Rapporteur David Johnson, Eminent Canadian
- Thread starter Ron in Regina
- Start date
Will there or won’t there be a public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s last two elections?
The answer to that question is what all sides are looking for today from Justin Trudeau via David Johnston, the former governor general tasked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to review how much the government knows about the issue, how it was handled at the time and what might need to be done differently.
David Johnston rejects public inquiry, accuses Canada’s spies of mismanaging foreign interference info — Toronto Star
Tue May 23 05:00:00 EDT 2023 OTTAWA — It was a peek behind the scenes of how Canada tracks foreign interference, but only that. A public inquiry into foreign elections meddling would have been an “easy” option but would not unlock a full understanding of Chinese foreign interference because...
Less than 4 hours until the smoke & mirrors…MPs from the opposition parties, as well as national security experts, have ALL suggested the only way to get a full picture of what happened is to call a public inquiry, but Trudeau has thus far resisted.
So, when the smoke clears and the mirrors are shattered, all Canadians will see Da Troof, like the pristine Rockies gleaming in the sun?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Yeah, what we’ll see today is the next act in this play, but potentially progress? Three & a half hours…
10AM eh? Thats my lunch but Ill call it breakfast.
Johnston advises against inquiry, but aims to hold hearings on foreign interference — The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Special rapporteur David Johnston said Tuesday that a formal inquiry into foreign interference is not needed, that public hearings should be held as part of his own mandate.
The former governor general's initial report into foreign interference allegations found serious issues in how intelligence from security agencies was communicated to government but didn't identify any instances where the prime minister negligently failed to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations. Go figure…
"There are serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government, but no examples have been identified of ministers, the prime minister or their offices knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations," Johnston's report said.
It said there is a “lack of accountability” about who is receiving what intelligence, a situation that is not acceptable given the current threat environment. So nobody signs for documents? Public Libraries seem to be able to manage this accountability….
Would we expect anything different from a life long Liberal trough feeder ? And he gets to keep feeding until October .View attachment 18291
Johnston said an inquiry could not be undertaken in public because of the sensitivity of the intelligence involved, and formal subpoena powers are not required for him to hold his own hearings with diaspora communities, academics and political stakeholders.
Johnston advises against inquiry, but aims to hold hearings on foreign interference — The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Special rapporteur David Johnston said Tuesday that a formal inquiry into foreign interference is not needed, that public hearings should be held as part of his own mandate.apple.news
The former governor general's initial report into foreign interference allegations found serious issues in how intelligence from security agencies was communicated to government but didn't identify any instances where the prime minister negligently failed to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations. Go figure…
"There are serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government, but no examples have been identified of ministers, the prime minister or their offices knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations," Johnston's report said.
It said there is a “lack of accountability” about who is receiving what intelligence, a situation that is not acceptable given the current threat environment. So nobody signs for documents? Public Libraries seem to be able to manage this accountability….
EDITORIAL: Trudeau could have written Johnston’s report — Toronto Sun
Johnston’s report exonerates the Trudeau government from allegations it failed to act on foreign interference for partisan reasons, based on confidential discussions he had with the PM, his cabinet ministers and government officials, the details of which he says he can’t discuss publicly for...
KINSELLA: What the decision to forego Chinese interference inquiry fails to do — Toronto Sun
David Johnston’s astonishing decision — to conclude that Canada does not need an inquiry into Chinese interference in our democracy — will be remembered for what it doesn’t do, not what it does. Here are the five things it doesn’t do. One, it won’t enhance David Johnston’s reputation. At all...
GUNTER: Johnston sings ‘Sound of Silence’ on China — Toronto Sun
I don’t trust former governor general David Johnston to conduct a proper inquiry into allegations that China’s Communist government has meddled in Canadian democratic affairs. Johnston should never have been brought in to investigate claims by intelligence agencies that Canada’s democratic...
