Mr. Wells, Sir, as always, I commend your thoughtful commentary.
From my perspective, you have concluded with a wonderful sentence that perfectly summarizes your column, "The question facing parliamentarians now is to work on solutions instead of trying to win arguments."
The problem with that wonderful conclusion, of course, is that not one single Member of Parliament will read it and change their behavior to conform with that logical conclusion.
Not one.
Woe is us. Broken? Really, who knows, but it sure feels like it.
“pragmatism informed by a sense that Parliament can be something more than an endless pissing match” perfectly sums up what is wrong with every level of government, currently. Until partisans become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few, nothing will change. Until serious and qualified people step up with a sense of duty and public service, instead of partisanship and 4-year election cycles, we will continue to circle the drain.
Terry, I refer you to John's second sentence, "Until partisans become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few, nothing will change."
It seems to me that you have just proven his point as, clearly, you have shown yourself to be partisan and not loyal to all Canadians.
For your reference, I detest JT and JS but I would be prepared to listen to them and their commentary if I thought them to be serious. Quite apart from my own reservations about their level of seriousness I refer you to commentators such as Mr. Wells who find JT and JS and their proposals to not be serious. If you cannot convince such worthies as Mr. Wells et al it seems to me that my judgement (such as it is) is at this point confirmed. If, however, Mr. Wells et al say that something meets a reasonable level of seriousness I would be prepared to listen and to accept their conclusions; I hope that you would drop your level of partisanship in such an event.
Right now, I simply say that I detest the noted individuals but that would listen if, etc., whereas you talk about "garbage;" so my question to you is, quoting Mr. Marks, whether you are prepared to "... become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few ...?"
Again, Sir, I respectfully disagree and again posit that I detest JT and JS. Clearly, you feel the opposite and that is quite fine (well...). The point is that I (and so many other folk) are willing to accept that you feel otherwise but you feel the need to be partisan and speak in a derogatory fashion of those who oppose the folk that you champion. As was noted in the original comment to which you replied, until we can all put aside our partisanship and work for the country as a whole we are lost. So, the challenge is, Sir, when will you put aside your partisanship and accept that there are people of good faith who feel differently than you, without, of course, you calling them down and assigning to them vile descriptives?
Saying that the Liberals spewed "garbage" when they were in opposition isn't disinformation, though. It's an opinion. Poilievre's opposition is very nasty and personal, but other than him...(I say this as an avid Liberal)...nothing Andrew Scheer, Erin O'Toole, or Stephen Harper ever said in opposition was nearly as vitriolic as what Liberals were saying about Mulroney circa '84-'93 or about Harper circa '06-'15.
"Someone has a different opinion from mine" is not "disinformation". People's opinions can be outrageously off-base without being "disinformation".
I feel sorry for the members of diaspora communities that arrived here to get away from thugs, only to find that Canada turns a blind eye to branch plant operations run by the same thugs. Running “police stations” for strong arm meddling in local affairs is bad enough, but recent reports indicate that Government funding flows awfully close to some of these projects.
There is a lot of mud slinging about electoral interference, but I’ve noticed that politicians aren’t taking the opportunity to clean up their own shifty ways while they are at it. Busing in rent-a-crowd Chinese students to skewer a riding nomination? Boy, I wonder where they got that idea? Or parachute candidates dropped into “safe” ridings against the wishes of the constituency leaders. This opens the door for intimidation tactics and back room maneuvering by operatives holding proxies for others.
We all deserve fair elections and participation free from meddling and influence peddling.
I encourage Mr Wells to subscribe to and, perhaps, interview Mr Wesley Wark. If we are to get serious about foreign intelligence, rather than focus solely on the politics of the matter, it’s crucial we understand both the system we have, and the prescription for improvements in our current security agencies, laws, processes and analysis
It feels like a "process story" to me. Bad CSIS comms, politics affecting defense, bad inquiry. Government sucking at the job.
But, man, I can NOT get worried about Chinese influence on Canadian politics. Yes, they were working to get pro-regime politicians elected, have a pro-PRC voices in government.
But China's name is mud across all Canada right now. The top word-associations with "China" would be:
- Hong Kong Crackdown
- Uighurs
- Two Michaels
- Pandemic.
