Front Burner - A matter of trust: Election meddling inquiry rejected

Episode Date: May 24, 2023

Former governor general David Johnston — now serving as a special rapporteur — says a public inquiry into foreign interference in Canadian elections would not satisfy the public, because so much of the material is classified and can’t be shared. Will the decision to reject a public inquiry on foreign interference in Canadian elections darken the cloud of mistrust, or help clear it? On this episode, David Fraser, a reporter with the Canadian Press, details what Johnston is recommending instead of an inquiry. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Alex Panetta. For months, one big question has dogged Justin Trudeau's liberals. Did they do enough to stop a Chinese influence campaign that sought to damage their political rivals? Or were Justin Trudeau and his party

simply bystanders to a chain of events that attempted to impact the 2019 and 2021 elections? Events that saw a conservative MP's family targeted by the Chinese government and resulted in, stop me if you've heard this one before, a new low in relations between Canada and China. Well, many people expected that a public inquiry could have at least started to answer some of those questions. When I began this process, I thought I would come to the same conclusion, that I would recommend a public inquiry. Well, it would have been an easy choice. It would not be the correct one. That inquiry? It's not going to happen. Former Governor General David Johnston made that clear yesterday. A separate public inquiry will simply not deliver the level of transparency and urgency Canadians expect.

Why not? Did his report, two months in the making, get to the bottom of anything? And will his proposed alternative to a public inquiry put anyone's mind at ease? I'm talking to David Fraser from the Canadian Press about this and more today. Hi, David. Welcome back to FrontBurner. Thanks for having me. I just want to start off with what this report and what David Johnston's work here was meant to accomplish. When he was appointed, what was the goal of his appointment?

Yeah, sure. So prime minister, Justin Trudeau gave him a fairly wide mandate, but the substance of it was, it was expected to give some finality to this question of whether or not, uh, the public inquiry that opposition benches have been calling for since these allegations of foreign interference have emerged would be had.

And we now know that isn't the case. But Johnson was also able to make other recommendations on what Canada can do to tackle foreign interference. And he was asked to evaluate the work that the government has done up to this point on handling foreign interference and specifically what he did in the face of allegations of interference during the 2019 and 2021 elections. OK, and that's amid a barrage of headlines. The Global Mail reported that secret CESA's intelligence reports showed Beijing encouraged sympathetic donors in Canada to give money to favoured candidates, then help them recoup their money. MP Han Dong says he's resigning from the Liberal caucus to sit as an independent. Global News is reporting information from two national security sources

that Dong privately advised a senior Chinese diplomat to hold off on freeing Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor from detention in February of 2021. The Melbourne Mail is reporting that Conservative MP Michael Chong and his family were targeted by a Chinese diplomat working in Toronto. What this scandal is about is what the Prime Minister knows about this interference, when he first learned about it, and what he did about it or failed to do about it. The big headline here today is that according to Johnston, the government didn't really do anything wrong, or more precisely, that it didn't do anything nefarious. Can you flesh that out for me? Yeah, so while the report does point to quite a bit of issues around information

sharing and communication within our security service, it does say that nobody did anything wrong, but it does, again, say that there were serious shortcomings in the way that intelligence was communicated and processed from the security services through to government. I did find that there were significant and unacceptable gaps in the machinery of government. But most importantly, it did not identify the prime minister or any of his ministers or their offices were knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence that they were receiving or advice or recommendations that they were getting from the security establishment. Yeah, and there's one particular

example that he alludes to. It's one of the more gobsmacking ones involving conservative MP Michael Chong and the reported threat or targeting of his family in China. So this is kind of like exhibit A of information not getting shared properly. What happened there? Yeah, so this is a good example of how there was a breakdown in the way that information was being shared. So essentially, when it comes to Michael Chong, there was a reported threat against his family in China. And the report says that it was not shared with the PMO and people who should have received it. But despite that, Public Safety Minister at the time, Bill Blair, received the email where the report says he just never saw it. And this does speak to

this lack of information sharing and breakdown in communications between security services and the political sphere that we have. Yeah. Johnston's report talks about a top secret email to Blair, but apparently they don't check their top secret emails. They've got to get briefed on it. And then in the briefings, apparently, you know, officials, including in the PMR, are given these binders filled with stuff. And no one ever tells them, oh, by the way, check page 409. There's something really important there. Johnson's now said that he's invited two national security oversight bodies to vet his report.

