Front Burner - What’s at stake with Canada’s foreign interference inquiry

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

The public inquiry into foreign electoral interference begins today. The independent commission was sparked by allegations that China had interfered in Canadian elections — a bombshell accusation that ignited a major political battle in Ottawa. The inquiry is already facing hard questions about who gets to take part and how, and how much of the findings can actually be shared with the public. CBC parliamentary reporter Catharine Tunney on what’s ahead, and what’s at stake with the inquiry. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday.

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 Damon Fairless. The public inquiry into foreign electoral interference kicks off today. The Independent Commission was sparked by allegations that China had interfered in Canadian elections, a bombshell accusation that ignited a major political battle in Ottawa.

Opposition parties wanted an inquiry, but the Liberal government initially said no. It designated former Governor General David Johnson to investigate whether one was needed. And even though he concluded that foreign governments are trying to influence Canadian politics, he recommended against an inquiry. That sparked even more political outrage. So in September, Justin Trudeau eventually called for one. The inquiry is already facing hard questions about who gets to take part and how, and how much of the findings can actually be shared with the public. Catherine Tunney is a CBC parliamentary reporter who covers national security. She's been following the story

closely, and she's here with me now to explain. She's been following the story closely, and she's here with me now to explain. Hey, Kat, thanks for coming on FrontBurner. It's good to have you back. Thanks for having me. Let's just start with the basics. Can you help me understand what the main goals of this inquiry are? Yeah, I mean, Commissioner Marie-José Ogue does not have an easy job ahead of her. It is a pretty huge mandate. One is to kind of figure out whether foreign interference happened in the past two federal elections, 2019 and 2021. And if so, to what extent did China, Russia, India, for example, and others play a meddling?

And if it basically made an impact or not. So it's a pretty big question, and that's one part of her mandate. She also is looking at whether the government, not just the liberal government, but, you know, the whole machinery of government, if it's set up in a way that can respond to foreign interference. There's lots of questions about who is talking to who, what, and how information got out. So she also has to figure out, you know, are we set up? And she kind of has a limited runway to do this as well.

You know, we're starting this week with the inquiry. Then there's a bit of a break, and we'll hear kind of the meteor issues come March. But she has an interim report that's due in May, and then her final report is due by the end of the year. She has a huge mandate, and she does have a pretty crunch timeline to do this. So most of the public focus has been on China and Russia. But then we learned last week that India is going to be included in the inquiry as well. So we've covered the allegations that India was linked to the killing of a Sikh activist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, here in Canada, and then also the U.S. allegations that it was behind an assassination plot there in the States.

So I guess what I'm curious about is, do you have a sense of specifically what the inquiry wants to look at when it comes to India? We know that the commissioner is asking for more information. This is something that definitely those in the Sikh community and others, too, have raised. If you're looking at China and Russia, we also have concerns about India. And always the mandate that she has said, you know, China, Russia and others. Justice Ogg will be tasked with examining and assessing interference by China, Russia and other foreign states and non-state actors, including any potential impacts to confirm the integrity of and impacts on the 2019 and 2021 general elections.

Others is doing a lot of work in that sentence. So now we have a clear sense that India is going to be, at least they're asking for information. Obviously, we'll have to see, you know, how big or small a role and who's going to come and talk about that. We know from reporting that there's been questions about Iran's interference, North Korea. So it'll be interesting to get a sense of how long she's going to spend on all those countries. So it'll be interesting to get a sense of how long she's going to spend on all those countries. But for sure, I mean, kind of why we are here in the first place is because of media reporting from the Globe and Mail and Global. And that, you know, really focused on China's interference. You know, the world, you know, allegedly, of course, all of this is based on anonymous sources and leaked documents.

But, you know, it talked about how China wanted to see a liberal minority government in the last election. And that, of course, is what happened. And there's also lots of questions about China's alleged interference and candidate nominations and how big of a role they were playing there. So, I mean, undeniably, China is probably going to be the biggest player here. But, you know, let's not forget that China is not the only player when it comes to foreign interference, especially foreign electoral interference. So, you know, it'll be interesting to see what else she gets to cover. It's been kind of a long and winding road to get this inquiry.

