Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

[ArmyRick]

I don’t want my Prime Minister to not read classified national security briefings because he is too busy surfing, unless he can use those briefings for partisan advantage. Yet, here we are.

The issue here is not with PP and the Cons. They are not the Government, nor have been for (checks watch) 9 years.

This Prime Minister, at various Parliamentary hearings over the years, has been described by his own party and chief of staff as either reading everything or reading nothing, depending on which narrative best fits for the particular moment of crisis.

Forgive me if I do not trip over myself asking the CPC to account for themselves. I am in the “lier, lier pants on fire” camp, until the Liberals and this PM prove otherwise. He made extraordinary claims. He should now be forced to put up or shut up- release all the the names of all parliamentarians of all parties who are implicated and let the voters decide.

100% agreed. Trudeau is just playing games

 

[OldSolduer]

If those people tell him, or even hint at “maybe so-and-so shouldn’t be near anything important”, how close is it to essentially leaking info? How much trouble would those people get?

FWIW we have all known people who have been "deselected" from things because....well trust me they should.

 

[RangerRay]

I don’t want my Prime Minister to not read classified national security briefings because he is too busy surfing, unless he can use those briefings for partisan advantage. Yet, here we are.

The issue here is not with PP and the Cons. They are not the Government, nor have been for (checks watch) 9 years.

This Prime Minister, at various Parliamentary hearings over the years, has been described by his own party and chief of staff as either reading everything or reading nothing, depending on which narrative best fits for the particular moment of crisis.

Forgive me if I do not trip over myself asking the CPC to account for themselves. I am in the “lier, lier pants on fire” camp, until the Liberals and this PM prove otherwise. He made extraordinary claims. He should now be forced to put up or shut up- release all the the names of all parliamentarians of all parties who are implicated and let the voters decide.

I don’t disagree that the PM used his time on the stand to deflect from his issues with foreign interference (check my posting history; I’ve posted A LOT about this) and put the focus on Poilievre. He’s being disingenuous with his sudden concern for foreign interference. But Poilievre’s excuse for not getting cleared to read the NSICOP report because he somehow won’t be able to discuss the non-classified material is pretty weak. He’s not showing any leadership by wanting to remain ignorant of any skeletons in his caucus’s closet. The NSCOP report and the reporting by Sam Cooper and the Globe and Mail made clear that there we’re compromised Tory parliamentarians.

And no one has yet been able to explain how his Chief of Staff is supposed to inform the leader of details of the report if the leader is not cleared to read the details of said report. I would assume that the CoS would end up in jail if he told Poilievre who’s compromised. That’s assuming CSIS told the CoS since they may determine that as staff, he’s not “need to know”.

I want to vote for someone serious, not a right-wing Trudeau.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I agree with much of what you said, but, if PP was to get cleared because the PM says he must, I can about guarantee that there is a partisan trap in there, somewhere. Because, with this government, everything is partisan.

And, I fervently want the next government to do things because they are right for Canada- not because they a bully pulpit to beat up on opposition parties.

 

[Furniture]

And no one has yet been able to explain how his Chief of Staff is supposed to inform the leader of details of the report if the leader is not cleared to read the details of said report.

Simple answer, not all of the details are required.

The leader simply needs to know that perhaps ___________ isn't a good choice for a specific job. They don't need to know exactly why ________ is not a good choice.

People in the CAF and other fields that deal with multiple layers of classifications manage to function without knowing all the details on all topics, so I suspect the CPC can function that way as well.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Simple answer, not all of the details are required.

The leader simply needs to know that perhaps ___________ isn't a good choice for a specific job. They don't need to know exactly why ________ is not a good choice.

True, but to be the devil's advocate, what if a COS knows (groks) his/her boss REALLY doesn't want to know something in order to keep their tactical and narrative options open?

If some COS's will cut a personal cheque to deal with a boss's problem, delete documents making the boss look bad or fall on his sword because of his boss's bad judgement, well, are the chances zero that some "the boss doesn't want to know" filter might be applied, directly/indirectly/consciously/subconsciously?

