I doubt that PP (and probably Blanchet) will eagerly leap into this trap. LOL Singh will, though. (Mr. Dental Care while our democratic institutions burn. But don’t get me started ...)
The Liberals, and Trudeau specifically, by getting into bed with China, created this mess & are now willing to hand it off with a pissy - ‘Okay! Fine! You do it! All of it! Write the terms of reference for the Liberal gov’t why don’t you?’ If I was the oppo, I’d laugh at LeBlanc & say ‘nice try.’ Tell your Boss Kid to go pound sand.
Here’s the thing, why, after nearly 8 years, is this governing party still so patently stupid? It’s like watching g.d. teenagers - ‘we’ve learned, we’ll do better, we weren’t told, NO ONE TOLD US!, we just didn’t know.’ They’ve been flying by the seat of their pants since day one. When they won, I thought ‘well, fine, let’s see what these kids can do, meanwhile fingers crossed for Canada.’ I batted away what my gut instinct was muttering - - until I heard that Trudeau was headed to some European summit thing(y) where he’d meet Putin. Uh oh. (The gut instinct screamed FINALLY you get it!) Canada is sending our Child Commander in Chief.
I might not have agreed with everything Harper did, but g.dammit, he’s my dog in an important fight. And never once did he embarrass Canada on the world stage. (No. No. The list is too long to go into here but India was a 👀moment that leaps to mind.)
Imagine you’re the PM & people aren’t talking about your qualifications or education or work & government experience, but instead they focus on your sox & costumes, hair/beard, your yoga moves, your pointy brown shoes ... a vacuous Instagram dream come true for millennials. The Kanadian Kardassians. Christ. Is it any wonder that the Five Eyes, etc. look askance, eyebrow knowingly arched & decide to move on with the business of running the world. The Canadian Cool Kids (resisted using Ks) are constantly running to keep up, sidling up, asking to be included.
Do they have it in them to fix this mess? As a mom, you always hope so, but (arched eyebrow) pray that (gray-haired sages) like John Manley or Guy Saint-Jacques et al are invited to offer guidance. They certainly need it.
Judicial review. The other report mentioned that it was a "dirty little secret ' in Ottawa security monde on how to reform CDN security services. If they know how to, then they should. Those services have executive managers who should know what to do and how to reform their services/ agencies. I'm not in the know, and I wouldn't be surprised that some fed rules might be in place that prevents internal reorganization.
I agree that it’s finished before it’s started in that there’s no quick. much less smooth way out of the mess. No one is going to buy the shifting of the focus solely onto CSIS. And I agree that Canada is not viewed seriously. How could it? And you’re right about the money laundering.
In thinking back to the Huawei fiasco, experienced bureaucrats were shaking their heads. John Manley, for whom I have a lot of respect, said all they had to have done was execute a ‘diplomatic fumble.’ A skilled, professional sleight of hand. Oops & sorry our ppl on the ground mishandled the US request & she left. Instead we had inexperienced (sanctimonious) newbies scrambling over each other & the ‘rule of law’ will show China who they’re dealing with.
That naivety, the sheer lack of experience was on high display these past several weeks, and especially on Friday evening. Their credibility is shot & they know it. Trudeau certainly knows he’s cornered. And we have Singh swanning around on his perceived high ground.
Have they pulled in the deeply experienced ppl that they’ve shunted to the sidelines these past 8 years? Evidently not. And perhaps those ppl wouldn’t want to wade into the PMO cesspool.
So yeah, it’s over before it started. CSIS comms will be fixed, eventually; Trudeau will shuffle off the scene (not soon enough) but Canada’s reputation & our citizen’s confidence in our institutions will have paid the price.
