You are assuming that the PMO sees this interference as a detriment. What if they don't? What if they don't care what happens as long as the Liberals stay in power? I wouldn't be surprised if the report (or reports) you mentioned are suppressed so the PM can claim he wasn't aware of them, or their significance. I know this sounds cynical, but my impression is that many of the individuals in the PMO have a sneaking admiration for the CCP and the way they run things (not to mention the business opportunities they see in China).
PS. It is not unusual for governments to employ electronic document tracking, which will record who has received copies of sensitive information and when; so we may yet find out who received the information about Michael Chong and his family - and when. Assuming, of course, that such tracking information was collected and that it is not improperly (and perhaps illegally) hidden or erased (as was alleged in the Admiral’s trial). And for those inclined to exclaim: “Oh, that could never happen, because the people around politicians are honourable”, see the below-noted criminal trial, in which the Chief of Staff to an Ontario Liberal Ontario Premier, was charged and convicted for his involvement in just that kind of tampering:
Cynics will also remember that Jody Wilson Raybould considered it necessary to tape conversations so that they could not later be denied; and, no doubt, reliance on the RCMP to do a thorough and timely investigation may raise its own problems.
I was astonished to learn that we do not have an Intelligence and Security Committee of Cabinet. (I am pretty sure we used to under Trudeau pere and subsequently.) It is something which needs to happen for exactly the reasons you outlined.
Those interested in this issue may find interesting the views of Ian Brodie, the former Chief of Staff to the PM in the Harper Government. He explains the bureaucratic context in which the PCO and PMO are embedded, at least as he experienced it. The problem for the government, of course, is the potential loss of credibility if the candour of its representatives becomes suspect. We have seen this before, of course, with respect to whether the police were demanding invocation of the Emergencies Act, whether the list of proscribed rifles included any commonly used for hunting, and so on. And of course fuels the demand for a public enquiry where legal rules apply and not just political ones. In any event, the interview in question can be seen on "The Hub", here : https://thehub.ca/2023-05-05/the-hub-roundtable-how-a-chief-of-staff-views-the-foreign-interference-scandal/
Thanks, Wesley. My impression is that a lot of Canadian policymaking proceeds by copying, so it might be useful to look at what Australia does - it sounds like because they're more aware of their physical vulnerability, national security gets more attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)
Why would Jody Thomas go directly to Michael Chong and tell him the report was sent to the national security advisor and relevant departments? Is that the normal way of communicating something like that?
You are assuming that the PMO sees this interference as a detriment. What if they don't? What if they don't care what happens as long as the Liberals stay in power? I wouldn't be surprised if the report (or reports) you mentioned are suppressed so the PM can claim he wasn't aware of them, or their significance. I know this sounds cynical, but my impression is that many of the individuals in the PMO have a sneaking admiration for the CCP and the way they run things (not to mention the business opportunities they see in China).
PS. It is not unusual for governments to employ electronic document tracking, which will record who has received copies of sensitive information and when; so we may yet find out who received the information about Michael Chong and his family - and when. Assuming, of course, that such tracking information was collected and that it is not improperly (and perhaps illegally) hidden or erased (as was alleged in the Admiral’s trial). And for those inclined to exclaim: “Oh, that could never happen, because the people around politicians are honourable”, see the below-noted criminal trial, in which the Chief of Staff to an Ontario Liberal Ontario Premier, was charged and convicted for his involvement in just that kind of tampering:
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2018/2018oncj25/2018oncj25.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAnUi4gdi4gTGl2aW5nc3RvbiwgMjAxOCBPTkNKIDI1IChDYW5MSUkpAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1
Cynics will also remember that Jody Wilson Raybould considered it necessary to tape conversations so that they could not later be denied; and, no doubt, reliance on the RCMP to do a thorough and timely investigation may raise its own problems.
Thank you! Excellent as always.
I was astonished to learn that we do not have an Intelligence and Security Committee of Cabinet. (I am pretty sure we used to under Trudeau pere and subsequently.) It is something which needs to happen for exactly the reasons you outlined.
Those interested in this issue may find interesting the views of Ian Brodie, the former Chief of Staff to the PM in the Harper Government. He explains the bureaucratic context in which the PCO and PMO are embedded, at least as he experienced it. The problem for the government, of course, is the potential loss of credibility if the candour of its representatives becomes suspect. We have seen this before, of course, with respect to whether the police were demanding invocation of the Emergencies Act, whether the list of proscribed rifles included any commonly used for hunting, and so on. And of course fuels the demand for a public enquiry where legal rules apply and not just political ones. In any event, the interview in question can be seen on "The Hub", here : https://thehub.ca/2023-05-05/the-hub-roundtable-how-a-chief-of-staff-views-the-foreign-interference-scandal/
Thanks, Wesley. My impression is that a lot of Canadian policymaking proceeds by copying, so it might be useful to look at what Australia does - it sounds like because they're more aware of their physical vulnerability, national security gets more attention. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Committee_(Australia)
Why would Jody Thomas go directly to Michael Chong and tell him the report was sent to the national security advisor and relevant departments? Is that the normal way of communicating something like that?