Lots of people are happy to say PMJT's COS & Co. is likely to be happy to keep bad news from her boss, and others have opined on how partisan campaign managers can be - would PP's COS be any less partisan as the right-hand man of the guy who wants to be the next PM?

 

[Furniture]

True, but to be the devil's advocate, what if a COS knows (groks) his/her boss REALLY doesn't want to know something in order to keep their tactical and narrative options open?

If some COS's will cut a personal cheque to deal with a boss's problem, delete documents making the boss look bad or fall on his sword because of his boss's bad judgement, well, are the chances zero that some "the boss doesn't want to know" filter might be applied, directly/indirectly/consciously/subconsciously?

Lots of people are happy to say PMJT's COS & Co. is likely to be happy to keep bad news from her boss, and others have opined on how partisan campaign managers can be - would PP's COS be any less partisan as the right-hand man of the guy who wants to be the next PM?

Fair, but if the LPC had a smoking gun to use against PP, they likely would have produced it by now. They are down, losing more seasoned cabinet ministers, and have only made vague unfalsifiable claims at this stage.

I'm not saying it's impossible that PP is intentionally avoiding bad news, I'm just saying that I feel it's unlikely at this stage.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Names might be protected, but I don't see a case for not disclosing numbers or kinds of compromise. In particular, the difference between zero and any other number shouldn't be a secret.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Fair, but if the LPC had a smoking gun to use against PP, they likely would have produced it by now. They are down, losing more seasoned cabinet ministers, and have only made vague unfalsifiable claims at this stage.

I'm not saying it's impossible that PP is intentionally avoiding bad news, I'm just saying that I feel it's unlikely at this stage.

True, and it also depends on how much one trusts the individual principals in each situation, too. It WILL be interesting to see how it all unfolds, especially if PP becomes PM - which looks likely if polls are to be believed & balls are not dropped in a big way.

 

[McG]

Simple answer, not all of the details are required.

The leader simply needs to know that perhaps ___________ isn't a good choice for a specific job. They don't need to know exactly why ________ is not a good choice.

That would be a crappy leader. Do they authorize the informed subordinate to over-rule decisions and accept that the informed subordinate does not need to explain why? Is the deliberately ignorant leader obliged to seek the informed subordinate’s opinion on all matters, or can that leader make decisions in ignorance and say “oops” later? What happens when the vulnerabilities are not people who can be ruled-out by the informed subordinate coughing “not him”? What does the ignorant leader do when the vulnerabilities are baked into party policies and procedures for which he is responsible to govern and manage?

 

[RangerRay]

Matt Gurney has it right. I also note that the PM also opened himself up with yesterday’s stunt.

Matt Gurney: At the interference inquiry, Trudeau elbows another boob

And guess what? We're the boob.

www.readtheline.ca

What Justin Trudeau did on Wednesday from the witness standing at the foreign interference inquiry — when he made his dramatic announcement of having seen a list of Conservatives who are compromised by or vulnerable to foreign interference — makes a kind of sense.

It does. It was an effective attack on Pierre Poilievre, who has stubbornly led with his chin for months. The reaction of many of my Conservative friends was telling. They knew Trudeau landed a hit, and they were pissed. They were ready for it — I think their counterattack was as good or better. But this whole story, or at least this little snippet of it, starts with Trudeau taking a swing, and not missing.

Trudeau was on the stand on the last day of witness testimony — and that's important, since it basically gives him the final word on the proceedings. His government had spent the recent days taking a beating. No plausible explanation was ever offered for why a CSIS warrant, which news reports claim was aimed at a prominent Liberal, sat unsigned on then-public safety minister Bill Blair's desk for almost eight weeks, when the usual turnaround time was days. But Trudeau is good in these kinds of situations, and always has been. I'm not one of the bafflingly large number of Canadians who continue to underestimate his political skill. I expected him to put on a show.