I recommend the prime minister invite the two oversight committees on national security, NSICOP and INSERA, to review my conclusions and provide them with all supporting materials, including an, which contains the classified information. If they disagree with my conclusions, they should say that. Do we know how he arrived at these conclusions? Like, did he talk to lots of people? Yeah. So Johnson was given access to lots of stuff. So he says he was able to interview CSIS officials. He was able to talk to the two bodies that we have, one made up of civil servants, the other one made up of parliamentarians who look at this stuff as is. He was able to work with the Privy Council, who houses a lot of the security stuff. He was

able to work with people who worked on the last election, people within the prime minister's office. So he had a wide swath of people that he was able to talk to, to arrive at the conclusions. He was also able to review lots of documents and classified information to reach his conclusions. And so he actually saw this firsthand intelligence then, if I understand correctly. That's right. We are led to believe, that's what he says, that he was able to look at a lot of this information himself. Yes. Okay. So now David Johnston is saying no to a public inquiry because so much of the key info is classified uh now the argument being you know how public would this inquiry be if so much of it is happening behind closed doors the intelligence

i have reviewed is and must remain secret as a result the reality is any credible public inquiry would not be public at all. But does that really make sense? I mean, we've had public inquiries that involved sensitive information in the past, in the recent past too. I mean, the Emergencies Act inquiry, further back, there was the situation involving Maharar. On top of that, the NDP are also saying a public inquiry could have done much more than whatever is planned given how serious the allegations that we've heard given that it attacks directly people's confidence in our electoral system we have been calling for a public inquiry and we remain resolute that a public inquiry is necessary to restore the confidence can you walk me through the difference? Like what difference would a public inquiry make?

Yeah, so first of all, the public inquiry would allow Johnston to do things like subpoena witnesses. It would allow him to have people testifying under oath, which means that they can be cross-examined by their lawyers. have people testifying under oath, which means that they can be cross-examined by their lawyers. It would mean that multiple parties could have standing in this. So presumably, you know, different security services could have standing on this. Perhaps provinces would want to have standing on it. Community associations or diaspora communities would look to have standing on it. It would lead to a bigger process. Whereas what Johnson is proposing is more this public hearing where he will be able to do all of that himself. He'll lead the process, but he doesn't seem to think that he needs these powers to subpoena people or need people testifying under oath. He seems confident that he'll be able to examine this issue in the public through hearings, not in the inquiry setting.

And the reason why he doesn't want to do an inquiry setting is because he thinks that a public review of classified intelligence is something that he says simply cannot be done. Okay, but he is saying there should be public hearings. Do we know what these kind of not public inquiry but public hearings things might look like? Right, it's like a public inquiry light, I think, is what people are looking at it to describe. And he's saying that he would look to speak with a lot of the same people that he would likely hear from in an inquiry that includes members of diaspora communities, members of the security establishment, politicians, other people who are involved, academics. politicians, other people who are involved, academics. Those are the types of people that he's going to look to speak to over the next few months through his public hearings. We don't have too many more details as to tangibly what that looks like.

Is he going to host all of these in Ottawa? Is he going to tour across the country? Those are all things that we'll hope to find out in the coming days and weeks. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo, 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cops.

Let's talk about the role of the news media here, because of course, nearly everything we know about this story has come from news reports, primarily from leaks, presumably from people unhappy with the way the Trudeau government has acted on this file. We've primarily learned about these things through scoops from the Globe and Mail and from Global News. So looking at the media, broadly speaking, what is Johnston saying about the news reporting? Yeah, so Johnston has quite a lot to say about the media reporting on this. And one of the things that he seems to conclude is that several leaked materials that raised legitimate questions about foreign interference turned out to have been misconstrued in some of those media reports. And he says it's presumably because of a lack of context. Much of what has been reported has been based on limited

and partial intelligence. That reporting has been made without the benefit of the full context provided by all relevant materials. Experienced intelligent professionals understand that individual pieces of intelligence must be viewed with considerable skepticism. It is extremely rare to draw conclusions, much less take action from a single intelligence report. action from a single intelligence report. Johnston is saying that while media was able to see a glimpse of the intelligence framework, they weren't able to paint this full picture of what was actually going on. And that's something that we saw take place in the media. And he details that throughout his report here. And for our listeners, some context here. Johnston's report is about 55 pages long. And he goes through news stories from the last few months. The People's Republic of China gave $250,000 to 11 election candidates, that some candidates and operatives are winning affiliates of the Chinese Communist Party. China interfered with the nomination of Han Dong as a liberal candidate, that Han Dong advised Chinese diplomats to extend the detention of the two Michaels in China. So Johnston says these stories are either incomplete, misleading, or in the case of the Han Dong story and the two Michaels, just flat out wrong.