Lots of words. Bottom line. This government is and has been compromised. Regardless of the process, this next move must get to the bottom of it. Your commentary sounds like you believe it’s finished before it’s started and rather hopeless, too complicated etc. etc. This will not be the first time an inquiry was held, but it is likely the most important in Canadian history so far, bar none. The seriousness of this issue can’t be understated. If I know about this, an average citizen, and did know, an average citizen, how hard can it be? The information is already there by several investigative journalists over several years. It’s not difficult to follow if you know who to follow on this topic. The fact that this has gone on this far for this many years is mind bending. The liberals and their followers will do anything to blame the other guy to convolute which was/is their responsibility and none other. They should not under any circumstances be re-elected, with or without a completed inquiry.
Believe it or not, Canada is no longer trusted and is left out consistently from security talks in the 5 eyes. The future of this country is at risk. It’s not funny, it’s not an ostrich, it’s serious. And there is only one person to blame. Justin Trudeau. End of.
I likely learned that listening to Ottawa et al over several months. Realizing it’s all talk no substance and much can be said in a few words or less. Such as the word “corruption”. Frustration more than arrogance. The prize for arrogance goes to Ottawa. What you really refer to I suspect is the fact that this is not new and many know it and have known about it over several years. No secret. End of.
When one considers the "solicitation" by the government of ideas from the Opposition does the phrase "poisoned chalice" come to mind?
I have no real idea how this whole inquiry thingy [thingy: a term of art to describe government efforts at hiding information] should proceed but I do have some starting notions.
As noted above, it seems to me that the "solicitation" by the government of ideas from the Opposition is a poisoned chalice.
However. However. However.
I do note that Paul Wells had some interesting thoughts on who might be appropriate to lead such an inquiry. As for the terms of reference, you definitely note such conflicts in how such terms of reference might be phrased; may I offer a hybrid idea that I have not at all fleshed out (i.e. notions vs. ideas) but it seems to me that there are so many conflicts - quite apart from conflicts of interest - that arise in this area.
A conflict of time, i.e. thorough work vs results prior to the next election, just for starters. The difficulty of dealing with sensitive information, for another. And, oh, yes, terms of reference.
I think that David Johnston was terrifically ill-served by the process in which he participated and to which he has now (almost) resigned himself. Of course, he should have been smart enough to tell JT to take a hike when first approached but he wasn't. Water. Bridge. Etc.
So, my potential hybrid approach. First, think in terms of the who as Paul Wells identifies them, that is, some really solid people who are not "eminent" in the sense that the government has thought of it. In other words, the government should stop thinking about finding someone who is "so good, so pure, so unimpeachable" that they are above reproach; those people just don't exist. Simply get some good people [again, see Wells), give them a healthy budget (Lord knows, the government has wasted so much money; what's a bit more) and a reasonable but aggressive time line.
Now, assume that you have some people - quite an assumption, no? Okay, the budget should be adequate to allow them to hire good people and consultants [oh, yes, this government will ALWAYS accept the hiring of consultants - but not McKinsey, not ever, damnit!!].
As for timelines, think of ongoing periodic reporting, say, quarterly (monthly?). Some periods that reporting will simply say, nothing to say this period, and so forth. Other times it will be a summary of the public hearings that have been held this period plus some sanitized bumph about the sensitive stuff. But, truly, ongoing information for we the ignorant unwashed masses that JT and company don't want to tell anything. Allow the commissioners to determine what to release.
Very importantly, start releasing enough information to allow the public to draw conclusions - and even the commissioners to draw interim conclusions - early and throughout the process.
As part of the ongoing reporting, it would make sense to allow the commissioners to describe the current "challenges" [read idiocy] in getting information to those who need it at a terrifically early date [Johnston did a bit of that; why can't multiple - say three commissioners and a real staff not do the same. In any event, such information should be released early on, say by the beginning of 2024. For example, it would be reasonable for the commissioners in an early interim report to describe the lack of communication between intelligence agencies and the relevant government ministers by way of "This is what we saw; it is highly stupid and destructive and potentially dangerous and it has to change. We have told the government this and they have committed to improve in this area. We will watch for the promised improvements and will comment further in a future report."