The Liberal government has resisted this inquiry. But I kind of want to go back to what you mentioned, the reports that were coming out over the last couple of years, alleging certainly Chinese interference, but other countries as well. Can you take me back there and let's go through these reports. What are the substance of these reports? Some of the main ones is that China, one, allegedly played a role in the nomination process. Before we even get to voting in a main election, we have to choose who's going to be a candidate for the Liberal Party or for the Conservative Party, for example.

And there was reporting to suggest that China was playing a role in that and perhaps handpicking candidates. You know, allegations that, you know, the players, one of them being now independent MP Handong, has denied. He allegedly in February 2021 told a Chinese diplomat that Beijing should hold off on freeing Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, the two Canadians it was holding imprisoned, because that would favor a conservative government returning to power. What has been reported is false. And I will defend myself against these absolutely untrue claims. There has been lots of questions about the nomination period. It's a little bit more of a Wild West situation, if you will,

unlike, you know, the general election. So there's always been some eyebrow-raising about nominations and, you know, the suggestions in those reports that China kind of seized on that. And then also perhaps some of the, you know, one of the biggest bombshells was the Global Mail's reporting about, you know, how China had a plan, you know, and there was conversations about wanting to make sure that certain conservatives were not elected. We've heard, you know, reports from, you know, a conservative MP,

Kenny Chu, who said, you know, he was seen on WeChat, a very popular communication platform, that he was being targeted. And he always has felt that China was behind that. Chu says Beijing spread propaganda about him being anti-Chinese within the Chinese Canadian community. They target specific candidates such as myself. All of those kind of put together kind of led us to these questions about what did the Liberal government know and did they act fast enough? And that's, you know, really kind of, we saw that boil over in House of Commons earlier last year.

Will he allow Canadians to get to the truth and prevent this from happening again before the next election with a full public inquiry now? this from happening again before the next election with a full public inquiry now. A public inquiry that has been worked on by all different parties, that is agreed to by everyone so it doesn't hopefully descend in the kind of toxicity and disagreements that we saw this spring this spring will demonstrate clearly the responsibility of other countries to cease their interference activities. And then, you know, it was a long and winding road, but here we are with the inquiry kicking off today. Okay. So, and I guess before I get into that, can you give me a sense of what, you know, how China in particular with some of the other countries who are alleged to have, you know, interfered in our election process,

how they responded? China always has denied that this is going on. And come out and said that, you know, we don't do this, that we were not interested in Canadian fares and we don't interfere in Canadian fares and believes that, you know, or at least says that the government and, you know, sources have made this up. So that's what, you know, they've stand behind it for a while. Russia also has denied allegations. Going back to this, you know, long and winding path to get to the inquiry, it's taken a while. One of the things that happened was that the government initially resisted opposition to call this inquiry. They brought in the former Governor General David Johnson as a special rapporteur on foreign interference to investigate it.

Can you take me through that? So how do we make the turn out of that into this formal inquiry? Because politics, politics, politics. Yeah, so David Johnson, you know, he was appointed the special rapporteur, and he looked at some of these allegations that were on the table. And ultimately, he was told to, you know, you can suggest an inquiry, and the liberal government said that they would listen to that and heed what he had to say. Ultimately, he said that he did not feel like there should have been an inquiry. A further public process is required, but there should not and need not be a separate

formal public inquiry. A public inquiry examining the leaked materials could not be undertaken in public, given the sensitivity of the intelligence. It's hard to have these conversations out in the open when you're dealing with such, you know, heightened national security concerns, and then there's a whole slew of laws protecting classified information. So that was part of his reasoning about, I don't really know how much further we can have this conversation given all of those limitations. But because of, you know, the conservatives definitely seized on the fact that he had some long family ties to the Trudeau government. He's named his neighbor, family friend, ski buddy and member of the Beijing Finance Trudeau Foundation to look into the matter, which is nothing more.

