this previously:

Classified information doesn’t work by “gag order”. Protection of classified info is by virtue of the Security of Information Act (SOIA), and an individual can be subject to a lifetime permanent binding of secrecy by virtue of their individual work or their employment with certain designated organizations. It’s not a matter of “here sign this NDA and we’ll show you some SIGINT”.

With that said, Parliamentary privilege is very powerful, and the courts have recently, in Alford v Canada 2023, upheld parliamentary privilege against statutory bars to disclosing classified information. That specific case was in relation to s.12 of the statutory authority for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians that prevented NSICOP members from asserting Parliamentary privilege, but the legal principle so established by the court would likely be more broadly applicable. I believe that the leader of the opposition, in the context of good faith exercise of his privileged parliamentary functions, would have legal protections against prosecution if it was necessary to discuss or disclose classified information. While we could expect this more in the context of an in camera committee or caucus meeting versus question period, nonetheless he has some legal ability to make use of such information- to the point where I question the validity of a claim that disclosing classified intelligence to him is much of a political trap.

 

[YZT580]

That’s horseshit. I’ve spoken on this previously:

By implication then the PC member of the committee that rendered the report would be able to release the names that have been redacted provided he did so within the HOC. Do I read you correctly?

 

[brihard]

By implication then the PC member of the committee that rendered the report would be able to release the names that have been redacted provided he did so within the HOC. Do I read you correctly?

I cannot go that far, I’m not sure precisely how far Parlimentary privilege would go, but you’re moving the goalposts. I’m saying that the assertion that the leader of the opposition would somehow be ‘gagged’ and completely unable to comment were he to be cleared and read in is bunk. It’s a convenient dodge being offered to low-info voters, but it’s inaccurate.

edit

 

[FSTO]

^^
Ha ha "Low Information Voters", just say gullible people please.

 

[FSTO]

Back to the loss of trust in our institutions. Does there not come a point in time when the spin doctors and messaging molders have so muddied the waters that when a politician or bureaucrat gets up to make an announcement on anything that the receivers of the messages have long walked away because they don't believe a word?

 

[daftandbarmy]

^^
Ha ha "Low Information Voters", just say gullible people please.

Or 'the average voter' these days, which is an ongoing issue re: declining voter participation since the 50s and 60s...

Declining Voter Turnout: Can we reverse the trend?​

Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada​

In the May 2, 2011 federal election, 61.1 percent of registered Canadian electors turned out to cast a ballot. While this is up slightly from the 58.8 percent who voted in 2008, it is a far cry from the 75 percent that Canada averaged in the decades following the Second World War. Even more worrisome, this decline is disproportionately concentrated among the youngest electors. Research shows that voting habits are formed early in life. If young people don't vote now, there is good reason to believe that they will be less likely to become active voters later on. That has implications for the long-term health of our democratic system. But why are young Canadians disengaged from the electoral process? And what can we do about it?

So why aren't they motivated? Many of the young non-voters we surveyed felt that they lacked the knowledge to participate – specifically knowledge about the candidates, political parties and their platforms. They were generally less interested in politics, less likely to view voting as a civic duty, and more likely to feel that all political parties were the same and that no party spoke to issues relevant to youth. In contrast, those who knew about and were interested in politics were much more likely to vote, as were those who had discussed politics with their families and – importantly – those who had been contacted directly by a party or candidate during the election. These results underscore the importance of civic education – both in our schools and in our homes – in developing the political knowledge, skills and interest that support electoral participation. They also reaffirm the vital mobilizing role that political parties and candidates play in encouraging youth to participate.

Statements and Speeches - Declining Voter Turnout: Can we reverse the trend?

---

www.elections.ca

 

[brihard]

By implication then the PC member of the committee that rendered the report would be able to release the names that have been redacted provided he did so within the HOC. Do I read you correctly?

I cannot go that far, I’m not sure precisely how far Parlimentary privilege would go, but you’re moving the goalposts. I’m saying that the assertion that the leader of the opposition would somehow be ‘gagged’ and completely unable to comment were he to be cleared and read in is bunk. It’s a convenient dodge being offered to low-info voters, but it’s inaccurate.

edit

Adding further as I’ve dug a bit more: NSICOP members are uniquely restricted by virtue of their enabling statute. They specifically are unable to claim parliamentary privilege to disclose classified information learned in the course of NSICOP duties; that was upheld in the court case from a few years ago that I mentioned. However, this only applies to members of the committee. I cannot speak to how other Parliamentarians would see SOIA balance with parliamentary privilege. This provision of the NSICOP enabling legislation is, I suppose, part of the balance of allowing a general committee of Parliamentarians to access this material in the first place, beyond the right circle of those who would have access by virtue of, eg, cabinet roles.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Back to the loss of trust in our institutions. Does there not come a point in time when the spin doctors and messaging molders have so muddied the waters that when a politician or bureaucrat gets up to make an announcement on anything that the receivers of the messages have long walked away because they don't believe a word?

It already came and went. There have been too many things claimed which turned out later not to be true. A prolonged period of truthfulness - years, not months - will be required to restore trust. During that time, those who violate trust will have to be pretty strenuously punished by their peers.

 

[FSTO]

I think that any parliamentarian that is known by authorities to have cooperated with foreign agents should have their security classification revoked and be removed from all committee work. They should get the message that their services are no longer required nor wanted and resign or not run in the next election.

 

[brihard]

I think that any parliamentarian that is known by authorities to have cooperated with foreign agents should have their security classification revoked and be removed from all committee work. They should get the message that their services are no longer required nor wanted and resign or not run in the next election.

Most MPs likely don’t have or need security clearances. Obviously some do of course, for specific committed or cabinet appointments.

 

[FSTO]

Most MPs likely don’t have or need security clearances. Obviously some do of course, for specific committed or cabinet appointments.

Maybe after this latest brouhaha there will be a basic security background check to become a Member of Parliament. .

Nevertheless any MP/Bureaucrat that is involved in subverting Canadian interest should be told that their services are no longer required and they can leave the premises promptly.

 

[brihard]

Maybe after this latest brouhaha there will be a basic security background check to become a Member of Parliament. .

Doubtful… Do we want unelected officials of the executive branch of government holding an effective veto over who can run for Parliament? I can see major issues there.

Nevertheless any MP/Bureaucrat that is involved in subverting Canadian interest should be told that their services are no longer required and they can leave the premises promptly.

Completely agreed. Parties already have the ability to at least strip MPs of any assignments and eject them from caucus, and to block their candidacy for reelection. That’s a timely option at present.