Dear Readers,
Here is a scoop! I have been informed by an anonymous source, who I can’t name but completely trust (though I am not quite sure of the agenda here), that Mr. Blanchet, the Bloc Quebecois leader in the House of Commons, has some curious reading on his bedside table. It’s Lewis Carroll’s delightful fantasy, Alice in Wonderland. Mr. Blanchet has, I am told, been engrossed in this novel ever since he read David Johnston’s first report on foreign interference.
Following young Alice down the rabbit hole has been, well, enlightening. He has relished meeting with all kinds of curious creatures, even the scary Red Queen. “Off with his head” she shouts. Mr. Blanchet interprets this as a reference to David Johnston, that former governor general and representative of a different Queen. He has sampled magical pills, met a disappearing cat, engaged in syllogistic arguments with a caterpillar, had tea (yuck)) and even, on the margins of the novel, come across a phantasmagoric retired judge.
Maybe, he thinks, he can bring him to the surface to replace Mr. Johnston and start over the whole process of acquiring a TS security clearance, bringing on board legal staff, reviewing a mountain of classified records, making recommendations and, in short, duplicating what has already been done, while Mr. Blanchet takes his well-deserved Parliamentary break in the summer.
As he emerged from his Alice-like rabbit hole, encouraged by his dream voyage and his encounters, Mr. Blanchet made a decision. He would not fall for a “dumb trap” proposed by David Johnston, that cunning setter of traps. He would not take up the invitation to be accorded a top secret clearance and to read the classified annex of Mr. Johnston’s report, which lays out in detail his findings on foreign interference and the government’s response based on intelligence. Having navigated the underworld of Alice in Wonderland, he knows this is a trap. It’s some devilish plot of the Red Queen to silence him.
How this works in the above-ground world is not exactly clear. Lots of people in the political world and in senior leadership positions in the security and intelligence community have to work the ‘two hemispheres of the brain’ problem. That is, to the uninitiated, having to deal with one half a brain filled with secrets never to be divulged (“permanently pledged to secrecy” is the term of art in the Security of Information Act). The other half brain is filled with knowledge that can be spoken in public. As the former holder of an exotic security clearance myself, I can testify to this experience. Hint to Mr. Blanchet, there are passageways between the two. Secret knowledge can inform public comments. Secret knowledge gives you an information advantage. That is, after all, the whole point of the intelligence enterprise.
Mr. Blanchet has not cleverly avoided a “dumb trap;” he has just fallen prey to a “dumb response.” As has brother Poilievre.
Not so, Mr. Singh, the leader of the New Democratic Party. He has stayed above ground, but is caught at a cross-roads. Will he continue to press the government for a public inquiry, while accepting the invitation to be security cleared and read Mr. Johnston’s classified annex? That might not be a fork he can straddle forever. The NDP is a party that struggles to come up with positions on national security—it’s not in their DNA. The party’s election campaign platform in 2021 was illustrative of that problem. But there is a golden opportunity presented to the NDP by the furious political contestation over foreign interference. There is high ground it could claim as a champion of transparency and enhanced accountability for national security and intelligence while still behaving as a statesmanlike (ready to govern!) party. Hint—there is lots to criticize the government about on these files. Proving an ability to govern, on the other hand, is not something that Mr. Blanchet has to worry about.
As for Mr. Poilievre, the leader of the opposition Conservative party, proving an ability to govern is essential. He continues to hold to a position that a public inquiry is necessary as a “disinfectant.” He wants a Judge (retired) with experience in national security cases and knowledge of intelligence (a vanishingly small pool) to “decide what becomes public and what doesn’t,” according to statements he made at a recent press conference. Except, as Mr. Poilievre should know (OK, actually does know) this isn’t a decision that can be made unilaterally by a judge. Check out section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. It’s a judicial battleground—good for lawyers, rarely for the public. He also wants a (phantasmagoric) judge to “rule” on what occurred with regard to Chinese electoral interference and what needs to be done to fix it. Except a judge in a judicial/publicn inquiry, doesn’t “rule.” It’s not a courtroom. A Judge makes recommendations—maybe two or three years down the road. Where the twin imperatives of public transparency and knowledge, and urgency of response, fit in here are not clear.
The opportunity for the NDP is there on a plate, offered up by the agenda that Mr. Johnston proposes for his pubic hearings. Maybe the NDP can appear more statesmanlike than the Conservatives—not a high bar. Maybe the NDP could draw some much needed media and public attention to itself. Maybe the NDP could lead the way in enthusiastically embracing the idea of public hearings and taking part in them, providing chances to be heard distinctively that would never be possible within the legal framework of a judicial (public, or not so public) inquiry.
Just a thought. Now, where is my copy of Alice in Wonderland?
Mr. Blanchet's curious bedside reading
You were recommended to me by Paul Wells…I may have to rethink this choice after reading this opinion.
A public inquiry is needed.
We can not rely on only Johnston's opinion.
Johnston is very compromised and, with more integrity, would have declined the appointment.
Wark seems to be following the Trudeau Liberal party line. Disappointing.