So, general diagnosis of the problem early on. As for the prescription to solve the problem, that might be able to be done in a piecemeal basis but is likely to be toward the end of the process which could well be after the next election. But. speaking of that next election, it is absolutely essential that there be initial reporting and recommendations to deal with the claims of interference in our electoral process. That initial reporting can be simply that: initial and therefore subject to more in depth subsequent work but it is essential that there be enough done and publicly released prior to the election to allow some sort of confidence in the next election results
Both the Government and the Opposition have to realize that they can't have everything that they want. The Opposition wants to get enough to hang all sorts of stuff on JT and friends; the Government wants to defer and hide. Tough. Neither can or should get all that they want.
The scheduling must bring pain to each side but also some reward to each side.
Ultimately, we need multiple commissioners. [For those of the readers of a "certain" age, think of the old B & B commission appointed by Trudeau I. It had a number of commissioners. It is also my recollection that they issued quite a series of reports [my memory is vague but that is my recollection].
So, set an ambitious target for completion but know that "real" completion in the sense of all is done, reported, etc. will not be until after the election but have real substantive periodic reporting.
Oh, yeah, one final thought. As part of this whole thingy [term of art, remember?], well, shouldn't we think about AUKUS and the refusal by those participating governments to NOT invite Canada to participate? My uninformed speculation is that the AUKUS governments believe that Canada is unserious, unworthy and penetrated by the Chinese. Sounds like a good research area for the commissioners.
I absolutely think that the Opposition should participate in this process even though I think this solicitation is a poisoned chalice. The Opposition should make this effort simply because they are His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Emphasis on Loyal as in loyal to Canada. And the Government should act as a Loyal Government. Both sides should drop the gotcha stuff and games playing. Will they? I am not at all optimistic. But, we will see
I doubt that PP (and probably Blanchet) will eagerly leap into this trap. LOL Singh will, though. (Mr. Dental Care while our democratic institutions burn. But don’t get me started ...)
The Liberals, and Trudeau specifically, by getting into bed with China, created this mess & are now willing to hand it off with a pissy - ‘Okay! Fine! You do it! All of it! Write the terms of reference for the Liberal gov’t why don’t you?’ If I was the oppo, I’d laugh at LeBlanc & say ‘nice try.’ Tell your Boss Kid to go pound sand.
Here’s the thing, why, after nearly 8 years, is this governing party still so patently stupid? It’s like watching g.d. teenagers - ‘we’ve learned, we’ll do better, we weren’t told, NO ONE TOLD US!, we just didn’t know.’ They’ve been flying by the seat of their pants since day one. When they won, I thought ‘well, fine, let’s see what these kids can do, meanwhile fingers crossed for Canada.’ I batted away what my gut instinct was muttering - - until I heard that Trudeau was headed to some European summit thing(y) where he’d meet Putin. Uh oh. (The gut instinct screamed FINALLY you get it!) Canada is sending our Child Commander in Chief.
I might not have agreed with everything Harper did, but g.dammit, he’s my dog in an important fight. And never once did he embarrass Canada on the world stage. (No. No. The list is too long to go into here but India was a 👀moment that leaps to mind.)
Imagine you’re the PM & people aren’t talking about your qualifications or education or work & government experience, but instead they focus on your sox & costumes, hair/beard, your yoga moves, your pointy brown shoes ... a vacuous Instagram dream come true for millennials. The Kanadian Kardassians. Christ. Is it any wonder that the Five Eyes, etc. look askance, eyebrow knowingly arched & decide to move on with the business of running the world. The Canadian Cool Kids (resisted using Ks) are constantly running to keep up, sidling up, asking to be included.
Do they have it in them to fix this mess? As a mom, you always hope so, but (arched eyebrow) pray that (gray-haired sages) like John Manley or Guy Saint-Jacques et al are invited to offer guidance. They certainly need it.
