The convoluted process involving David Johnston should never have been started. A full, complete public inquiry, to look back and forward, is and was always essential for the security and well being of Canada and Canadians. A government that has secrecy as it’s default position is not a democracy; it is a dictatorship.
The Govt repeatedly and willingly would have provided access to opposition parties of classified documents. Opposition parties not interested. They don't care they care about me as long noise lie and they are very good at that. Secrecy is necessary when dealing with security issues and our allies.
Have a wonderful vacation in PEI! As a proud Bluenoser, I would advise you not to trip on any trees and fall into the North Atlantic. I miss swimming there, but I don't miss the jellyfish!
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this until the Fall when the House is back in session. I also think it's going to be easier to have toddlers decide on something.
Excellent summing up, but the unanswered questions!!!! Sure go off and have a vacation. Lots of precedent for that!!! Just kidding!!!
As for someone to do another review or inquiry, I decided to do a little romping through famous Canadians and Order of Canada recipients, just in case someone suitable might come to mind.
First of all, I declared Stephen Harper and Conrad Black ineligible. I considered Mark Carney, Irwin Cutler, Harry S. Laforme, Romeo Dallaire and Beverley McLochlin, some of these people just because I thought it possible that all parties might be willing to consider them, others because I thought there was a possibility that they would have an understanding of the importance and role of intelligence.
Mark Carney or Romeo Dallaire would be great! They might not want to deal with the polarized House though. As a Canadian citizen, I really hate seeing it at this time....when we need all the parties to work together, to solve this issue. I also think polarization is incredibly negative if we want a national security strategy come out of this *gestures to the thing* whatever we end up naming it.
I suspect that the primary concern of the government, at the moment, is not foreign interference in Canadian politics, but rather about how to protect its Ministers and their minions from further embarrassing examples of inattention or mismanagement – that is, from more of what has already been exposed by leaker(s) and by the gentle handiwork David Johnson.
That said, most of the problems seem to be on the political side of the house, rather than within CSIS itself; which is perhaps why the leaker(s) felt moved to act, in the hope of spurring action from political actors. Moreover, without that catalyst, would any of this have have come to light, via the internal watch-bodies who report to the PMO? Or is THAT were the problem lies?
From a forensic perspective though, it seems to me that the proposed enquiry body, however it is ultimately composed, would benefit from having, on board, both operational expertise (i.e. real-life experience) and the discretionary power to compel testimony from witnesses – which includes the ability to cross-examine them and to require the production of documents, as provided for in the Enquiries Act. Whether or not that information can be publicly revealed.
It seems to me that getting closer to the truth will require more formal and forceful probing than David Johnson’s gentlemanly chat, behind closed doors, with presumptively honorable men.
However, there are still some vexing questions, about the form and the mechanics of the enquiry itself.
How many “parties” or individuals will be permitted, or required, to attend its sessions, to give evidence, or to make submissions? That is - not just who may be compelled to participate, but also those who demand a voice.
How will the enquiry handle the production and sharing of documents with these individuals?
What is its relationship between this forum and normal legal processes, like the Criminal Code, or rights that can be pursued in the civil courts – like remedies for reputational attacks? Will it report to Parliament, or just the PMO/PCO?
Indeed, will it be a trial-like model at all? Or will this be a “star chamber affair”, more like an inquisition than a trial - which would be much more efficient, but would only work if its members were trusted not to simply be a mouthpiece for government or for officials seeking to cover their butts.
So, perhaps what is needed is something like European “investigative judges” or US special prosecutors, rather than the trial-like model used for the Rouleau enquiry.
Similarly: what is the “scope” of the enquiry?
For example, will the commission have the power to examine the internal workings of semi-private actors, like political parties, whose inattention may be a source of vulnerability, but who have hitherto been largely self-regulating? Will the victims of foreign interference have a meaningful role to play in shaping the rules that are ostensibly designed to protect them? How will they be protected from reprisal if they do? And dare I even mention the RCMP, which has its own byzantine quirks and challenges?
All of which is to say, that unless these things are hammered out soon, there is little hope that, whatever form the enquiry takes, it will get its work done quickly - say, before the next election.
Which I suspect would not trouble the current government at all.
Finally, (and in light of the shenanigans surrounding the admiral’s trial and the SNC Lavalin affaire), the cynic in me does not discount the possibility that this probe will never be launched, or that it might suffer the same fate as the “Somalia Enquiry” into alleged misbehaviour in the Canadian Military. [See the Canadian Encyclopedia summary of that fiasco, which was shut down by an irritated Prime Minister before it could finish its work].
In other words, I do not discount the possibility (now growing) that the government will conclude that its pusillanimous NDP partner will never pull the electoral plug, so that for the rest of this parliament the whole issue can be safely ignored. And that the most profitable course of action is to spend the summer constructing a blame shifting narrative for inaction.
Have a wonderful vacation - Mr. Johnston should have been allowed to continue.
The convoluted process involving David Johnston should never have been started. A full, complete public inquiry, to look back and forward, is and was always essential for the security and well being of Canada and Canadians. A government that has secrecy as it’s default position is not a democracy; it is a dictatorship.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2023/05/25/Phoney-Chinese-Election-Interference-Scandal/
Tyee is not a reliable source of unbiased information.
