CALL IN A JUDGE — We're starting to get the sense that a public inquiry is likelier than not as a nonpartisan solution to nonstop allegations of Chinese foreign interference in the two most recent federal votes. What seemed unlikely before the weekend gained some prominent backers among the Liberal-friendly crowd after yet another stunner of a news report from Global's SAM COOPER on Friday evening. Cooper's story claimed a sitting Liberal MP, HAN DONG, was aided by China's Toronto consulate when he ran for the party nomination in 2019. "CSIS asked the PM's senior staff to rescind Dong's nomination, per sources," tweeted Global's MACKENZIE GRAY. POLITICO has not verified Global's reporting, which had eyes popping in Ottawa. — Momentum is building: The first voice we heard calling for an inquiry was MITCH HEIMPEL, an Enterprise Canada GR guy who once advised ERIN O'TOOLE and tracked the signs of interference on the 2021 campaign. A former chief electoral officer, JEAN-PIERRE KINGSLEY, voiced support for a commission. Neither man persuaded Prime Minister JUSTIN TRUDEAU, who swatted down the notion of an inquiry during a Friday news conference. Fair enough. But might GERRY BUTTS have more sway? What about former CSIS boss DICK FADDEN? Fadden told Global's West Block that Parliament isn't an ideal venue for investigation: “It has become so partisan that I think that this particular kind of topic would be almost impossible for them to look at objectively,” he told MERCEDES STEPHENSON. Butts, a driving force behind Trudeau's rise to power who last week gave the Globe and Mail a hard time for its reporting, is all in on supporting an inquiry. "Terms would be extremely challenging but it’s worth doing," he tweeted. BRUCE ANDERSON recommended the Liberals switch tack. "It doesn’t seem tenable for the government to say foreign interference is real and worrying, but trust us nothing happened, we can’t answer questions or share information and no to a public inquiry," he wrote on the bird app. "I don’t believe the politics of that works." Also in favor of an inquiry: ALEX MARLAND, ARTUR WILCZYNSKI — A critical view: The reporting has its doubters. "I am embarrassed for media and our bureaucrats working at CSIS today for this absolute [nonsense] allegation and story," tweeted Mainstreet Research CEO QUITTO MAGGI. "Thing I can't help but circle back to: since when does CSIS have the right to tell the Liberal Party who they can and can't nominate?" wondered EVAN SCRIMSHAW. Playbook called up STEPHANIE CARVIN, the Carleton prof and former national security analyst who asked hard questions of government in last Thursday's Playbook. Carvin reinforced the seriousness of the foreign interference allegations, but reminded us of major caveats in successive bombshells on foreign interference. → Details matter: "It strikes me as unlikely that CSIS would tell either a political party or Prime Minister's Office specifically to get rid of a candidate," she said. "I think that goes above and beyond what their mandate allows them to do." "They can't ask, and they can't tell." → Intelligence is not evidence: Cooper wrote that CSIS "relied on surveillance and wiretap evidence, as well as human-source reporting." Carvin urged caution in drawing conclusions. "Human sources have their own agendas, and they can be wrong," she said. "We have to remember that just because something's in an intelligence assessment or report, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It is information that has been gathered that may be pointing to a serious national security problem. Or not." → The best solution: There's no doubt in Carvin's mind of the best forum to sort this all out. "I firmly believe that Canada does have an issue with foreign interference, not just from China, but multiple countries. And I do believe an inquiry into that would be appropriate." — The last word: That goes to the Tories, who want Trudeau's chief of staff, KATIE TELFORD, to answer to the procedure and House affairs committee.
|
Comments
Post a Comment