If Trump is serious (and who really knows), I think there are a few things to keep an eye out for. Quick thread on what I think a "US annexation" playbook could look like:

nbcnews.com/politics/donal… 1. Creating economic instability in the country to "soften us up" for annexation: tariffs, attacks on debt issuance, limiting correspondent banking relationships (think FATF action) and access to US$

While I think there's a strong public interest in knowing the names of people named in classified intelligence for colluding with foreign governments, this editorial misses a few key points, which I'll expand on below (and why I think it's a bad idea to name them). 🧵

https://twitter.com/globeandmail/status/1837082081584893981

1. Intelligence is not evidence. I seem to need to keep explaining this, but there's a lot of daylight between how intelligence is collected and how evidence is collected.

Folks, we need to talk about this GSRP review.

Canada's national security intelligence review agency (NSIRA) just released their review of our Global Security Reporting Program.

It's wild times.

nsira-ossnr.gc.ca/en/reviews/ong… As always, I encourage you to read the full report. But here are some things that really stood out to me.

Full disclosure: I used to work at GAC (not in GSRP), and I consumed MANY of their products while I was in different roles in Canada's security & intelligence community.

Dark skies are gathering over Canada's public service: the threat of layoffs, budget freezes & cuts, and cutting vacant positions. This will make mobility harder, both lateral and upwards.

Here's an approach I call "detached engagement" and how to implement it at work. I spent a few years of my career in the DRAP years - deficit reduction action plan. For those who don't remember, it was a time where managers kept saying "do more with less".

Friends, we did not do more with less.

Cameron Ortis was convicted on all six counts of violations of the security of information act yesterday. This is a huge win for Canada, and particularly the RCMP and the prosecution service.

cbc.ca/news/politics/… They demonstrated they can investigate and successfully prosecute leaks. There are currently one or more people in Canada leaking intelligence to media. They did not sleep well last night.

I'm still reflecting on the first foreign interference report, and I have one lingering question: what is the body of evidence that the report is based on? It remains entirely unclear to me if our FI investigations are well-resourced, getting good intelligence, and building a robust picture. Or if we're dealing with snippets of intelligence. Let me give you a concrete example:

I'm re-reading the first Foreign Interference Report today, and was struck by this passage, and that old adage to never attribute something to malicious intent that can be explained by incompetence.... Also, the play-by-play of the media allegations (and debunking of the theories / conspiracies around them) is pretty excellent.

He didn't say "trust me". He said he can't show his work (because it's classified, and has to stay that way). Then he described how he's impartial & has served Canada impartially for MANY decades, and encouraged review bodies to check his math.

apple.news/ArLSfUbPYTBqwH… I get it: the knee jerk reaction to undermine confidence in public officials because they won't show us everything they know. But I'm not sure where we go from a position of rejecting the impartiality of David Johnston (and by extension many other public servants).

🚨No foreign interference inquiry in Canada🚨

The interim report outlines a few very good reasons why, but primarily that an inquiry would not actually be public or transparent because of the quantity and classification of information that is required. My eyes have been immediately drawn to the next steps for this work:

1. looking at intelligence to evidence (if we want to prosecute offences relating to foreign interference, this will be critical).

I had a rather dystopian experience at EWR (Newark) airport this week. I couldn't order any food. All the food vendors had transitioned to QR code ordering, and for some reason, my phone wouldn't load the page. Anywhere. Transborder areas often employ tech first: we're captive audiences to the decisions they make. Is this our future?

I want to make something clear. I don't have a problem with the foreign interference story being reported. I have a problem with the ~way~ it's being reported. I strongly believe in freedom of expression for all Canadians, and Canadian media. I would hope that media outlets would report on stories in line with their own journalistic principles, and for the most part, I think they do.

This news cycle on foreign interference (and a lot of other stuff) is like the world’s worst introduction to Canadian intelligence. There is so much wrong out there. Here’s the thing: these anonymous sources could be using the same information, so their independence isn’t assured, and neither is the veracity of the intelligence. We also don’t know the source of the info: wiretaps, human sources, other….

https://twitter.com/stphnmaher/status/1638658989297905666

Against my better judgment, I'm going to try to unpack and explain what exactly is going on in this story. I'm having a lot of trouble following this reporting (and what's fact versus what's conjecture). Join me ? 🧵

globalnews.ca/news/9430612/c… Intelligence sources (No further information on who / what those are, or if they're well-placed to comment on this intelligence...) assert that a member of the Ontario legislature was a financial intermediary in a CCP-directed foreign interference scheme.

Really happy to see this amendment being tabled. Super critical to enable aid into Afghanistan. Happy to see the government using an authorization / waiver system:

globalnews.ca/news/9538662/a… I wrote about this issue for the Globe and Mail and made exactly this recommendation last summer

newsletter.insightthreatintel.com/p/canada-is-sh…

Foreign electoral interference in Canada is a big deal, particularly right now (minority parliament). The reality is that our next election could be right around the corner, and we're not ready. What should be done, right now, to prepare? 🧵 1. Implement the Rosenberg recommendations, in particular recommendation 11 to potentially lower the threshold for announcements. Dealing with foreign interference is hard, but people need to know if there are attempts to manipulate the results.

There seems to be some confusion about what exactly NSICOP and NSIRA are mandated to do with respect to foreign interference in Canada's elections. A good place to start is the written text of the PM's announcement.

pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-r… NSICOP (our committee of parliamentarians) will assess the state of foreign interference in elections 43 & 44. This is not going to be a review of how the government responded to information about electoral interference.

A few thoughts on CCP interference in Canadian political activities, given the MANY stories we're seeing these days, and the leaks. Basically, a thread of caveats and warnings: The leaks are a big concern for me. They appear quite partisan in nature. This might be the nature of the interference and their targets. It might be a function of the reporting. Or it might be selective leaking.

Major foreign influence story from @stevenchase and @RobertFife today on a Canadian bank. Here's a short thread on some observations / thoughts about what might really be going on here.

apple.news/AzWAQmmIbQkiKz… What happened: Freeland sent a letter to three shareholders of Wealth One Bank (a Canadian Schedule 1 bank, just like other major institutions you're familiar with, like RBC and Scotiabank) saying that they could be susceptible to Chinese government coercion.

I'm really troubled by what we're seeing from municipal, provincial, and federal intelligence on the Convoy and #POECommission. A short thread on some of the issues as I see them: There's a great deal of variation in the quality of reports, but many fail some basic tenets of intelligence reporting:
a) Neutral language
b) Well-articulated sources
c) Nuance and uncertainty
d) Free of logical fallacies
e) "in lane" reporting