Did he ever.

"I have the names of a number of parliamentarians, former parliamentarians and/or candidates in the Conservative Party of Canada who are engaged, or at high risk of, or for whom there is clear intelligence around foreign interference," the prime minister said. "And I have directed CSIS and others to try and inform the Conservative Party leader to be warned and armed, to be able to make decisions that protect the integrity of that party, of its members, from activities around foreign interference."

Well. Alright, then.

It’s not that this information was shocking, per se. The smart money has always been on every major party being compromised, to some extent, by foreign interference. I don’t think the Conservatives have any illusions about that. Still, the PM’s comments were a grenade rolled directly into Poilievre’s tent. And a well-aimed roll, at that. The problem, as those who've followed this story know, is that Pierre Poilievre has not received the relevant briefings. The intelligence is so classified that it requires special clearance to be briefed. A condition of the briefing is that the information must be kept secret, which clearly limits how it can be used.

Poilievre deems this a trap. He feels that if he takes the briefing, he'll be bound by secrecy. He doesn't think that's a good trade. That said, Poilievre’s refusal to seek a security clearance doesn’t extend to the party as a whole. Other Conservatives have seen the materials — there are Tory members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), which wrote the report! But the CPC leader himself has not been fully briefed, by choice, and that's something that has been "noted" with emphasis by many of his critics. Some of the criticisms and theories for that choice are fair, and some of them are deranged, but in any case, like I said, Poilievre set himself up for this.

In that context, Trudeau’s decision to tease the possibility of some unnamed Conservatives being involved in the machinations of foreign interference makes sense. He saw Poilievre's chin and decided to shove his fist into it. It's politics. I get it.

But, once again, I'm not sure that the PM thought this through all the way. Our PM has a habit of occasionally letting his combative instincts get the better of him. The man has a weakness for showy, dramatic gestures, and loves to try and seize the big moments. Sometimes they blow up in his face. I think this one will, too. It is, I suspect, less a punch to the face, and more of an elbow-to-the-boob. It'll cause more problems than the gesture was worth.

Not that Poilievre didn’t deserve it. Poilievre is wrong to refuse the briefing, on both philosophical and political grounds. Philosophically, the man is likely to be our next PM, and he should should show Canadians that he can lead. Politically, the Poilievre defence, which relies on explaining who is authorized to receive what materials within the broader CPC fold, is too complicated and technocratic to work. It’s a strange error by a guy who is otherwise well versed in the effective use of the short, sharp and punchy one-sentence talking point. Until Poilievre gets briefed, his critics can and will hammer him with their own short, sharp and effective question: “What is he afraid of? What is he hiding?” And when they do, they’ll be beating him at his own game.

But that’s another column, now saved and tucked away in its own file. This one is about what Trudeau did. The PM chose Wednesday to take his swing. You can see why he would! Trudeau and his party are getting kicked around on every front these days. He’s down 20 points in the polls. He’s losing cabinet ministers the way I lost my hair. The very same day that Trudeau swung at Poilievre also brought news that the caucus revolt that has been simmering in the background since last week might soon finally break into the foreground, with a group of Liberal MPs apparently set to call for Trudeau's resignation next week.

Trudeau doesn't get a lot of opportunities to look like a tough leader these days, and he got two this week. His eviction of six Indian diplomats that Canadian intelligence believes were involved in guiding violent crimes in Canada, aimed at politically connected members of Canada's large Indian diaspora, was one (and I am not yet cynical enough to believe the timing was politically motivated). The second, of course, was Trudeau's bombshell testimony. Given the shellacking he’s been taking of late, it probably felt amazing go on the attack yesterday.

The problem for the prime minister is that, today, having had his dramatic moment, there's no follow through. He dropped the mic and then Poilievre did what he was always and obviously going to do: the opposition leader picked that mic right back up again and started talking into it.