Based on his fuller read of the evidence, he makes this conclusion, but he didn't address every news story. And does Johnston provide any evidence in his media criticism or is this kind of just a trust me sort of thing? Yeah, it's largely just a trust me sort of thing. As he says, each piece of intelligence is a brushstroke to paint a picture, a broader picture. And we are to believe that he has seen all of the intelligence pieces and has enough to put together that broader picture and seems to suggest that media did not have everything that they needed to see that broader picture. And so he's very much taking part in an exercise where he's asking Canadians to trust him in that he looked at this information, he's reviewed it, and now he's asking Canadians to believe him.

Okay, so let's talk about the concept of conflicts of interest or even the perception of conflicts of interest. It's been present since mid-March when Trudeau appointed Johnston as special rapporteur. David Johnston went to some length to downplay his connections to Trudeau. So there was no interaction with respect to the current prime minister of a friendly kind, other than the respect I have for a graduate of McGill University. And my only real contact occurred when he became an elected member of parliament and i held the office of governor general those are the facts the prime minister also downplayed those personal connections i saw him a few times as a kid i got to know him after he was appointed governor general uh by stephen harper uh once i was already a parliamentarian.

Do you think they've managed to put that issue to bed? I don't think so, especially if you're listening to the leader of the opposition who is continuing to raise this potential conflict of interest and put it in the minds of Canadians. And Johnson explained this. He does have a relationship with the prime minister's family going back decades and decades to when prime minister Justin Trudeau was young. He had a cabin that was close by to David Johnston's. Apparently they went skiing together a few times. Johnston was also the principal at McGill when Trudeau was a student there. David Johnston was also, of course, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, which was named after the prime minister's father.

So there are connections there, but David Johnston discounted all of them. He said, you know, essentially there's nothing to see here, but that doesn't seem to be satisfying the leader of the opposition because Pierre Polyev continues to accuse David Johnston of being Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's ski buddy. And it doesn't seem like that's stopping anytime soon. That's right. And Pierre Polyev essentially wrote off the former Governor General as a Trudeau crony. David Johnson is a ski buddy, chalet neighbor, family friend, and member of the Trudeau Foundation. He has no business in this job because it is a fake job that he is incapable of doing impartially. Opposition leaders are now being invited to view all the intelligence Johnston did. I encourage the prime minister to invite the leaders of the three major opposition parties

to join that process personally so they can assess for themselves the intelligence and my conclusions. What's Polyev saying about that invitation? Yeah, so it doesn't seem as if Pierre Polyev is willing to play ball, at least with David Johnston here. He's continuing to call for a public inquiry, and it seems very much like that is the only thing that's going to be satisfying him. Okay, so I get the politics of not accepting this offer, but I mean, couldn't Poiliev or any opposition leader just read the intelligence, and if they come to a different conclusion, they can speak publicly about it the way Johnston just did? That very much could be the case, but anybody who reads this intelligence

is also in a little bit of a way putting themselves in a box where if you know something is true or not true based on that broad picture of the intelligence, you're in a tougher position to continue to criticize. Where Pierre Polyev sits right now, he is not looking at that intelligence. So he can happily continue to say that, you know, the Trudeau government failed on this issue and he can continue to criticize. As for any proposals he might have to silence me, the answer is no, I will not be silenced. Thank you. Will you be joining NSACOP? No. If you were to look at what the