And they, you know, immediately kind of cast him as this person who can't be trusted and perhaps is protecting his, you know, old family friends. Mr. Johnson, you know, said, you know, he came at this with clear open eyes. But ultimately, he said that this is just so political that I have to kind of tap out. My objective was to help build trust in our democratic institutions, he wrote. But he added, given the highly partisan atmosphere around my appointment and work, my leadership has had the opposite effect. I am therefore tendering my resignation. In that aftermath, there wasn't really, there was a lot of heat and there wasn't really much place to go. And then the Liberal government, with the opposition really coming at them,

decided to go this way, to go with an inquiry. And the parties got to help weigh in on the parameters and who the commissioner would be. The government of Canada, with the support of all recognized parties in the House of Commons, will appoint the Honorable Marie-Josée Hug, a judge of the Court of Appeal of Quebec, to lead a public inquiry established under the Inquiries Act. That's kind of how we're getting to where we are, and it will be interesting. This week, their main question is, how do we have these conversations? 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. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have 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. You know, this inquiry is looking at, you know, really big geopolitical issues, right?

Which is obviously a big part of this. But I want to talk about the human element too because, you know, actual people, individuals have been targeted here. You know, they're the crosshairs of this. So there's going to be testimony from victims of foreign interference. And I just want to get a sense of some of the stories that have emerged over the last few years. Yeah, I think sometimes when we think, you know, foreign interference and espionage, you know, you think, you know, the dossiers and the meeting people and, you know, in parking garages, but there are people in Canada who have, you know, through either their testimony

before parliamentary committees, or reports that have come out and it ceases itself, that spy agency has also alluded to the fact that there are people here who have felt intimidated, have been blackmailed by China specifically, told, you know, you're here in Canada, but your grandparents are still in China. And if you don't do X, we will do Y. So there is the threat of intimidation and backlash is, you know, grandparents are still in China. And if you don't do X, we will do Y. So there is the threat of intimidation and backlash is, you know, something that many people have felt. So hopefully we can hear those stories in the inquiry. I think there is definitely a push to hear those. Now, that being said, you know, if you're feeling already intimidated,

then the thing that, of course, is concerned about how do you tell that story in such a very public forum, one that for sure the Chinese embassy will be tuning into. So there's kind of will have to be a balance on how we figure out how to weigh all of that. So you and I were talking on Sunday afternoon, the inquiry starts its public hearings on Monday. So that's today for folks listening today. But before that gets rolling, the first matter of business in the inquiry is determining, I guess, what we can and can't talk about publicly. So break it down for me. What are the challenges there? One of the issues that we've had trying to understand this full story is that, you know,

there are leaked documents and there are sources who have told certain stories. But I don't think we have the full picture of what's going on. And, you know, we've seen the head of CSIS, for example, the head of the RCMP, go to committees, parliamentary committees, and they'll answer a little bit of a question. And then there's probably something that you've heard over and over and over again, which is, you know, due to national security concerns, due to the ongoing investigation, I can't answer that question. We keep kind of coming up this wall. And let me tell you, as a reporter, it is very frustrating to give CSIS some credit. Yes, you don't want to necessarily show your full hand, especially when you're dealing with these geopolitical issues and the fact that we're, you know, active investigations. But I think there's also a disservice that's happening because, you know, we have some reporting, you know, snapshots of certain cases, but we don't have the full

picture, right? So I think, you know, I think rightfully Canadians have a lot of questions about what or what did not happen in the past two elections. So on top of that, there are laws, you know, the Security of Information Act, which, you know, people who take that oath are not allowed to talk about what they know for their entire lives. That's how serious, you know, national security concerns are. And there's the Canada Evidence Act. Again, all of this is trying to protect, to make sure that, you know, human sources are protected, that Canada's secrets are protected. Hopefully, by the end of the week or, you know, soon after, we'll get a sense about, you know, are we actually going to be able to move forward and have a deeper conversation? Are we going to start to get at least, if not the full picture, much more colored in picture about what's happening?

Or is it going to be like, you know, ultimately, maybe she will decide that in order to get to the bottom of it for a report, she'll have to have, you know, behind closed doors meetings with the players and then the public and the media, of course, is essentially locked out. And I think that's where some of the frustration will happen. It'll feel like we're on a hamster wheel where we're not moving past this. There's basically a needle to be thread here, right, between the facts we need to have to have a, you know, a meaningful public inquiry, but also the secrets we need to keep in order not to give away, you know, issues of national security. So, you know, really at the heart of this is intelligence and CSIS, which is, you know, basically the institution that exists to

