The Decibel - Pressure builds for public inquiry after special rapporteur quits

Episode Date: June 12, 2023

David Johnston resigned as the special rapporteur on Friday after looking into foreign interference in Canadian elections. The former Governor General’s decision to step down came days after he appeared at a parliamentary committee on his work and was grilled by MPs from opposition parties.Steven Chase is The Globe’s Senior Parliamentary Reporter and he has been leading the foreign interference reporting with colleague Robert Fife. Steven joins the podcast to discuss where the investigation in China’s efforts to meddle in Canadian politics goes from here.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

I was cleaning up my desk to go home for the weekend. It was Friday night, just this last Friday at about 5.20 when the email popped up from the Independent Special Rapporteur saying they just want to make us aware of this. That's Steve Chase, the Globe's senior parliamentary reporter. And of course, the news was that he was out abruptly. Steve is talking about David Johnston. On Friday, he resigned as the special rapporteur on China's interference. And then, of course, I realized there's a classic Friday night method of what we call taking out the trash Friday night. So the government had saved this up until the very end of the day on Friday, which is always lovely. I notified the desk. I sent one of those emails that goes to 72 people

at the Globe and Mail or whatever and said, Johnson's resigning, stand by for a story. And then I started making phone calls and called my colleague Bob Fyfe and we were on it. Alongside Bob, Steve has been breaking news on the story of China's interference in Canadian elections. Former Governor General David Johnston was appointed by the Prime Minister to look into this interference and decide if we need a public inquiry. Last month, he released a report that said, we don't. But the report didn't ease the pressure on the federal government or Johnston. MPs in Parliament voted for Johnston's resignation, and questions emerged about what was and what wasn't in his report.

And now, Johnston is out. So today, Steve's here to make sense of the latest turn in this story and where it could all be headed next. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Steve, thank you so much for joining me on a Sunday here. Oh, I'm glad to be here. Let's dive right in here. David Johnston sent a letter to the prime minister on Friday. What did he say in that letter about why he resigned from his post?

He cited what he called a highly partisan atmosphere and said that he did not feel he could continue in this position, given that the whole object of the exercise was to build trust in our democratic institutions. And yet there was constant questions being raised about his appointment, about his effectiveness, and so on. So yeah, it was abrupt. And of course, now we know Mr. Trudeau wasn't even in Ottawa on Friday. He was on his way to Kiev, as we found out Saturday morning. So we still have a sense that this was unexpected. You have a man, David Johnson, telling MPs on Tuesday he's sticking around, handling three hours of questions, something somebody wouldn't do if they were on the way out. And then, of course, just 72 hours later, pulling the pin. So not really clear at what point it was decided that he was

going to leave. But everything he said Tuesday gave us the understanding that he would stay on. Yeah, I want to talk about what he said on Tuesday, because his resignation on Friday is quite a change from what he was saying on Tuesday, June 6th, actually, because Tuesday was the day that Johnston was in front of a parliamentary committee explaining why he wouldn't step aside. This was even after, of course, MPs voted for him to resign. With respect to the motion of Parliament is that I believe the vote was based on allegations that were false and that it would be wrong for me simply to step aside and say, well, let those allegations stand. So, Steve, what do we know about what changed in the three days between him saying that on Tuesday and his resignation on Friday night?

Well, we can only point to what's public. We don't have a good sense of what the debate was behind the scenes. But one thing that came out in those days was the fact that a firm, Navigator, which is known for crisis communications, we knew it had been hired by Mr. Johnson a while ago. But what we learned this week was that it had also worked for Han Dong, who's an MP, now sitting as an independent, who is also the subject of allegations in reporting, particularly by Global News, and of course was the significant subject of the first report put out by David Johnson.

Okay. What is the issue around Johnston's lead counsel, though? Yeah, this emerged in recent weeks. Democracy Watch, which is an accountability watchdog, had noted, had done some digging and found out that, according to Elections Canada records, Sheila Block, who is Mr. Johnson's lead counsel in this endeavor, who is a lawyer at Tories, had donated thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party over the years. And then more recently, we at the Globe had reported on how she had attended a fundraiser with Mr. Trudeau in 2021. I think it was a virtual fundraiser. So they were all on Zoom together. And this had raised concerns about whether there was bias on the part of the council. And Mr. Johnson forcefully pushed back against this. He said that Sheila Block was a lawyer of great reputation, and he relied on her counsel and her wisdom.