Here's part of Poilievre’s statement (full statement is here):

My message to Justin Trudeau is: release the names of all MPs that have collaborated with foreign interference. But he won't. Because Justin Trudeau is doing what he always does: he is lying. He is lying to distract from a Liberal caucus revolt against his leadership and revelations he knowingly allowed Beijing to interfere and help him win two elections. … If Justin Trudeau has evidence to the contrary, he should share it with the public. Now that he has blurted it out in general terms at a commission of inquiry — he should release the facts. But he won't — because he is making it up.

If Poilievre’s decision to forgo a security clearance is overly complicated and technocratic, then Trudeau’s decision to attack him for it suffers the same drawbacks. By comparison, Poilievre’s approach, here, is better, simpler, and most crucially, it’s right: Release the names!

If MPs from any party have been compromised, the public deserves to know.

I don't say that lightly or impulsively. There are absolutely downsides to releasing the names, including the very real risks to compromising our investigations and destroying the reputations of people who may have committed no crime. This sucks. But there are greater downsides to not releasing the names — until the Canadian public knows them, our entire democratic system is suspect. To put it another way, if it is inappropriate to release the names in full, then it is equally if not more inappropriate for a prime minister to publicly tease those names during his testimony, while hiding behind oaths of national security in order to avoid handing over the receipts. Protections of “national security” are intended to protect real sources and reputations — not to serve as a launchpad to lob allegations at foes while dodging accountability and transparency.

The PM is the one who opened the door. He has, yet again, outsmarted himself for the short-term win. Because in trying to underline that Poilievre hasn't taken the briefing, the PM has also reminded all of us that he has information that the voters do not. Further, Trudeau cannot claim to be hyperinformed about the vulnerabilities in his opponent’s party, and innocent about the same kinds of problems in his own. That’s just not plausible.

Share The Line

That's why Poilievre has the winning hand here — he countered with a reply that is not only better politics, it's simply right. And he’s the only one saying it. Releasing the names is what our democracy requires.

It should also be pointed out that while, in my opinion, Poilievre has been stubbornly wrong about refusing security clearance, Trudeau has acknowledged that other Conservatives are being briefed at the top-secret level, and that the info he was alluding to has not been passed on. This is a complicated issue; it’s one I’m still trying to get some clarity on myself. I hope to have more to say soon. Suffice it to say that, for now, Poilievre has effectively framed the issue as the PM holding back information that he’ll tease in public but won’t share even in private. This is a problem for Trudeau.

And for all of us. Because in the end, Poilievre correctly identified the final outcome of this, and he's asking the PM to do the right thing, evenly and transparently. Release the names. All of them. How can Trudeau argue against it? Up until yesterday, he could play the secrecy card, but after taunting Poilievre, in what even the PM conceded, on the stand, was an unusually partisan move on his part?

Sorry, Prime Minister. You don't get to do that. Your government has screwed up on this file far too often to get any benefit of the doubt, and if you're going to dangle super-secret things in front of the public, you now owe them some transparency. The public deserves it. The public should demand it.

An election looms. Whether it's in six weeks or next year, it will be spectacularly unhealthy if we next head to the polls with this being the status quo. Only transparency fixes this. The gentle disinfectant of sunlight … or the searing flash of a thermonuclear transparency bomb, which might be more what's needed.

I wish we lived in a better, more mature country. I wish we had better, more mature leaders. I wish we hadn't made such a total epic hash of our national security in recent years. I wish we weren't so prone to getting mugged by reality, and I wish we demanded better.

I wish for a lot of things. But what I actually have is a government with a proven track record of screwing up on security files, an opposition leader who boxed himself into a trap he's too stubborn to escape, and a waning PM who saw a chance to dunk on a hated opponent, and didn’t really think through what the hell would happen next.

 

[ArmyRick]

This is REALLY worth the watch.