...with China to blame for the latter, whether it was a food market or a lab, it was China - and above all, China not warning the world, to preserve their own reputation. Nobody's forgetting that. The association "tourist destination" or "huge market" wouldn't be in the thoughts of more than 1% of Canada.
So,concern for China has, not just zero weight in Canada right now, but negative. Over half of Canada would cheer to hear their economy had indeed near-collapsed of a real-estate crisis, though Chinese economic collapse would hurt us, too. They have ZERO effect on our decisions.
So, it's an issue for politicians, but I can follow it with very little concern.
This is reminding me of a spy movie, where the whole conflict is done in secret to preserve ongoing economics, avoid war. We haven't admitted to much, but Canada and the US have both moved to shut down those "police stations" - the diaspora community may feel that their primary concerns have actually been addressed.
This is not a process story. It’s a sovereignty story. As in, do we still have it if we are doing nothing to counter hostile communist states conducting intelligence operations aimed at our democracy? Is it just a process problem if the Chinese are operating clandestine influence networks on our soil and suppressing the Charter rights of ethnic Chinese Canadian human rights defenders?
This is a an issue for politicians to deal with, but violations of sovereignty are the concern of every loyal Canadian. Nonchalance at this problem is the calling card of unserious, comfortable people.
One can be both comfortable and serious. Nobody is more comfortable than the columnists with very safe positions in Postmedia papers, and they project extreme seriousness at all times.
And they have used that serious mien to project raging paranoia at an endless list of problems that always pose dire threats to our safety, security, health, welfare, and, yes, our sovereignty.
After a certain amount of scaring that doesn't come true - and indeed, incites the population to react in ways that do far more harm than the supposed threat - one stops over-reacting. After the Commies, after the Radicals, after the Rogue States, after the Drug Gangs, after the Terrorists ...yeah, since I've survived all those endless terrible threats for 60 years, since they all melted away when examined (even those terrorists did less damage than random shooters, after 9/11), it's getting very hard to scare me, particularly with a nation economically depended upon The West's business.
Essentially what I said to the PROC House Committee at Meeting 63 (before the Johnston report) and Meeting 77 (after the Johnston report). At 63 the focus was that the UK Bill is the best first draft to start from. At 77 we discussed how the role and accountability of the NSIA could be embedded in statute while we are at it. There are about 200 sitting days left for this Parliament to do something..
Thanks for this. There have been so many missiles flying overhead on this matter that I had lost the plot. Thanks for your succinct perspective. No need to read any more on the matter it seems.
I suspect the prime minister thought most people would view Johnston not just as an establishment guy who'd be broadly acceptable to all establishment guys, but as a guy with serious Conservative bona fides by dint of his resume - that's certainly how I view him and is certainly how lots of Liberals view him. The PM seems to have gotten that extremely wrong.
I must confess that I'm one of those partisans who doesn't pay much attention to the other side (which is, for me, healthier than being one of those partisans who pays obsessive attention to the other side). So when I've heard grumbling that David Johnston is some sort of outrageous partisan with an obvious conflict of interest, I've nodded along sagely, thinking, "Well, yes, he *did* take a bunch of patronage appointments from Brian Mulroney before taking the ultimate patronage appointment from Stephen Harper, but if the prime minister thinks he can put all of that aside and give the Liberals a fair shake, I'll trust his judgment."
It's just now coming to my attention that some people think Stephen Harper's governor-general is compromised...in favour of the Liberals. Which is interesting, and certainly smacks of what we're seeing south of the border, where all of a sudden the Bushes and Dick Cheney and his kid aren't *real* Republicans because they don't pay enough fealty to Trump.
But, my own partisanship aside, I do wonder if there's anyone Justin Trudeau could give any job to who wouldn't then automatically be suspect in the eyes of the Conservatives just by virtue of having taken the job.
Justin Trudeau does not care about election interference because it benefits him. He chose Mr. Rosenberg a former Trudeau Foundation member to investigate this and the report that appeared within a few days concluded that the election was not compromised. We know some ridings were compromised. Erin O'Toole was ignored when he raised this issue. Rosenberg's report is suspect but despite his ties to the Trudeau Foundation we should believe him. Now we should believe Trudeau's family friend and Trudeau Foundation member?, David Johnston hired Navigator at the beginning of this investigation. Why did he think he would need Navigator before he even began this process? Maybe because he knew from the beginning that he would not be calling for a public inquiry.
