41
All right, I have to ask - what did you do to get the scale right? It looks like you nailed it.
17
Poilievre and the Conservatives have been calling on Trudeau to release the names of allegedly compromised parliamentarians. They repeated that demand on Wednesday.
But law enforcement and national security agencies have been clear on this point: sharing any classified information is a crime.
"Anyone who reveals classified information is subject to the law equally and obviously, in this case, those names are classified at this time and to reveal them publicly would be a criminal offence," RCMP Deputy Commissioner Mark Flynn told MPs on the public accounts committee in June.
When CBC News later asked Flynn whether the names could be released in the House of Commons, where MPs enjoy certain legal protections, he suggested that could be a legal grey area.
"That's a question that should be asked, due to the complexities of parliamentary privilege, of a legal expert," Flynn said.
Stephanie Carvin, a former CSIS national security analyst, said there are several reasons why national security agencies wouldn't want the names made public — starting with the fact that it could compromise ongoing investigations.
"We don't want foreign governments knowing how we are collecting information. That's why we protect our sources and methods," she said.
squints
Oh yeah, you're right.
“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.
Phaser. Lightphaser.
When questioned by Conservative Party lawyer Nando De Luca, Trudeau also said the names of Liberal parliamentarians and individuals from other parties are on the list of parliamentarians at risk of being compromised by foreign interference.
Wow, what a cudgel.
That would be irresponsible - this is intelligence, not evidence that would hold up in court.
Trudeau himself says that some of the intel could be wrong.
Of course, if they have irrefutable evidence regarding any individuals, I agree with you.
I think requiring the support of 5% of the population to trigger a hearing is more than fair.
I'd like to know more about the hearings themselves, though.
It seems like JT is handling the situation just about as well as could be expected.
I don't think they've said this?