The difference between David Johnston's foreign-interference 'hearings' and a public inquiry — National Post
To start, public hearings don’t have any of the same legal powers as inquiries. Witnesses are invited to testify, but can’t be forced
No public inquiry: David Johnston to instead conduct public hearings on foreign interference — National Post
Public inquiry would not be the 'best way forward,' former governor general says
Johnston finds foreign interference allegations based on incomplete and uncertain intelligence — National Post
Special rapporteur David Johnston said he reviewed the intelligence behind this allegation and came to conclude there was no truth to it
I haven't really kept up with this but after hearing about the report on the news my thoughts are pretty... meh.
I think there needs to be an inquiry, yes. But I also agree with Jonston that having a public one, with all the sensitive and secret material would be pointless, cause there won't be any real info we can have.
I think it's good Singh is willing to see/read what reports Jonston saw.
I think PP is being a fucking idiot for not getting the clearance to see it himself. (His "job" is just to go after the Libs, one person said; no that's not his fucking job, his job is to represent his constituents, be an opposition leader and also work with the Government if he has to. Him doing this is NOT good optics).
I find it hilarious that the Cons under Harper thought this guy was 'the shit', until this moment, and now he's a piece of shit. Granted had the opposite happened, I'd still find it hilarious (also stupid, but whatevs).
I think overall, this went... somewhat how everyone figured, and yet there was things said/done that are actionable. Whether Trudeau does anything or not (apparently things already are being implemented so...) is a whole other story.
I think there needs to be an inquiry, yes. But I also agree with Jonston that having a public one, with all the sensitive and secret material would be pointless, cause there won't be any real info we can have.
I think it's good Singh is willing to see/read what reports Jonston saw.
I think PP is being a fucking idiot for not getting the clearance to see it himself. (His "job" is just to go after the Libs, one person said; no that's not his fucking job, his job is to represent his constituents, be an opposition leader and also work with the Government if he has to. Him doing this is NOT good optics).
I find it hilarious that the Cons under Harper thought this guy was 'the shit', until this moment, and now he's a piece of shit. Granted had the opposite happened, I'd still find it hilarious (also stupid, but whatevs).
I think overall, this went... somewhat how everyone figured, and yet there was things said/done that are actionable. Whether Trudeau does anything or not (apparently things already are being implemented so...) is a whole other story.
Stephen Harper selected David Johnston as the lead in the Airbus affair investigation as a sign of Bipartisanship that investigated Brian Mulroney’s involvement. Selecting Johnston removed even the hint or appearance of any possible political taint to the investigation of a former Conservative PM.
Trudeau chose David Johnston because? Bipartisanship?
My definition of a completely unbiased opinion . But of course I am a far right extremist .
…& what will Singh, as an opposition member of Parliament, be able to say about documents that he’s sworn to secrecy in order to see, regardless of what the documents say?
Absolutely nothing, muzzled, before he even see’s them, & regardless of what he see’s….he’ll be mute on the whole thing under penalty of law & Trudeau will be jizzing in his own pants.
…& would Poilievre be able to do, as an opposition member of Parliament, be able to say about any documents he sworn to secrecy in order see, regardless of what they say? It’s a Catch-22. What good would he be as muzzled opposition? He would be as useless as Singh.
The point would be they'd know and they could in a broad sense without going into specifics that yes Jonston was right or no, he got it wrong.
Classified is that for a reason, you can't just make that shit public, and considering this is about China, a 'world power', ANY form of slip up or fuckery could bite Canada in the ass.
I'd rather people get clearance then look/read the stuff, and come out to say "yes he's right, no he's not" and go with that, than outright say "No I won't be a part of it because what's the point if you can't say anything?"
Which is also ironic to me because that's why Jonston doesn't think a public inquiry will work; too many secrets that can't be told.
Bipartisanship; sure, why not? In the end, he *was* respected enough to be in the positions he was for a while. Now suddenly he's not trusted because Trudeau appointed him to do a job? If it had been PM Poilievre that appointed him, would it be an issue then? I was listening to a Conservative strategist on the news and he pretty much said it was PP making a big deal out of this for no reason other than politics. There's no legit reason for the controversy.