government did and how they were addressing foreign interference, perhaps he would have a more favorable opinion of the government has worked and, you know, very much like Johnson has arrived at, and he might not like that. So he's maybe thinking, hey, ignorance is bliss on this one. So the political fallout is obviously not over on this. Paul Yeager is saying, you know, if he's elected to lead a new government, he'll call an inquiry. He's also calling in the short term for a new Foreign Agent Registration Act, which we know the government is considering creating to list, you know, paid foreign agents of other countries. Now let's talk about the NDP. I mean, Singh has said he'd look at the documents and continue to push for a public inquiry. Now, if the whole point here is to get a better understanding of what happened and what went wrong, what big questions remain? Like,

what do we want to know? Sure. Well, I think one thing that we're all thinking about is what impact is this going to have in the immediate term and in the long term on the Liberals? We know that the NDP is saying they're not going to, at least right now, let this turn into a confidence issue that could bring this government down and, you know, bring us into another election. We're not making that decision today. The fact that there are there is a serious concern about foreign interference in our elections and the special rapporteur hasn't completed the work or any recommendations that should be put in place to protect or safeguard our democracy and our election. The fact that we want a public inquiry to protect elections, not an election that is under the cloud of suspicion of foreign interference. But it is creating more conversation about the level of trustworthiness around this government.

And that will continue to follow it until this is adequately addressed. You mentioned the foreign agent registry. That's something that I think we can expect the government to move relatively quickly on, given it's something that they've looked at previously. But a lot of this will just come down to what will this do to the trust and confidence that the public has in this government's ability to, you know, have fair and safe free elections in Canada. And hopefully, this matter will be at least have some sort of finality to it before we end up in another election here. So we don't know yet whether

this could turn into a confidence issue that could threaten the government itself. Yeah, that's right. I mean, at least for now, the NDP is saying they're going to continue to call for this public inquiry, and they don't want this to trigger an election. But this is politics. Stuff can change in a couple of days. OK, speaking of unanswered questions, you know, Globe Mail columnist Andrew Coyne has got a whole bunch of them. You know, questions like intelligence reports say that China wanted to help the liberals get reelected. Why were the intelligence reports broadly correct? Was China attempting to help the liberals get re-elected. Why? Were the intelligence reports broadly correct? Was China attempting to interfere in the ways described? Who knew what, when? Is it

conceivable that not one of these multiple reports over several years could have reached the minister's desk or the prime minister's desk in particular? What about their advisors? Is there any question looming overhead over this entire saga that you in particular are interested in having answered? Yeah, I mean, those are all great questions that Andrew Coyne is raising there. I think for me, a big question that I'm still curious about is outside of the questions of, you know, the broader what impact is this going to have politically on the Liberal government and the other parties going forward? to have politically on the Liberal government and the other parties going forward. I think there's still some open questions as to what did the Prime Minister know at certain points, and if he adequately addressed the warnings of foreign interference. We have some clarity from the report today that, you know, the Prime Minister and ministers weren't negligent in the advice that

they were receiving, But was there still actions that this government could have taken that would have prevented foreign interference from taking place? And I think the other big question here is what are we going to do now? We've heard from multiple experts. We heard again from David Johnston that this issue isn't going away. Foreign interference is going to continue to be a threat and a bigger one. So Canadians need to figure out how to move forward on this. And I'm very much looking forward to seeing what we are going to do on that front. It was mentioned a couple of times today that the foundational condition for democracy is trust in institutions.

And that's obviously central here. You know, critics say that this process was compromised from the start. That's their contention. And that we're being asked to simply trust the process. The liberals and their supporters are saying we need to maintain trust in our democratic processes and their efforts here should provide Canadians with that confidence. But there's still such a huge gulf between their position and that of the opposition. Is there any indication of where the public at large, the voting public that decides Canadian elections, where are Canadians on this

issue? That's a great question. And a couple of immediate thoughts pop into my head. The first one is that a lot of Canadians aren't paying attention to this issue. We've seen polling that suggests a lot of people don't know that this is an ongoing story and they're not aware of the seriousness of foreign interference in the country. So that's one thing. But I think a lot of Canadians who are paying attention to this issue are going to be looking at it with probably a great deal of concern. As you say, elections in Canada are a fairly sacred thing and something that people really hold close to the democracy in Canada here. So I think a lot of Canadians are probably feeling a little

nervous and apprehensive about what this government is going to be doing next. Well, we'll be following because it's not going away tomorrow, that's for sure. Thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, guys. Appreciate it. That's all for today. I'm Alex Panetta. Thank you for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.