29 Comments
author

I should repeat here what I wrote last week: I don't see the need or the utility for a full-blown public inquiry that would in any way resemble Gomery. I suspect Wilczynski used the word "independent" with care. This could be something as simple as asking Dick Fadden, who probably has the necessary security clearance and who was considered good enough to work closely with Trudeau and Harper, to look into the question.

As for "Let's wait for Rosenberg before we decide everything's gone to hell," sure, fine, but let's wait for Rosenberg before we buy a government's bland denials as anything but self-interested.

Expand full comment
author

Lilley! Brian Lilley! Not Lilly. Man, book deadlines make me sloppy. Fixed.

Expand full comment

I don’t always agree with you but it is such a relief to read intelligent, well researched and amusing commentary! Much like the old days at Maclean’s, the Globe & Mail, National Post... sigh

Expand full comment

To add to the third reason why Trudeau doesn’t want to hold an inquiry: perhaps this leaked reporting is just the tip of the iceberg and Trudeau is fully aware that any inquiry will reveal even more warnings and more Han Dong’s and Michael Chan’s. This would be incredibly damaging to the Liberal Party, who thought they could safely ignore CSIS’ warnings because they believed the public would never know.

Expand full comment

I believe Justin Trudeau was advised by CSIS that the Chinese were colluding with his candidate Han Dong to help him win his riding. Trudeau ignored this and allowed Dong to run. The Globe has also reported stories about Chinese students being threatened to not have their visas renewed if they did not vote Liberal. Stories of cash payments to top up Liberal refund donations and more. Trudeau does not want Canadians to know what he knew and what he ignored. As for bias media, it cuts both ways. The Toronto Star, CBC and CTV news are shameless advocates of Trudeau. I have never in my life been so disgusted with a PM.

Expand full comment

How about we wait on an inquiry until we have Maurice Rosenberg's report on the work of the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol panel (a terrible title, I know). PMO has it as we speak. I suspect they will release it fairly soon. Or at least discuss the work of this panel, or at least mention the work previously done on foreign interference by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians? How about we wait until this isn't entirely a media driven story based on selective leaks of classified information by unknown persons with unknown agendas? Wesley Wark

Expand full comment

I find much to admire in your opinions and reportage. Keep up the good work. A happy subscriber.

Incidentally you might add to your column boilerplate an easy way for people like me to send a gift subscription for a friend. richard hofer

Expand full comment

Thanks. An interesting read. Keeps the enthusiasm up that JT will retire🤞

Expand full comment

A wise person once said that ‘no man ever sets out to become lost’.

The Prime Minister was and remained committed to an open posture towards China long after democratic leaders elsewhere tacked towards less open. He invested heavily in being different, perhaps in the belief that being open was more consistent with Canada’s history on the file.

I think China took the openness as an opportunity for greater, state-sponsored involvement in Canada. Their reach into Canadian university research grew. Same with politics. Combined with kidnappings, they greeted the PM’s openness and used it to their advantage. Turning the screws at every opportunity.

In return, we’ve ended up as the ‘what not to do’ poster child, breathlessly playing catch up and assuring allies that we can be trusted. It’s a hard act to pull off. It appears rushed and improvised. And thoroughly stuck in the incumbency mud that is seven years of opaque talking points that don’t have Jedi powers they believe themselves capable of.

It’s been a long time coming. And while the PM wears it poorly, he is lost and it’s his to wear.

Expand full comment

Given the Prime Minister's comments today when asked about CSIS's concerns, we probably should consider the possibility we are being run by a compromised sociopath.

Expand full comment

I lean heavily on point number 1 to express my concern about the requested inquiry. We need to set the goal straight before we go fact finding and hunting for shadows. With so many lines of communication between governments we can easily lift one floor board too many and have the entire house coming down.

For contrast, the absence of influence is what North Korea has been living for a while now. The status quo is a government that loses legitimacy because its integrity will always be called into question(i.e. Russian hackers and the American election of 2016). On the other hand there's no positive outcome in finding the source of the rot, we still have to take those floor boards out.

So in short, yes let's inquire, but the more we make it about how it compromises Trudeau's position, the more we'll regret those actions and/or suffer consequences later on. We should focus instead on finding ways to isolate the electoral process from the rest of our business.

Expand full comment

I distinguish between individuals going to work on campaigns (Canadians in the US for example) and a coordinated effort by a foreign government to influence an electoral campaign.

A Commission of Inquiry is the way to go. A Commissioner has the power to compel answers and those who respond must do so truthfully on pain of perjury. However, that does not mean we need the full public inquiry circus. Well written terms of reference would allow for a Commissioner to investigate, receive evidence and report privately in detail to the government and to provide a public report without classified information.

Expand full comment

I would see an independent inquiry into the china influence/interference. A public inquiry into an international problem would seem to me to be fraught with potential problems. Stephanie Carvin, the Carleton prof and former national security analyst, makes some interesting points in today's Ottawa Playbook from Politico. Headings include "Details matter" and "Intelligence is not evidence".

Expand full comment

I interviewed Artur recently for a story that didn't exactly work out. Very thoughtful gentleman.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this Paul. Very appreciative of detail of your thoughts. I am concerned that China things they can get away with this garbage. Can only imagine what they are doing in Australia

Expand full comment