It would appear that PP has jumped in head first. His presser yesterday afternoon sure sounded like it! Now will Blanchet and Singh cooperate with him? https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poilievre-opposition-public-inquiry-1.6872940
Judicial review. The other report mentioned that it was a "dirty little secret ' in Ottawa security monde on how to reform CDN security services. If they know how to, then they should. Those services have executive managers who should know what to do and how to reform their services/ agencies. I'm not in the know, and I wouldn't be surprised that some fed rules might be in place that prevents internal reorganization.
I agree that it’s finished before it’s started in that there’s no quick. much less smooth way out of the mess. No one is going to buy the shifting of the focus solely onto CSIS. And I agree that Canada is not viewed seriously. How could it? And you’re right about the money laundering.
In thinking back to the Huawei fiasco, experienced bureaucrats were shaking their heads. John Manley, for whom I have a lot of respect, said all they had to have done was execute a ‘diplomatic fumble.’ A skilled, professional sleight of hand. Oops & sorry our ppl on the ground mishandled the US request & she left. Instead we had inexperienced (sanctimonious) newbies scrambling over each other & the ‘rule of law’ will show China who they’re dealing with.
That naivety, the sheer lack of experience was on high display these past several weeks, and especially on Friday evening. Their credibility is shot & they know it. Trudeau certainly knows he’s cornered. And we have Singh swanning around on his perceived high ground.
Have they pulled in the deeply experienced ppl that they’ve shunted to the sidelines these past 8 years? Evidently not. And perhaps those ppl wouldn’t want to wade into the PMO cesspool.
So yeah, it’s over before it started. CSIS comms will be fixed, eventually; Trudeau will shuffle off the scene (not soon enough) but Canada’s reputation & our citizen’s confidence in our institutions will have paid the price.
Lots of words. Bottom line. This government is and has been compromised. Regardless of the process, this next move must get to the bottom of it. Your commentary sounds like you believe it’s finished before it’s started and rather hopeless, too complicated etc. etc. This will not be the first time an inquiry was held, but it is likely the most important in Canadian history so far, bar none. The seriousness of this issue can’t be understated. If I know about this, an average citizen, and did know, an average citizen, how hard can it be? The information is already there by several investigative journalists over several years. It’s not difficult to follow if you know who to follow on this topic. The fact that this has gone on this far for this many years is mind bending. The liberals and their followers will do anything to blame the other guy to convolute which was/is their responsibility and none other. They should not under any circumstances be re-elected, with or without a completed inquiry.
Believe it or not, Canada is no longer trusted and is left out consistently from security talks in the 5 eyes. The future of this country is at risk. It’s not funny, it’s not an ostrich, it’s serious. And there is only one person to blame. Justin Trudeau. End of.
Good point that they are acting as if this is over and/or to complicated to proceed with a judicial review. But security is to important to let go.
Your repeated use of "end of" comes off as extreme arrogance.
I likely learned that listening to Ottawa et al over several months. Realizing it’s all talk no substance and much can be said in a few words or less. Such as the word “corruption”. Frustration more than arrogance. The prize for arrogance goes to Ottawa. What you really refer to I suspect is the fact that this is not new and many know it and have known about it over several years. No secret. End of.
Thank you, Sir, for a thoughtful missive.
When one considers the "solicitation" by the government of ideas from the Opposition does the phrase "poisoned chalice" come to mind?
I have no real idea how this whole inquiry thingy [thingy: a term of art to describe government efforts at hiding information] should proceed but I do have some starting notions.
As noted above, it seems to me that the "solicitation" by the government of ideas from the Opposition is a poisoned chalice.
However. However. However.
I do note that Paul Wells had some interesting thoughts on who might be appropriate to lead such an inquiry. As for the terms of reference, you definitely note such conflicts in how such terms of reference might be phrased; may I offer a hybrid idea that I have not at all fleshed out (i.e. notions vs. ideas) but it seems to me that there are so many conflicts - quite apart from conflicts of interest - that arise in this area.
