this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
34 points (100.0% liked)
Canada
7224 readers
361 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
π Meta
πΊοΈ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
ποΈ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
π Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- MontrΓ©al Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
π» Universities
π΅ Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
π£οΈ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
π Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you think an acting government should be the one who sets the bar on what foreign interference is? That sounds like a huge conflict of interest. What's wrong with leaving it to the courts to decide?
I think a responsible government would be having an open conversation about it, getting consensus from the other parties, and doing something, rather than nothing. That conversation should have started 7 years ago, when the PM was first briefed on election interference. A responsible government wouldn't have tried to minimize or bury the issue.
We've had two federal elections since the PM was first briefed on interference, and are about to have another without a clear plan for how to deal with compromised parliamentarians. As a citizen, I don't find that acceptable.
The line that gets trotted out is that interference "didn't change the outcome of the election" in 2019 and 2021. That is absolutely not a satisfactory threshold for action to be taken. Nobody is talking about how the threshold should be much, much lower. If the current government isn't making an attempt at defining that threshold in an ethical and non-partisan way, that's their failure.
To your question, I think egregious examples of foreign compromise should absolutely be criminalized, and handled by the judicial branch. But the legislative branch needs to be empowered to act swiftly to prevent compromised parliamentarians from operating in Ottawa unhindered.
So these are two different things right? Election interference is one thing, but MPs being compromised by a foreign government is another different thing.
The report you're mentioning about the 2019 and 2021 election interference not impacting the results was not a statement from the government but from third party review. I would agree that that third party review should have been initiated by elections Canada, but I don't think that the acting government should have had more involvement in that process, I think it should have had less.
When it comes to compromised MPs, it's more nuanced. If there is hard proof that an MP is compromised, then there is good reason to assume the investigation is over and that the information can be made public (and if they broke a law they should be held accountable by the courts). But if there is only strong suspicion that an MP is compromised that shouldn't be made public, but I think it does fall onto the leader of the party to make the call on what to do. The trouble is we're working with information that is part of an active investigation. It's not a good idea to let an governing party expell MPs from other parties on the grounds of them being involved in an active investigation, that to me sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by a governing party to expell rival MPs via baseless investigations that would not hold up in court.
They're not always different. The Han Dong case is an example where they're intertwined. We know for a fact that Han Dong's nomination for Liberal candidate in the safe Liberal riding of Don Valley North was influenced by Chinese government pressure on Canadian citizens. It doesn't properly fall into Elections Canada's purview. The Liberals only ejected him from their party once it became publicly known that his candidacy was influenced by China. Somehow, he's still a sitting MP.
I don't think it should be left up to the leader of the party to make a call on what to do. Liberals w/ Han Dong (and possibly others, we don't know), and Conservatives, with their leader not even being briefed. There needs to be some other system or mechanism to address foreign compromise that doesn't rely on the whim of party leaders who have proven that they'll choose to deal or not deal with interference issues depending on how it might benefit or harm their party.
If RCMP investigations get bound up, and information sealed away for instances of interference that ultimately don't end up being criminal (like in Han Dong's case), something should still be done to remove them from Parliament, or censure / warn them, as the circumstance dictates. It seems to me that the secrecy of active investigations functionally acts to shield foreign influence operations from being exposed and properly responded to.
I know what you mean when you say that the government shouldn't be relied on to investigate itself. At the same time, I think they are the only body right now that can put effective mechanisms in place to deal with this issue. The fact that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are trustworthy enough to do this, is neither here nor there. Government should be doing something, and a responsible government that worked for the people would have started 7 years ago.
My hope is that the Election Interference Commission provides sound recommendations that are actionable before the next federal election. However, we're in a situation where the next federal election could be any day now. This is all happening too late, and I can't see how that's anybody but the Liberals' fault.
I agree that there may need to be better systems in place, but I'm not still convinced that the sitting government should have much direct control over it.
In the Han Dong case as you said he's now an independent and is unlikely to be re-elected. If there were a better official process by elections Canada or the RCMP ideally a byelection could have been called to replace him.
I just also worry that if that procedure is initiated by the government rather than a third party it could also be abused by a sitting government to force by-elections in favorable ridings to potentially boost seats.
I just struggle with all the criticism because no one is suggesting Elections Canada be beefed up to better handle this, they are instead suggesting that the Liberal government should be doing something. while it could be indirectly assumed that people are asking the Liberal government to pass legislation to reform elections Canada, this is a minority government, any party can table legislation that would aim at doing just that. As far as I know no party has suggested doing that.
Alternatively it could be assumed that the ask is for a minority government have the ability to expell elected MPs, which of course is not something that should be possible. What if a majority vote could expell elected MPs? What would prevent a majority government from expelling the entire opposition party?
None of this feels great π