Especially if it’s coming from the likes of Liberal hyperpartisan Michael Harris.
The Govt repeatedly and willingly would have provided access to opposition parties of classified documents. Opposition parties not interested. They don't care they care about me as long noise lie and they are very good at that. Secrecy is necessary when dealing with security issues and our allies.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/6WAj3iashPRvCrrG7
apologies please ignore above comment and photo ... Don't know how I managed to mess this up correct comment is above from the tyee thank you
Have a wonderful vacation in PEI! As a proud Bluenoser, I would advise you not to trip on any trees and fall into the North Atlantic. I miss swimming there, but I don't miss the jellyfish!
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this until the Fall when the House is back in session. I also think it's going to be easier to have toddlers decide on something.
Excellent summing up, but the unanswered questions!!!! Sure go off and have a vacation. Lots of precedent for that!!! Just kidding!!!
As for someone to do another review or inquiry, I decided to do a little romping through famous Canadians and Order of Canada recipients, just in case someone suitable might come to mind.
First of all, I declared Stephen Harper and Conrad Black ineligible. I considered Mark Carney, Irwin Cutler, Harry S. Laforme, Romeo Dallaire and Beverley McLochlin, some of these people just because I thought it possible that all parties might be willing to consider them, others because I thought there was a possibility that they would have an understanding of the importance and role of intelligence.
In the end, I decided on Elizabeth May.
Any other nominees?
Greta Bossenmaier
Lewis MacKenzie.
Mark Carney or Romeo Dallaire would be great! They might not want to deal with the polarized House though. As a Canadian citizen, I really hate seeing it at this time....when we need all the parties to work together, to solve this issue. I also think polarization is incredibly negative if we want a national security strategy come out of this *gestures to the thing* whatever we end up naming it.
I suspect that the primary concern of the government, at the moment, is not foreign interference in Canadian politics, but rather about how to protect its Ministers and their minions from further embarrassing examples of inattention or mismanagement – that is, from more of what has already been exposed by leaker(s) and by the gentle handiwork David Johnson.
That said, most of the problems seem to be on the political side of the house, rather than within CSIS itself; which is perhaps why the leaker(s) felt moved to act, in the hope of spurring action from political actors. Moreover, without that catalyst, would any of this have have come to light, via the internal watch-bodies who report to the PMO? Or is THAT were the problem lies?
From a forensic perspective though, it seems to me that the proposed enquiry body, however it is ultimately composed, would benefit from having, on board, both operational expertise (i.e. real-life experience) and the discretionary power to compel testimony from witnesses – which includes the ability to cross-examine them and to require the production of documents, as provided for in the Enquiries Act. Whether or not that information can be publicly revealed.
It seems to me that getting closer to the truth will require more formal and forceful probing than David Johnson’s gentlemanly chat, behind closed doors, with presumptively honorable men.
However, there are still some vexing questions, about the form and the mechanics of the enquiry itself.
How many “parties” or individuals will be permitted, or required, to attend its sessions, to give evidence, or to make submissions? That is - not just who may be compelled to participate, but also those who demand a voice.
How will the enquiry handle the production and sharing of documents with these individuals?
What is its relationship between this forum and normal legal processes, like the Criminal Code, or rights that can be pursued in the civil courts – like remedies for reputational attacks? Will it report to Parliament, or just the PMO/PCO?
Indeed, will it be a trial-like model at all? Or will this be a “star chamber affair”, more like an inquisition than a trial - which would be much more efficient, but would only work if its members were trusted not to simply be a mouthpiece for government or for officials seeking to cover their butts.
So, perhaps what is needed is something like European “investigative judges” or US special prosecutors, rather than the trial-like model used for the Rouleau enquiry.
Similarly: what is the “scope” of the enquiry?
For example, will the commission have the power to examine the internal workings of semi-private actors, like political parties, whose inattention may be a source of vulnerability, but who have hitherto been largely self-regulating? Will the victims of foreign interference have a meaningful role to play in shaping the rules that are ostensibly designed to protect them? How will they be protected from reprisal if they do? And dare I even mention the RCMP, which has its own byzantine quirks and challenges?
All of which is to say, that unless these things are hammered out soon, there is little hope that, whatever form the enquiry takes, it will get its work done quickly - say, before the next election.
Which I suspect would not trouble the current government at all.
Finally, (and in light of the shenanigans surrounding the admiral’s trial and the SNC Lavalin affaire), the cynic in me does not discount the possibility that this probe will never be launched, or that it might suffer the same fate as the “Somalia Enquiry” into alleged misbehaviour in the Canadian Military. [See the Canadian Encyclopedia summary of that fiasco, which was shut down by an irritated Prime Minister before it could finish its work].
In other words, I do not discount the possibility (now growing) that the government will conclude that its pusillanimous NDP partner will never pull the electoral plug, so that for the rest of this parliament the whole issue can be safely ignored. And that the most profitable course of action is to spend the summer constructing a blame shifting narrative for inaction.
Thanks for the update and safe travels.
Brilliant writing Wesley. Have a wonderful holiday.