David Johnston is a good soldier who can’t say No when called upon by his country. Unfortunately, Trudeau will use anyone to his advantage and then dropkick them into space, while Poilievre does not respect elders for being experienced or statesmen for being patriotic. In this field a good and honest person is just grist for the mill. I agree with the notion that former GGs should pull an RB Bennett and vanish.
Paul, thanks for a great article. In business there is a saying "Death by PowerPoint" In politics it's "Death by Inquiry" Within the last 12 months we had a full inquiry into the Freedom Convoy and the results did very little to change the opinion that people had one way or the other going into it. On Sunday , Ian Hanomansing of CBC took calls for an hour on the subject of how David Johnston was handling the process so far. Assuming the responses were not skewed, by my count the opinion was pretty much equal for and against. The time to debate the merits of the process being led by David Johnston has past, so let's make the best of it. As for the vote in parliament asking for DJ to step aside, the numbers are meaningless as all members lined up behind their leaders. If you break that down, you have Conservatives dug in, Bloc who would separate from the rest of Canada, NDP trying to remain relevant, and Liberals standing behind their decision. There are 3 parliamentary committees whose job it is to review issues of public and national security and are sent to Ottawa for that reason. Instead of the regular pissing match these parliamentarians should do their jobs or we can govern by public inquiry.
I agree we need to rise above partisanship and be loyal to Canada, but there is a problem, there are people within our political system and within our society that have not only looked the other way but also aided and abetted foreign actors. I do not want to go on a witch hunt, but I know unless this is brought to light and dealt with it will flourish under the radar and resurface as a worse problem 20 years from now. There needs to be a public inquiry. All parties are besmirtched by foreign interference and it all needs to see the light of day.
Mr. Wells, Sir, as always, I commend your thoughtful commentary.
From my perspective, you have concluded with a wonderful sentence that perfectly summarizes your column, "The question facing parliamentarians now is to work on solutions instead of trying to win arguments."
The problem with that wonderful conclusion, of course, is that not one single Member of Parliament will read it and change their behavior to conform with that logical conclusion.
Not one.
Woe is us. Broken? Really, who knows, but it sure feels like it.
“pragmatism informed by a sense that Parliament can be something more than an endless pissing match” perfectly sums up what is wrong with every level of government, currently. Until partisans become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few, nothing will change. Until serious and qualified people step up with a sense of duty and public service, instead of partisanship and 4-year election cycles, we will continue to circle the drain.
Terry, I refer you to John's second sentence, "Until partisans become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few, nothing will change."
It seems to me that you have just proven his point as, clearly, you have shown yourself to be partisan and not loyal to all Canadians.
For your reference, I detest JT and JS but I would be prepared to listen to them and their commentary if I thought them to be serious. Quite apart from my own reservations about their level of seriousness I refer you to commentators such as Mr. Wells who find JT and JS and their proposals to not be serious. If you cannot convince such worthies as Mr. Wells et al it seems to me that my judgement (such as it is) is at this point confirmed. If, however, Mr. Wells et al say that something meets a reasonable level of seriousness I would be prepared to listen and to accept their conclusions; I hope that you would drop your level of partisanship in such an event.
Right now, I simply say that I detest the noted individuals but that would listen if, etc., whereas you talk about "garbage;" so my question to you is, quoting Mr. Marks, whether you are prepared to "... become loyal to all Canadians, not just their select few ...?"
Again, Sir, I respectfully disagree and again posit that I detest JT and JS. Clearly, you feel the opposite and that is quite fine (well...). The point is that I (and so many other folk) are willing to accept that you feel otherwise but you feel the need to be partisan and speak in a derogatory fashion of those who oppose the folk that you champion. As was noted in the original comment to which you replied, until we can all put aside our partisanship and work for the country as a whole we are lost. So, the challenge is, Sir, when will you put aside your partisanship and accept that there are people of good faith who feel differently than you, without, of course, you calling them down and assigning to them vile descriptives?
Well we listened to the Liberal garbage when they were in opposition.
The two comments you've posted since this one suggest you're not as close to resting as I might hope.
Saying that the Liberals spewed "garbage" when they were in opposition isn't disinformation, though. It's an opinion. Poilievre's opposition is very nasty and personal, but other than him...(I say this as an avid Liberal)...nothing Andrew Scheer, Erin O'Toole, or Stephen Harper ever said in opposition was nearly as vitriolic as what Liberals were saying about Mulroney circa '84-'93 or about Harper circa '06-'15.
