15 Comments

Well I agree with most of your argument, I wonder who you could/would/should have been selected?

Are we dumbing down our expert candidates for analysis of International security issues?

For what?

Did you think anyone that the Libs, or Justin Trudeau chose were going to get a smooth ride from our click bait opportunists and opposition?

Really?

Expand full comment

Nobody would be good enough for Poilievre and the CPC, unless that person would have given the, what they wanted: a show trial that would allow them to attack the prime minister for months while the prime minister is constrained in responding because he can only truly defend himself by releasing classified information.

We all saw what happened with justice Rouleau. When he did not provide the CPC with the report that they wanted, he became a white haired liberal staffer.

What frustrates me is that none of the media is putting Poilievre on the spot if there would be anybody that would accept to review this matter? After all, if he does not want to see the information, who should?

Expand full comment

.. the Big Lebowski - stranger at the bar - ‘sometimes you eat th Bar.. & sometimes th bar eats you ..’

mr David Johnston just ate Mr Poilievre.. among other less ‘wonderful A Holes

The Road Ahead for dear mr Poilievre is yet more ‘OPPORTUNITY’ to REINFORCE HIS BRAND

& therein lies his problem.. it’s now a loaded minefield left by Mr Johnston’s flawless Statesmanship

versus a hissing & blatantly posturing glib as all get out Partisan insolent creep

Expand full comment

This is my question too, Patricia. Who would be ‘pure’ enough, in the eyes of the opposition parties to hold an inquiry? A judge? Not likely. We’ve already seen the CPC denigrate the work and professional reputation of Justice Rouleau, before and after the EA public inquiry. No matter who is selected, they’ll be dragged through the mud ad nauseam. And attention that should be paid to national security will be overshadowed by the outrage yet again. I’m not sure where to go from here, but I do know it’s unlikely anyone will pass the requisite purity test.

Expand full comment

Sadly and very unfortunately you’re probably correct in your assessment of the blindly stupid opinion of the masses who are incredibly naive and uneducated about the workings of government and the agencies which make it work. That doesn’t make it right to acquiesce to the mob! (That Mr Singh joined in with PP’s stupid squawking says more about him than anything else.)

The work of CSIS is secret. They shouldn’t be dealing with or advising/warning any member of the public about anything. That’s not their job. They find out things by many means and revealing those methods and sources can and does put some of their sources in grave danger. It also may reveal what they have found out to our adversaries. They pass information (when creditable) to the RCMP which has the responsibility of taking appropriate action when it is thought to be the correct and responsible thing to do. Yes,the RCMP has a lot to answer for; our national police force is in a bad need of a major shakeup. (Let’s have an Enquiry into the workings and many failures of the RCMP!)

All the babble about CSIS’s failure to act is nonsense. We don’t know and cannot know everything that they find.

Blame the lack of info sharing between CSIS and the RCMP or other government departments or agencies but to be successful CSIS cannot be be fully open and “transparent”.

I think most of the noise about Mr Johnston’s excellent first report is from people (esp including the media) who have not even read it. The Report clearly and logically spells out in some detail why a “Public Enquiry” cannot work. The nature of the material to be examined cannot be examined by the kind of public enquiry for which the mob has been clamouring!

When are we ever going to start pushing back against Poilievre, his utter bald-faced lies and his rabble who pretend to be a parliamentary opposition but make a mockery of it.

We are, collectively, a nation lacking in the understanding of how our federal system is designed to work (is civics taught anywhere or even at all anymore?) and we are, again, collectively, lacking the skill of critical thinking.

Jesus wept...

Expand full comment

I don’t think this is right.

First a couple of facts. What ties does Johnston have with the Trudeau family? Skiing together 4 decades ago does not count. I have a hard time seeing a meaningful connection. I find it strange you present this as a fact.

Secondly, Michael Chong’s family was not threatened. There was some intelligence (we do not know the reliability of this intelligence) that one Chinese diplomat claimed that his government would take an interest in (that is: collect information about) his family in Hong Kong. Of course the media jumped on the term “targeted”, but in this situation this targeting was limited to collecting information about and we don’t even know that this even happened. While we can argue if it was the right decision, the CSIS decision to wait and watch was not unreasonable in this situation.

