A National Security PM?
One more word on the PM’s testimony before PIFI
No Canadian Prime Minister should be surprised by having to devote considerable public and governmental attention to national security issues. Keeping Canadians safe is, as PM Trudeau said, a “foundational principle.” But almost all PMs in recent times (dating at least from the turn of the century—9/11!) have been taken by surprise, Justin Trudeau among them. When he came to power with a majority government in 2015, the two Michaels’ stand-off with China, a global pandemic, the acceleration of foreign interference conducted by a variety of authoritarian powers, extrajudicial murders, the Freedom Convoy, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a widening Middle East conflict and its repercussions at home, none of this could have been imagined.
Whenever the time comes to take retrospective stock of Justin Trudeau’s legacy, a key question will be—how did he perform as a national security PM? This is a big question and presents a moving target across many issues. I don’t pretend to answer it here.
But there was a glimpse on the witness stand before the FI Commission. Here I would say the PM was strong on three issues—one highly partisan. There was also a crescendo signature to it all.
The first took him back to a time when his party was in opposition (early 2015) and had fewer seats than the NDP, then the official opposition. The Liberals were being pushed to the wall by the Harper Conservatives over national security legislation (Bill C-51). Justin Trudeau made it clear that the Liberal approach to national security issues would be to strike a balance between approving new powers as necessary for intelligence agencies such as CSIS and increasing review and accountability as a check on those new powers. This approach came to be written into the Liberals’ election campaign platform in 2015 and was implemented in various ways once the Liberals came to power. The PM took the opportunity to attack the NDP (then led by Thomas Mulcair) over their rejectionist approach to supporting the needs of the intelligence community. Interestingly he didn’t turn his fire on the Conservatives over this issue—that fire was saved for later. So, here we saw a PM who knows how to position his party on national security matters.
The second moment in the testimony involved the Government’s responses to Indian foreign interference. Trudeau’s testimony demonstrated a real mastery of this file and a clear approach. He said he wanted to try to avoid a break with India and work with the Indian government through discrete diplomacy (what we are now calling pragmatic diplomacy) to force them to admit what the Prime Minister called a “massive mistake,” and to back off from their foreign interference operations. This involved both personal interventions by the PM with his Indian counterpart, Narenda Modi, including on the margins of a G20 conference hosted by India, as well as meetings between officials. None of this was working and attacks on the Canadian government in the Indian media were continuing. So, the PM believed he had to escalate to a public announcement of the government’s knowledge of credible intelligence about the involvement of Indian government officials in FI in Canada. The timing of the announcement he made in the House of Canada in September 2023 was driven by knowledge of impending media leaks, and Trudeau acknowledged this, but also said he acted in the interests of Canadian public safety.
As the threat of Indian foreign interference continued to rise over the past year, the government was then faced with taking another, and significant, escalatory step—namely to try to disrupt these operations through the RCMP holding a press conference while in the midst of an ongoing investigation, and the expulsion of a set of six Indian diplomats including, shockingly, the Indian High Commissioner to Canada. The PM expressed a clear disappointment at the Indian government’s refusal to cooperate with Canada in its investigation. But he was prepared to take a tough stance, and is no doubt hoping he could count on allies, especially the United States, to support Canada in its approach. That’s a gamble, but may well pay off. Has the Prime Minister learned not only to work with the United States, but with its Five Eyes intelligence partners? There is evidence to suggest that he has.
The third demonstration of the PM as national security leader came when attention turned to foreign interference targeting political parties, including his own. He was forthright in stating that he was astonished to learn, for the first time through CSIS evidence presented to the Inquiry, about a liberal Parliamentarian who had been targeted by FI. He said he should have been alerted but also claimed that the changes that have made to the dissemination of intelligence would guarantee that if these events had happened in the present he would have been informed.
But then the PM turned to how best to ensure that all political parties were aware of foreign interference. He expressed some reservations about a policy of briefing Parliamentarians using intelligence information. But he extolled the value of bringing all opposition party leaders into the secret tent so that they could be made aware of intelligence on foreign interference threats targeting Canadians and their parties. This requires opposition leaders to be security cleared to a high level so that they can receive classified briefings. Jagmeet Singh for the NDP and Elizabeth May for the Greens have taken this step. Yves-Francois Blanchet for the Bloc said he would, but appears not to have followed through. The PM said he regarded this approach as non-partisan in nature. Knowledge raises all boats.
But then the PM went on to unleash a fierce attack on the Conservative Party leader, Pierre Poilievre, for his refusal to obtain a security clearance. He called this decision by Poilievre “bewildering,” “lacking in common sense,” and “irresponsible.” He stated later in cross-examination that Poilievre lacked seriousness about national security and appeared unconcerned that his own leadership race may have been impacted by foreign interference. There was a to and fro with the counsel for the Conservative Party on this. It got juicy. I think Trudeau won that one on points.
This was both an electioneering moment and a legacy moment. The PM positioning himself as best placed to defend the country’s national security and deliver policies and actions in the national interest. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the Hogue report, in the election to come, and in the histories to eventually come. And, of course, in events on the ground as Canada grapples with the authoritarians roiling the world.
I too thought that Mr. Trudeau showed some national security chops today, although he can be agonizingly long-winded in getting to some points. I think he displayed credible maturity on the file. In fact, I think the video of his testimony could be usefully shown to political studies students, learning how government runs. My overall impression is that the PM and his senior ministers have a much better grasp of how intelligence dissemination/information sharing processes should work than many of their staff.
I did note one exchange that highlighted, for me, Mr. Trudeau's reluctance to get mean. He quoted one exchange with Mr. Modi, where the latter said something about killing and burying India's enemies. Mr. Trudeau kept referring to Indian bad guys in Canada as being a threat to the security of Canadians, violators of the rule of law, and India's refusal to cooperate as endangering the rules-based international order. I wish he had also said that he told Minister Leblanc, and the RCMP, to hunt the bastards down, take them to court, toss them in jail, and throw away the key. We need more talk of dealing decisively with "Canada's enemies" too. If India won't play, let's get on with doing it ourselves.
The one related issue I think did not get sufficient play, is the fact that Mr. Trudeau has been too tolerant of the extremist element of the Khalistan movement in Canada, who lay at the heart of the Canada-India spat and represent how unchecked multiculturalism can go wrong. The ideal is that immigrant diaspora adapt to Canadian life, but still celebrate positive aspects of their heritage. When immigrant diaspora bring their medieval homeland biases, abhorrent religious, moral, and political preferences, and undemocratic practices to Canada, they should be shut down ruthlessly. Mr. Trudeau hasn't done that.
Security covers many aspects of Canadian life and reputation. On the FI file a massive inquiry seems to have been needed for the PM and ministers to come forward. Unlikely would Canadians have idea of the interference without such an inquiry. Publicity and openness puts a bright light. But no forthcoming news until placed in the witness box. Military capacity and capabilities is a respected means of security and international regard by allies. The PM has done virtually nothing to expand our capabilities through a strong military. The Australians, Americans and other allies know we bring nothing to the table, and have taken to moving forward on collective security without Canada. Not a PM with a strong interest security except when it seems politically motivated and expedient.