"Someone has a different opinion from mine" is not "disinformation". People's opinions can be outrageously off-base without being "disinformation".
"Outsource his credibility by subcontracting his judgement"
Beautiful.
Sharp as ever.
Welcome back!
Great analysis.
I feel sorry for the members of diaspora communities that arrived here to get away from thugs, only to find that Canada turns a blind eye to branch plant operations run by the same thugs. Running “police stations” for strong arm meddling in local affairs is bad enough, but recent reports indicate that Government funding flows awfully close to some of these projects.
There is a lot of mud slinging about electoral interference, but I’ve noticed that politicians aren’t taking the opportunity to clean up their own shifty ways while they are at it. Busing in rent-a-crowd Chinese students to skewer a riding nomination? Boy, I wonder where they got that idea? Or parachute candidates dropped into “safe” ridings against the wishes of the constituency leaders. This opens the door for intimidation tactics and back room maneuvering by operatives holding proxies for others.
We all deserve fair elections and participation free from meddling and influence peddling.
I encourage Mr Wells to subscribe to and, perhaps, interview Mr Wesley Wark. If we are to get serious about foreign intelligence, rather than focus solely on the politics of the matter, it’s crucial we understand both the system we have, and the prescription for improvements in our current security agencies, laws, processes and analysis
It feels like a "process story" to me. Bad CSIS comms, politics affecting defense, bad inquiry. Government sucking at the job.
But, man, I can NOT get worried about Chinese influence on Canadian politics. Yes, they were working to get pro-regime politicians elected, have a pro-PRC voices in government.
But China's name is mud across all Canada right now. The top word-associations with "China" would be:
- Hong Kong Crackdown
- Uighurs
- Two Michaels
- Pandemic.
...with China to blame for the latter, whether it was a food market or a lab, it was China - and above all, China not warning the world, to preserve their own reputation. Nobody's forgetting that. The association "tourist destination" or "huge market" wouldn't be in the thoughts of more than 1% of Canada.
So,concern for China has, not just zero weight in Canada right now, but negative. Over half of Canada would cheer to hear their economy had indeed near-collapsed of a real-estate crisis, though Chinese economic collapse would hurt us, too. They have ZERO effect on our decisions.
So, it's an issue for politicians, but I can follow it with very little concern.
This is reminding me of a spy movie, where the whole conflict is done in secret to preserve ongoing economics, avoid war. We haven't admitted to much, but Canada and the US have both moved to shut down those "police stations" - the diaspora community may feel that their primary concerns have actually been addressed.
This is not a process story. It’s a sovereignty story. As in, do we still have it if we are doing nothing to counter hostile communist states conducting intelligence operations aimed at our democracy? Is it just a process problem if the Chinese are operating clandestine influence networks on our soil and suppressing the Charter rights of ethnic Chinese Canadian human rights defenders?
This is a an issue for politicians to deal with, but violations of sovereignty are the concern of every loyal Canadian. Nonchalance at this problem is the calling card of unserious, comfortable people.
One can be both comfortable and serious. Nobody is more comfortable than the columnists with very safe positions in Postmedia papers, and they project extreme seriousness at all times.
And they have used that serious mien to project raging paranoia at an endless list of problems that always pose dire threats to our safety, security, health, welfare, and, yes, our sovereignty.
After a certain amount of scaring that doesn't come true - and indeed, incites the population to react in ways that do far more harm than the supposed threat - one stops over-reacting. After the Commies, after the Radicals, after the Rogue States, after the Drug Gangs, after the Terrorists ...yeah, since I've survived all those endless terrible threats for 60 years, since they all melted away when examined (even those terrorists did less damage than random shooters, after 9/11), it's getting very hard to scare me, particularly with a nation economically depended upon The West's business.
Essentially what I said to the PROC House Committee at Meeting 63 (before the Johnston report) and Meeting 77 (after the Johnston report). At 63 the focus was that the UK Bill is the best first draft to start from. At 77 we discussed how the role and accountability of the NSIA could be embedded in statute while we are at it. There are about 200 sitting days left for this Parliament to do something..
As a Canadian I find this a situation where I either laugh or cry, and, since I would rather laugh.....