A conflict of time, i.e. thorough work vs results prior to the next election, just for starters. The difficulty of dealing with sensitive information, for another. And, oh, yes, terms of reference.
I think that David Johnston was terrifically ill-served by the process in which he participated and to which he has now (almost) resigned himself. Of course, he should have been smart enough to tell JT to take a hike when first approached but he wasn't. Water. Bridge. Etc.
So, my potential hybrid approach. First, think in terms of the who as Paul Wells identifies them, that is, some really solid people who are not "eminent" in the sense that the government has thought of it. In other words, the government should stop thinking about finding someone who is "so good, so pure, so unimpeachable" that they are above reproach; those people just don't exist. Simply get some good people [again, see Wells), give them a healthy budget (Lord knows, the government has wasted so much money; what's a bit more) and a reasonable but aggressive time line.
Now, assume that you have some people - quite an assumption, no? Okay, the budget should be adequate to allow them to hire good people and consultants [oh, yes, this government will ALWAYS accept the hiring of consultants - but not McKinsey, not ever, damnit!!].
As for timelines, think of ongoing periodic reporting, say, quarterly (monthly?). Some periods that reporting will simply say, nothing to say this period, and so forth. Other times it will be a summary of the public hearings that have been held this period plus some sanitized bumph about the sensitive stuff. But, truly, ongoing information for we the ignorant unwashed masses that JT and company don't want to tell anything. Allow the commissioners to determine what to release.
Very importantly, start releasing enough information to allow the public to draw conclusions - and even the commissioners to draw interim conclusions - early and throughout the process.
As part of the ongoing reporting, it would make sense to allow the commissioners to describe the current "challenges" [read idiocy] in getting information to those who need it at a terrifically early date [Johnston did a bit of that; why can't multiple - say three commissioners and a real staff not do the same. In any event, such information should be released early on, say by the beginning of 2024. For example, it would be reasonable for the commissioners in an early interim report to describe the lack of communication between intelligence agencies and the relevant government ministers by way of "This is what we saw; it is highly stupid and destructive and potentially dangerous and it has to change. We have told the government this and they have committed to improve in this area. We will watch for the promised improvements and will comment further in a future report."
So, general diagnosis of the problem early on. As for the prescription to solve the problem, that might be able to be done in a piecemeal basis but is likely to be toward the end of the process which could well be after the next election. But. speaking of that next election, it is absolutely essential that there be initial reporting and recommendations to deal with the claims of interference in our electoral process. That initial reporting can be simply that: initial and therefore subject to more in depth subsequent work but it is essential that there be enough done and publicly released prior to the election to allow some sort of confidence in the next election results
Both the Government and the Opposition have to realize that they can't have everything that they want. The Opposition wants to get enough to hang all sorts of stuff on JT and friends; the Government wants to defer and hide. Tough. Neither can or should get all that they want.
The scheduling must bring pain to each side but also some reward to each side.
Ultimately, we need multiple commissioners. [For those of the readers of a "certain" age, think of the old B & B commission appointed by Trudeau I. It had a number of commissioners. It is also my recollection that they issued quite a series of reports [my memory is vague but that is my recollection].
So, set an ambitious target for completion but know that "real" completion in the sense of all is done, reported, etc. will not be until after the election but have real substantive periodic reporting.
Oh, yeah, one final thought. As part of this whole thingy [term of art, remember?], well, shouldn't we think about AUKUS and the refusal by those participating governments to NOT invite Canada to participate? My uninformed speculation is that the AUKUS governments believe that Canada is unserious, unworthy and penetrated by the Chinese. Sounds like a good research area for the commissioners.
I absolutely think that the Opposition should participate in this process even though I think this solicitation is a poisoned chalice. The Opposition should make this effort simply because they are His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Emphasis on Loyal as in loyal to Canada. And the Government should act as a Loyal Government. Both sides should drop the gotcha stuff and games playing. Will they? I am not at all optimistic. But, we will see