Independent, non-partisan and experienced professionals do their job diligently, the Prime Minister insists, to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Referring to Rosenberg’s recommendation, Justin Trudeau confirms that it will be serious.
But Friday’s mocking, half-impatient tone rather revealed a certain exasperation, because he answered the same question most of the time: why didn’t he attack the public inquiry?
Justin Trudeau denies painting himself into a corner by openly saying there is no such investigation, but we have a good feeling he doesn’t want to say anything at all.
The Prime Minister was hoping that perhaps the evidence of the great monks of security, intelligence and elections in this week’s elections would open the door for him.
Light or fog?
These experts themselves have widened the fog in this matter, so as not to shed any light on the question of foreign interference.
At the same time, the reports that started the controversy were questioned, in addition to doubts about the origin of the leaked media, about the veracity of the content (perhaps based on rumors) and the motive of the intended launcher.
One of them confirmed the occurrence of weapons of mass destruction, in the war in Iraq, to confirm that intelligence is not always synonymous with truth.
Another sent a message to the whistleblower (who may or may not be an employee of the intelligence service of the Canadian Security Service (CSIS): if he is unhappy with the decisions of the Superiors, there are ways to resolve this internally, while it is indicated that it is protected. A slap on the wrist is also a warning to those who are tempted to imitate.
In short, the artists seemed to be protecting more than transparency, while they were defending appearance.
It is difficult to see whether this attitude will help or hurt the Trudeau government.
On the other hand, showing that top secret information cannot be revealed in public sources is an argument that the public inquiry would end in his work.
On the other hand, the lack of transparency feeds the arrogance of the population, leaves the public confused and leads to a loss of voter confidence.
In the face of foreign interference, Australia has stronger laws than Canada, dealing with foreign agents and harsher penalties.
Among the main differences is that Australia’s intelligence agencies, seen from here, appear to be proactive. Those Canadians seem more reactive.
In Canada, the big election group only works during election season. His 2021 performance report was not published until 17 months after the polls. Almost all the details have been redacted.
In Australia, three months before the 2022 election, the intelligence agency announced that it had detected and attempted to remove foreign interference. He disclosed any information to the public.
A businessman with close ties to a foreign government used remote bank accounts to fund Australian candidates and politicians in favor of a foreign power.
We are far from the level of detail that has been shared with the Canadian public. Perhaps because such a story has never been made in Canada. But we don’t know.
This is the kind of proactive approach (recommended elsewhere in the Rosenberg report) that could help Canadians’ confidence in their elections and in the work of the intelligence services.
Australia is close to China. It is targeted more often, more aggressively and longer than Canada. He learned the lessons of the past.
Perhaps the event that Canada is currently experiencing will play a role in the alarming bells for the government in power and the political class in general.