"A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude
and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted,
“Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an
hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”
The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering
approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 59 and 60
degrees north latitude and between 107 and 108 degrees west
longitude.”
“You must be an engineer,” said the balloonist.
“I am,” replied the woman, “how did you know?”
“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is
technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your
information, and the fact is that I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not
been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip.”
The woman below responded, “You must be a politician.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”
“Well,” said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re
going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot
air. You made a promise, which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you
expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is, you are
in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now,
somehow, it’s my fault.”"
Thanks for this. There have been so many missiles flying overhead on this matter that I had lost the plot. Thanks for your succinct perspective. No need to read any more on the matter it seems.
I suspect the prime minister thought most people would view Johnston not just as an establishment guy who'd be broadly acceptable to all establishment guys, but as a guy with serious Conservative bona fides by dint of his resume - that's certainly how I view him and is certainly how lots of Liberals view him. The PM seems to have gotten that extremely wrong.
I must confess that I'm one of those partisans who doesn't pay much attention to the other side (which is, for me, healthier than being one of those partisans who pays obsessive attention to the other side). So when I've heard grumbling that David Johnston is some sort of outrageous partisan with an obvious conflict of interest, I've nodded along sagely, thinking, "Well, yes, he *did* take a bunch of patronage appointments from Brian Mulroney before taking the ultimate patronage appointment from Stephen Harper, but if the prime minister thinks he can put all of that aside and give the Liberals a fair shake, I'll trust his judgment."
It's just now coming to my attention that some people think Stephen Harper's governor-general is compromised...in favour of the Liberals. Which is interesting, and certainly smacks of what we're seeing south of the border, where all of a sudden the Bushes and Dick Cheney and his kid aren't *real* Republicans because they don't pay enough fealty to Trump.
But, my own partisanship aside, I do wonder if there's anyone Justin Trudeau could give any job to who wouldn't then automatically be suspect in the eyes of the Conservatives just by virtue of having taken the job.
Justin Trudeau does not care about election interference because it benefits him. He chose Mr. Rosenberg a former Trudeau Foundation member to investigate this and the report that appeared within a few days concluded that the election was not compromised. We know some ridings were compromised. Erin O'Toole was ignored when he raised this issue. Rosenberg's report is suspect but despite his ties to the Trudeau Foundation we should believe him. Now we should believe Trudeau's family friend and Trudeau Foundation member?, David Johnston hired Navigator at the beginning of this investigation. Why did he think he would need Navigator before he even began this process? Maybe because he knew from the beginning that he would not be calling for a public inquiry.
As usual, cogent, informative, and entertaining in style.
David Johnston is a good soldier who can’t say No when called upon by his country. Unfortunately, Trudeau will use anyone to his advantage and then dropkick them into space, while Poilievre does not respect elders for being experienced or statesmen for being patriotic. In this field a good and honest person is just grist for the mill. I agree with the notion that former GGs should pull an RB Bennett and vanish.
Paul, thanks for a great article. In business there is a saying "Death by PowerPoint" In politics it's "Death by Inquiry" Within the last 12 months we had a full inquiry into the Freedom Convoy and the results did very little to change the opinion that people had one way or the other going into it. On Sunday , Ian Hanomansing of CBC took calls for an hour on the subject of how David Johnston was handling the process so far. Assuming the responses were not skewed, by my count the opinion was pretty much equal for and against. The time to debate the merits of the process being led by David Johnston has past, so let's make the best of it. As for the vote in parliament asking for DJ to step aside, the numbers are meaningless as all members lined up behind their leaders. If you break that down, you have Conservatives dug in, Bloc who would separate from the rest of Canada, NDP trying to remain relevant, and Liberals standing behind their decision. There are 3 parliamentary committees whose job it is to review issues of public and national security and are sent to Ottawa for that reason. Instead of the regular pissing match these parliamentarians should do their jobs or we can govern by public inquiry.
I agree we need to rise above partisanship and be loyal to Canada, but there is a problem, there are people within our political system and within our society that have not only looked the other way but also aided and abetted foreign actors. I do not want to go on a witch hunt, but I know unless this is brought to light and dealt with it will flourish under the radar and resurface as a worse problem 20 years from now. There needs to be a public inquiry. All parties are besmirtched by foreign interference and it all needs to see the light of day.
Welcome back. Hope you had a good break. Nothing much has happened while you were gone.