Mr Johnston's appearance yesterday indicated to me that he is clearly out of his depth in his position as "special rapporteur" for the PM. He was unprepared (or indifferent) to the political ramifications of the role he was offered by the government. He did not respond to many of the opposition's questions, but fell back on the excuse he had not seen anything (to corroborate their suspicions). I was disappointed, to say the least.
I didn’t watch the entire 3 hours of testimony, so I appreciate articles like this for offering a ring side observation of Mr. Johnstone’s appearance.
Mr. Johnstone is correct: there is a serious need for evaluation of government operations to determine where the shortcomings are for the proper flow and political response of intelligence information. Good idea. This is a non-partisan objective that everyone can identify and rally around.
However, an important aspect of the issue is being glossed over by Mr. Johnstone and many media commentators. It is well established that the Conservative Party, the Leader and specific candidates under the CPC banner were targeted in the 2021 election. It is just recently that past leader O’Toole and MP Chong have received security briefings of this electoral interference and assessments of personal risk to themselves and their families.
It is outrageous that MPs, including MP Kwan have not been given briefings on these intelligence reports until now. The Liberals default position of opaqueness and secrecy does not serve them well in this instance. Surely they owe it to Members of Parliament to demonstrate that they are responsible custodians of intelligence information and take the well being and safety of others seriously. Who knew what, where and when is an important component of the storyline. The political implications are real and Mr. Johnstone has indicated that looking backward into this is not important.
Your comment characterizing Mr. Blanchet’s and Mr. Poilievre’s decision to not partake in the fools’s errand of being silenced by reading the “secret documents” as “Truly lame, that” confirms your bias. You do much to reduce your credibility with anyone who does not subscribe to the Trudeau school of ethics. Shame on you. I am not at all impressed with your work in my short acquaintance it.
Why Poilievre doesn’t want to be briefed has been addressed several times. Guess you missed the memo. The majority of duly elected members of parliament have voted for an independent inquiry, notwithstanding polls show a majority of Canadians in favour. Johnston, for whom I have no respect, decided he was superior to those voices and to the elected House of Commons. A travesty of democracy and I don’t care how you spin it. There is only one word to describe this “dictatorship”. End of. Both members from BC Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Jenny Kwan, NDP were in the news in Vancouver for this issue during the last election. Reported to Elections Canada. Nothing done. If I know that how come they don’t? The government in charge is the “Liberals”, I repeat the “Liberals” who are completely and totally responsible for this outrage, which is exactly what it is. Taxpayers are currently paying who knows how much to help them cover their scandal. No, there is no way out. None. This is the most despicable bunch ever to disgrace this country.
Unintentionally omitting an NDP identifier beside Kwan’s name has absolutely no bearing on the author’s credibility. Possibly you could accuse him of not paying close enough attention to the minutiae of punctuation, or attack his editor mercilessly, but that’s about it. Touché. You got him there. Overall, he provides an excellent and timely perspective on the hearing. As always.
You are aware of the author’s intentions? Hmmm. I disagree with your use of the modifier, “excellent”. He provides a perspective. I also disagree with your inference that your opinion trumps mine. I agree to disagree.
Mr Johnston's appearance yesterday indicated to me that he is clearly out of his depth in his position as "special rapporteur" for the PM. He was unprepared (or indifferent) to the political ramifications of the role he was offered by the government. He did not respond to many of the opposition's questions, but fell back on the excuse he had not seen anything (to corroborate their suspicions). I was disappointed, to say the least.
I didn’t watch the entire 3 hours of testimony, so I appreciate articles like this for offering a ring side observation of Mr. Johnstone’s appearance.
Mr. Johnstone is correct: there is a serious need for evaluation of government operations to determine where the shortcomings are for the proper flow and political response of intelligence information. Good idea. This is a non-partisan objective that everyone can identify and rally around.
However, an important aspect of the issue is being glossed over by Mr. Johnstone and many media commentators. It is well established that the Conservative Party, the Leader and specific candidates under the CPC banner were targeted in the 2021 election. It is just recently that past leader O’Toole and MP Chong have received security briefings of this electoral interference and assessments of personal risk to themselves and their families.
It is outrageous that MPs, including MP Kwan have not been given briefings on these intelligence reports until now. The Liberals default position of opaqueness and secrecy does not serve them well in this instance. Surely they owe it to Members of Parliament to demonstrate that they are responsible custodians of intelligence information and take the well being and safety of others seriously. Who knew what, where and when is an important component of the storyline. The political implications are real and Mr. Johnstone has indicated that looking backward into this is not important.
I smell a coverup.
A ream of adolescent arguments blaming the messenger. Wow.
Mr Wark, we’ve read your writings on CCP espionage.
It mimics the Ottawa narrative from bureaucrats, cronies, government, media, and it raises questions.
- there is nothing here, critics are partisan
- critics think there is something, but no one knows understands how it works
- critics may have some arguments, but only because they don’t understand
- critics have a point, but its not significant enough
- critics have established some significant questions in quality of David Johnston report, but its not enough to sink him.
During your doubt of questioning on the topic, arrests are made and policies changed in other countries, on the very same issue.
Maybe it’s time to consider your own bias, because the world disagrees with you.
Let Parliament decide on what gets investigated and how, not Trudeau's friend - Johnston.
Your comment characterizing Mr. Blanchet’s and Mr. Poilievre’s decision to not partake in the fools’s errand of being silenced by reading the “secret documents” as “Truly lame, that” confirms your bias. You do much to reduce your credibility with anyone who does not subscribe to the Trudeau school of ethics. Shame on you. I am not at all impressed with your work in my short acquaintance it.
Bingo
Why Poilievre doesn’t want to be briefed has been addressed several times. Guess you missed the memo. The majority of duly elected members of parliament have voted for an independent inquiry, notwithstanding polls show a majority of Canadians in favour. Johnston, for whom I have no respect, decided he was superior to those voices and to the elected House of Commons. A travesty of democracy and I don’t care how you spin it. There is only one word to describe this “dictatorship”. End of. Both members from BC Kenny Chiu, Conservative, Jenny Kwan, NDP were in the news in Vancouver for this issue during the last election. Reported to Elections Canada. Nothing done. If I know that how come they don’t? The government in charge is the “Liberals”, I repeat the “Liberals” who are completely and totally responsible for this outrage, which is exactly what it is. Taxpayers are currently paying who knows how much to help them cover their scandal. No, there is no way out. None. This is the most despicable bunch ever to disgrace this country.
Jenny Kwan is an NDP MP, not a Conservative.
Brings a credibility question about the author, perhaps, when he includes Jenny Kwan as a Conservative.
Unintentionally omitting an NDP identifier beside Kwan’s name has absolutely no bearing on the author’s credibility. Possibly you could accuse him of not paying close enough attention to the minutiae of punctuation, or attack his editor mercilessly, but that’s about it. Touché. You got him there. Overall, he provides an excellent and timely perspective on the hearing. As always.
You are aware of the author’s intentions? Hmmm. I disagree with your use of the modifier, “excellent”. He provides a perspective. I also disagree with your inference that your opinion trumps mine. I agree to disagree.
Johnston admitted he never interviewed Dong. Very strange behaviour by Johnston.
Thank you for this excellent coverage