 

[Fabius]

In terms of the CPC, could it not be plausible as a strategy for PP to have his COS get the clearance, get the classified briefings and information from the GoC ( some of which he already has had) with the aim not of having the COS make the final decisions on a ongoing basis but rather to simply assess the validity of the information and it’s seriousness. If the information is serious and valid and actionable, the COS could then tell PP that yes he does need to see the information, if unactionable, non specific and not serious enough then PP can continue in his current state.

Not sure I like that course but it does sound like a valid choice, given the obvious suspicion that PP has about the Trudeau government’s claims.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He's trying to change the channel. Last week he was embroiled in the beginnings of a palace coup, which is still ongoing. He's also losing his footing with the green slush fund scandal. We've heard little of either one since he gave his testimony. He's a known prevaricator. If he really had something damaging to PP or the CPC, he'd have pulled it out and used it already. It's all a distraction, if you ask me.

 

[ArmyRick]

This is REALLY worth the watch.

@Altair watch this video and then maybe rethink your opinion

 

[Navy_Pete]

Serious question, if any of you had a CO that refused to get the necessary clearance to get the details of briefings relevant to their job, how would you think of them as a leader?

This is for sure a partisan attack, but also, not an incorrect one IMHO, and also not a new issue. PP has been leader for 3ish years now? This is only one of the things he can't get briefed on.

This is deliberately cultivated ignorance on his part that he's weaponizing against the LPC in a very partisan way on his part. Sure, I don't like the current gov, but if this is the alternative I don't want to vote for them either.

 

[OldSolduer]

Four more cabinet ministers have stated they will not seek reelection.

Winnipeg MP Vandal won't seek re-election

Winnipeg MP and federal cabinet minister Dan Vandal will not seek re-election, according to a report from the CBC.

winnipegsun.com

 

[dimsum]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-release-names-poilievre-security-clearance-1.7355350

Former CSIS directors weigh in, specifically about the “COS can tell Poilievre if he doesn’t have a clearance” issue that we’re talking about here.

WATCH | Former CSIS director says it's 'inconceivable' that agency would brief a chief of staff: "What could the chief of staff do with the information?" Elcock said. "Mr. Poilievre doesn't have a clearance, so the chief of staff can't tell him the information. And the chief of staff has no power to do anything about the MPs or make decisions about the MPs because he's not the leader of the party."

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sorry @Bruce Monkhouse

Some thoughts to consider on this:
- Would you accept a list of names maybe limited to ‘witting’ or ‘unwitting’ without the government ‘showing their work’ in order to protect sources, methods, or intelligence sharing partnerships?

- If not, how much releasable evidence would you feel is required to ‘name the names’?

- If some names could be released with at least partial evidence and others cannot, how would you want a partial list addressed?

Just some thoughts to consider. I’m not arguing it either way, I just realize saying names is relatively easy, but everything that goes around that might be harder.

Are you now calling into question the validity of investigation and proof behind who is in the list ?

Just release the names. If they are tainted the public they represent and are employed by deserve to know.

Serious question, if any of you had a CO that refused to get the necessary clearance to get the details of briefings relevant to their job, how would you think of them as a leader?

This is for sure a partisan attack, but also, not an incorrect one IMHO, and also not a new issue. PP has been leader for 3ish years now? This is only one of the things he can't get briefed on.

This is deliberately cultivated ignorance on his part that he's weaponizing against the LPC in a very partisan way on his part. Sure, I don't like the current gov, but if this is the alternative I don't want to vote for them either.

Maybe we should make a mandatory for all MPs to have a security clearance or they can't claim their seat.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Maybe we should make a mandatory for all MPs to have a security clearance or they can't claim their seat.

Kind of mindblowing I can't get a contractor on base to haul away a pile of dirt without enhanced reliability but they can sit in Parliament with nothing.

For PP in particular it would be a level 3 for this briefing, which is a lot, but if he wants to be PM he'll need it and have the same limitations about what he can and can't say due to legitimate national security requirements, so that's a strawman argument I just don't buy.

If he doesn't want to get it, that's fine, but then just STFU about not having the info.