On any other day, the prospect of interfering in a police matter would have dominated the news
Justin Trudeau is imbued with the political tactics of his father’s Liberal party: that you’re on the winning team until you lose; and that you must never be trapped on the defensive.
“If your opponent says ‘you’re fat’, you say they’re bald,” former Liberal campaign director, Keith Davey, used to say.
The prime minister was asked by commission lead counsel, Shantona Chaudhry, about a memo from his national security adviser that detailed foreign interference activities in Canada directed at opposition parties.
Trudeau said it contained “extremely alarming information around foreign interference in a particular party.”
He said he had to be very careful about what he was saying because of the sensitivity of the allegations, and didn’t even want to name the party concerned.
Chaudhry accepted that explanation and was prepared to move on, without pressing him further, particularly when the prime minister said he doesn’t believe in using national security information for partisan purposes.
But, it turned out, Trudeau couldn’t go with his conscience. Alas, his conscience was going in the opposite direction to his chance to use a public inquiry as an opportunity to tarnish his main opponent.
Without being prompted further, Trudeau said that as prime minister he was privy to “explosive” information.
“I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged or are at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference,” he said.
Trudeau said he has asked the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to warn Poilievre to protect the integrity of the party.
“The decision of the leader of the Conservative party not to receive the necessary clearance to get those names and protect the integrity of his party is bewildering to me and entirely lacks common sense,” he said.
It was like a conjuror offering his audience any card in the pack and always getting them to take the one he wanted
To suggest that Trudeau was merely responding to a question under oath or that this was an off-the-cuff remark, as his online supporters have done, is an insult to the prime minister’s political skill.
It was like a conjuror offering his audience any card in the pack and always getting them to take the one he wanted.
This was a meticulously planned smear that in a sentence questioned the probity of Poilievre and his party, as well as undermining their claim to appropriate the use of the term “common sense.”
It was effective because it is rooted in fact.
The report said foreigners have actively targeted the two most recent Conservative party leadership races. The specifics were redacted, but it said China and India had both interfered in the contests.
Yet, Poilievre has continued to refuse to receive security briefings, saying to do so would tie his hands and prevent him from disclosing the names to anyone else.
To many people, it will look highly suspicious now — a point Trudeau was keen to reinforce.
“There seems to be absolutely no curiosity in trying to figure out what happened, or whether someone was compromised…it is simply irresponsible,” he said. “It is so egregious to me that the leader of the Opposition is trying hard to become prime minister (and) is playing partisan games with foreign interference.”
To complete the act, Trudeau then apologized for being more partisan than he intended to be.
The impact could be measured in Conservative fury. No sooner had the prime minister left his seat at the inquiry than the Opposition was in counter-spin mode.
“Trudeau is a POS,” said one senior Conservative, who was granted anonymity in order to speak freely (using the common abbreviation for a piece of sh-t). He said Poilievre was briefed on Monday by the prime minister’s national security adviser, Nathalie Drouin, her deputy, Daniel Rogers, who has just been appointed as the new head of CSIS, and David Morrison, deputy minister of Global Affairs.
The senior Conservative said CSIS is authorized by Section 12.1 of the CSIS Act to use threat-reduction measures to notify the leader of a political party of issues concerning national security that are relevant to them and may require action. “The government could use it to inform Mr. Poilievre of information they believe he needs to know and (but) they have chosen not to,” he said. “It is Justin Trudeau who has ignored calls from the leader of the Opposition to release the names of the parliamentarians referenced in this spring’s NSICOP report.”
He added that Poilievre’s chief of staff, Ian Todd, has all the appropriate security clearances necessary and has had multiple briefings from the prime minister’s national security adviser. “Nothing that Trudeau said has ever come up,” the source said.
A statement issued by Poilievre’s office said that nobody in government has told the leader or his chief of staff about any current or former Conservative parliamentarians knowingly participating in foreign interference.
The big picture remains murky.
But what is clear is that Trudeau has successfully diverted attention from the sea of troubles in which he is currently adrift.
His allegations even eclipsed his account of the meltdown in diplomatic relations with India over alleged extrajudicial killings of Canadian citizens by Indian agents.
At the time, Trudeau said the evidence was “intelligence, not hard evidentiary proof.”
He told the inquiry that he spoke with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G20 and told him what the Canadian security services had uncovered. “He (Modi) replied with his usual response, that we have people outspoken against the Indian government that he would like to see arrested,” Trudeau later recounted. “I tried to explain that freedom of speech … is a fundamental freedom in Canada,” he said, adding that calling to break up India is not official policy, nor is it illegal.
He said the Indian government’s response was to “attack Canada, attack Canadians, undermine our government, our governance and, quite frankly, the integrity of our democracy.”
Trudeau made one curious comment: “If the RCMP had its druthers, it wouldn’t have revealed any of this.”
Which prompts the question: Then why did they?
On any other day, the prospect of political interference in a law enforcement decision may have dominated the news agenda.
Instead, Trudeau’s brazen, bravura performance reminded his opponents that there is still power in the incumbency of the prime minister’s office; power that has, if only momentarily, put them on the defensive for a change.
Twitter.com/IvisonJ