When the prime minister makes the remarkable admission that he seldom reads his intelligence briefings it is, unfortunately, all too believable.Of course the man ultimately responsible for the security of the nation doesn’t read security reports; as the person ultimately responsible for the nation’s economy, he doesn’t think about monetary policy either.Instead, he tells us in testimony to the Commission on Electoral Interference that the only way to make sure he receives “the necessary (intelligence) information is to give me an in-person briefing, or over a secure line if necessary, on any issue or priority issue.” (So much for intelligence briefings: Who knows how he receives ‘necessary’ economic information? Perhaps his DEI adviser?)How very convenient, anyway. As an excuse for not knowing what a prime minister ought to know, it’s down there with ‘the cat ate my homework.’Anyway, these apparently occasional briefings would be with CSIS Director David Vigneault, or possibly National Security and Intelligence Adviser Nathalie Drouhin.Ms. Drouhin was appointed in January. She is the seventh person to occupy the position on Prime Minister Trudeau’s watch, suggesting a relatively low level of job satisfaction among her predecessors.Vigneault however, is an old hand. He has been in post since 2017 and I am inclined to think he knows his stuff. In 2021 for example, he gave a rare public address in which he identified Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos (of all places!) and Venezuela as "countries of concern", and that "state actors have done 'significant harm' to Canadian companies" and pose "a significant danger to Canada's prosperity and sovereignty."This, by the way, is all on a Government of Canada website; even the casual reader will quickly conclude that Vigneault may be right or he may be wrong, but he certainly reads the reports that come his way.And so we come to the dilemma; what do we make of Mr. Trudeau’s apparent insouciance over national security? Is it for real? Or is it a way to sidestep awkward questions?For such is the deep and nauseating well of irony from which the prime minister draws, that even as he complains of the sheer ennui of security reports that he seldom reads, he complains that his government had put in place ‘robust mechanisms.’ That is, he would have us believe that actually, they were doing everything they could to ‘detect and combat interference,’ and yet were being unjustly painted as negligent in the media.So which is it? He’s not responsible because he doesn’t read what’s in the bag that goes home with the prime minister every night? Or thanks to his robust mechanisms he actually knows exactly what’s going on?The evidence suggests the latter, but common sense suggests that if he admits to knowing what’s going on, he would then have to deal with it. Who wants that kind of pressure? Better to play dumb.Thus the Commission heard Tuesday (for example) that in February 2023, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service gave the PMO an explicit warning that the Chinese Communist Party posed an ‘existential threat to Canadian democracy.’ (Per Blacklock’s Reporter.) Well, maybe the PMO got the message but as it wasn't one of these personal briefings, the prime minister never knew. So he says, anyway.I tend to be cynical about politicians. But perhaps he really didn’t read that report. And perhaps, he really wasn’t personally briefed on a matter of vital national importance.Or perhaps again, when the fruits of these robust mechanisms are laid out before him by the professionals he has appointed, he’s just a picky eater: You shouldn’t just believe everything these gumshoes tell you, should you?As he labouriously explained to the Commission, as if to teenage ingenues, “You have to take this intelligence, you have to take this information with a certain awareness that it still needs to be confirmed or it might not be 100 per cent accurate…”Further, as he told a media avail Thursday, “We have a role to play in asking questions, on thinking critically ... encouraging further work on questioning sources and pulling out contradictions. That actually is part and parcel of the work to keep Canadians safe.”It's a good line and it's about the best he can offer.But here's the bottom line: The prime minister would have Canadians believe that he doesn’t read security reports. On the other hand, he would also have them believe he is sufficiently well-informed to ask incisive questions and challenge intelligence professionals in their field of expertise — if he cares to meet with them.The Commission is due to present an interim report on May. I can't wait to see what they think.