keep secrets, secret intelligence, right? So I guess specifically when it comes to figuring out what we can talk about in this inquiry, what can we expect to hear from CSIS? Like, what kind of transparency do you think we can expect? I can tell you what I hope to expect. You know, I mean, obviously, as a reporter, you want all the information. I mean, I will say I have spent a little bit of time with David Munoz, the head of the agency. I would like to think, and I do kind of sense

that CSIS is slowly changing and that it wants to have these conversations. So my hope as a journalist is that, and, you know, hoping for Canadians as well, is that the agencies see this as a moment to, okay, let's have a mature conversation about this and let's at least try to tell Canadians the whole story because people are going to fill in either way. But we'll have to see if that happens. You know, you mentioned politics, politics, politics before. That's not gone away even in this current iteration of this question we're dealing with.

So I'm really not familiar with the various standings of each of the political parties at the inquiry. But as I understand, the conservatives aren't happy about the process because they haven't been given a full standing in the hearings. Can you help me understand that? What do they want exactly? Yeah, so in an inquiry, and we saw this in the Emergencies Act inquiry last year as well, you know, if you have, you know, a certain level of standing, you get to ask questions, you get to basically cross-examine some of the witnesses. You get to present certain evidence as well. So there was a lot of people who were seeking, you know, party standing, and not everyone got it, the conservative party being one of them.

And they made the point that, you know, we are a party whose own members, you know, we believe have been targeted by China, right? So they're quite upset and believe that, you know, because of that, they won't get, that this already, that this inquiry is somewhat tainted. We'll point out that Michael Chong, their MP, who, you know, is this major player in this story because of reporting that told us that, you know, China was targeting his family overseas because of stances he was taking in the House of Commons with the Uyghurs. And, you know, there was a whole follow-up because he didn't even know that, you know, basically until the reporting was close to being done.

Global Affairs Canada announcing they detected false narratives about Chong's identity, political stances, and family's heritage on the social media platform WeChat and saw a coordinated network of WeChat accounts featured, shared, and amplified a large volume of false or misleading narratives about Mr. Chong. His case especially raises questions, one, about interference and, you know, that question of intimidation and targeting, but two, about how did he not know? How did he not know until the story came out? And, you know, the prime minister and then the national security intelligence advisor also said that they only learned about that recently. So how does that flow of information work? So that case specifically, you know, represents a lot, a lot in this inquiry. He does have standing. But clearly the conservatives feel, you know, we're talking about electoral interference, so that we should have parties standing. And

ultimately, the commissioner did not go in that direction. How does that compare to the other parties? Yeah, so the NDP also does not have that party standing. The conservatives and the NDP have what's called intervener status. They're not completely blocked out, but it's different. So I guess before I let you go, the one question that stays with me is if, as we've talked about earlier, top civil servants have said that attempted election interference may have happened, but it wasn't enough to make a difference one way

or another in the 2021 election. I guess if that's the case, then is this inquiry even needed? Why is this inquiry needed? You know, one part of that answer would be that, you know, this is the will of Parliament that ultimately, you know, the opposition parties kind of banded together and the, you know, this is the will of Parliament that ultimately, you know, the opposition parties kind of banded together and the liberals agreed and that's why we're here. And, you know, the will of Parliament is something that's very important. You know, I think other people would hear that question and say, yeah, why are we here? And this is going to cost money. And if you like David Johnson or not, you know, he did put out a report that also kind of echoed some of that. But I think we're in a spot that is just so gray, so confusing, so political.

Even if this inquiry will be tainted by politics as well because it's hard not to be. People might not believe it at the end. It would be nice to have kind of a definitive report from what's supposed to be an independent inquiry that's heard from all the players, that's, you know, had people being cross-examined, that's looked at evidence that perhaps has never been seen before, and to put, you know, a final report that's due by the end of this year on the record. I do see positives in that, and I think that will be important. That being said, you know, people can might read it and take away different things. But I think it will be important for this conversation to have kind of that on the record. And hopefully much of the inquiry will be public. You know, you can watch it live or, you know, watch a news segment about it. I think that also will be important for Canada as we kind of figure out what happened. Kat, thanks so much for coming on to talk about this.

Really appreciate it. Thank you. All right, that's it for today. I'm Damon Fairless. Thanks for listening to FrontBurner. I'll talk to you tomorrow.