Unfortunately we are dealing with a number of actors that are clearly acting in bad faith. Obviously the most enthusiastic bad faith actor is Poilievre and the CPC. Their claim is that Trudeau and his government did not only ignore the Chinese threat, but also at the same time masterfully used and played the Chinese to their advantage. In order words, Trudeau committed a peacetime version of treason according to the CPC. And the modus operandus is to repeat it often and eventually people start believing it.

Singh and the NDP are the reluctant spineless bad faith actors. They would like to take Trudeau a peg down, but are not interested in an election. They know that treason accusation is bullshit, but they are happy to ride the CPC “Trudeau is a traitor” train as long as it gives them some perceived advantage.

And the biggest bad faith actors are the media. Happy to repeat the CPC talking points without questioning them. Happy to smear the reputation of Johnston with bogus arguments like “too many people think he has a conflict of interest therefore there is a perception of a conflict”. Torqued stories using selectively intelligence information leaving out any reliability assessment. I could go on for hours.

All of this is a shame, as Johnston actually made the 100% correct proposal. Parliament needs to keep government to account, not a public inquiry, and with classified information that happens behind closed doors and in these special committees. That is where parliament needs to start, and once they have done that, they can say, without revealing classified information, the government acted reasonably or was incompetent or whatever judgement they want to make.

The fact that the opposition leaders do not want to see this information should tell you enough. Their goal is not to keep the government to account, their goal is to score political points. And of course aided and abetted by the bad faith press.

Expand full comment

This bit gets me “the fact Michael Chong found out in the Globe and not from CSIS about threats to his family”.

What good would a threat be to his family if he didn’t know about it?

Expand full comment

Damn good Question !

Expand full comment

A few points to consider; do we actually believe that Michael Chong didn't know that his family was being targeted? Has CSIS found their leaker? China is not the only country trying to interfere with our politics. Han Dong was brave enough to stand up to the mighty msm. Let this be a warning that actions have consequences. Will the Cons be satisfied with anyone that is credible to head an investigation? I think not. It'll be a circus-a waste of time & money. Social media and msm play a big role in interference and influence in our country. Mis and disinformation information are rampant. Bully by the right has become normal. I think the Liberals have done a lot to combat foreign interference but the media isncovering that. Not sure where we go from here.

Expand full comment

The only foreign interference taking place in Canada today is being carried out by CSIS at the behest of the “five eyes” national security establishment who have a much wider anti-China agenda. Canada is not alone.

Expand full comment

How about Tom Mulcair for Special Rapporteur?

Expand full comment

Hell no.

Expand full comment

Angry Tom? No. Hell no. I’d be happy to never have to experience Tom Mulcair’s angry, nasty energy ever again.

Expand full comment

I guess you have to hear recent Tom Mulcair’s recent ‘wisdoms’ via numerous NewsTalk 1010

He’s been very useful during their Morning Shows with either John Moore who’s a truly decent person

but still has to ‘toe the CPC Party Ethic Line’ or resign

Or Jerry Agar who purposely ‘chums the waters’ consistently to attract shrill call ins

He’s in my Top 10 Partisan ShitHeels, due to being on air daily, spewing at 250 mph

I don’t know anyone who can talk that fast for 3 hours aside from John Tory & Danielle Smith

Expand full comment

I’m a gonna intake this in bite size chunks..

In 1st 4 paragraphs up to and inc ‘now the country can move forward’ .. I get it right after 3 careful reads, meaning I got onto your freq but my BIAS against anti Mr Johnston Mainstream Media Savagery is rattlesnake level.. but as said I’m tuned to yer freq now. All I know at this point is re his brilliant & Historic Letter Of Resignation to Canadians via The Government Of Canada & Prime Minister

You look to be Looking Forward .. & Amen eh ! I see that Letter as Elegant Blocking Manoeuvre.. as once again Mr Johnston dealt the Prime Minister a great poker hand. Trudeau can simply forge ahead per Mr Johnston’s truly thoughtful Letter & Mr Singh & Mr Wonderful & the guy from Québec & Bernier can Ante Up to stay in The Game while behaving & looking like.. & being complete assholes .. As ms Hebert mused during the CBC At Issue Character Assault last night ‘when is mr Poilievre going to attempt to look like a possible Prime Minister ?’ Gonna read the rest of yer article now.. and I do trust ya..

Expand full comment