And in fact, he had worked with her before. And so she had a track record with him, and she was effectively unimpeachable in terms of trust and honesty. And what did we learn from David Johnston's appearance at that committee hearing? Because we talked about him speaking on Tuesday. What did he say there? Well, David Johnston spoke for three hours. He pushed back on any notion that the House motion calling on him to resign, he told MPs that their vote was based on false allegations.

And what he's referring to, of course, is the concerns about Mr. Johnson's work for the Trudeau Foundation, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which is, of course, a taxpayer-backed organization dedicated to scholarship. Mr. Johnson had worked for that recently. And of course, he had been a family friend of the Trudeaus. So Steve, what changed in the three days between him saying that he wasn't going anywhere on Tuesday and then resigning on Friday night? One of the most important things that came out of the committee on Tuesday was how Mr. Johnson responded to questions from Jagmeet Singh and from conservative MPs about the contradictions between his report, his first report on May 23rd,

and the story, the narrative that CSIS apparently gave to conservative MP Aaron O'Toole, the former conservative leader. So Mr. O'Toole stands up in the House last week and says, I just got a brief emphasis. This is what it says. China was orchestrating misinformation and voter suppression campaigns against me, my caucus, and my party. And this really runs at odds with Mr. Johnson's report.

Because in Mr. Johnson's report, which was an interim report, he talked about how misinformation, as far as he had concluded, could not be traced to a state-sponsored source. So he's asked a committee on Tuesday, like, why is CSIS telling Mr. O'Toole one thing, but you're assuring us that you couldn't actually trace something to a state-sponsored source. And Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he didn't have complete information, which I think was pretty significant. He wrote a report that is now being apparently

contradicted by new facts. And so he acknowledged that his report was only based on what he knew at the time. In fact, later that day in an interview with CBC, he used a metaphor. He said there was an ocean of information and we looked at a lake. We looked at a lake. But he said he was still confident that he got everything he needed. But that's pretty significant that he acknowledged that his report was based on incomplete information. I mean, this is a report that we're basing stuff off on, right? Exactly. And so that is a glaring problem. I mean, this is a report that we're basing stuff off on, right? Exactly.

And so that is a glaring problem. And again, it's not just the conservatives. It was Jagmeet Singh himself who asked this. And the answers were not sufficient. We got a sense from this that Mr. Johnson had acknowledged that there might have been more he should have looked at. And he did say that. He said, had we had more time, we would have been able to look at more. And again, that goes to the question of whether

this was rushed. Their report is riddled with spelling mistakes. It's bizarre. Really? Wow. Yeah. The sort of takeaway from that Tuesday hearing was maybe Mr. Johnson should have done a longer, a deeper dive on this before writing that report. Yeah. I want to talk about how we got to this point. In the past, we've had both you and Bob on the show to talk about allegations against David Johnston. This has primarily been from the opposition parties. And just this Sunday, Conservative leader Pierre Polyev was talking about this. And I will work with our opposition

colleagues to make sure that the person who fills that role is independent and unbiased in doing a thorough and public investigation. So again, can you remind us what the opposition has taken issue with? Sure. The opposition parties have been raising concerns about the fact that David Johnson was a family friend of the Trudeaus and the fact that David Johnson was a family friend of the Trudeaus and the fact that David Johnson was a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and whether his membership in that organization somehow compromised him. And NDP leader Jagmeet Singh was also loving a criticism about how the special rapporteur reports to the prime minister, right? Can you

just discuss that very briefly as well, Steve? Well, that goes to the question of whether this is truly independent. I mean, the comparison is always made between what's going on now and what we would call a formal inquiry or public inquiry or a judicial inquiry. And in that case, of course, the inquiry has subpoena powers, and it has the power to cross-examine witnesses. So what you heard a lot during the last few months is the opposition parties comparing what this is to that and feeling it falls short. And of course, they voted three times in the House to call for a public inquiry in the last three months. I guess part of why Johnston was pitched, though, for this role was because,

I mean, he was a former governor general appointed by former conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, right? So I guess what I'm trying to figure out here is we've seen how quickly someone who wasn't seen as that political became so politicized here. I guess couldn't anyone in this role have ended up in Johnston's position? That's a good question. The liberals have certainly pointed out that David Johnson was fine for the conservatives when it came to appointing a governor general. And of course, during the Harper era, he was also hired by the prime minister to conduct investigations and so on. So this is not, although in that case, it was a more circumscribed investigation, but the liberals have pointed out to the conservatives

that he was fine for you years ago. Why is he not fine for you now? And that's been a major talking point for the liberals over the last few months is reminding the conservatives that they once held Mr. Johnston in high esteem. Yeah. And if we look at the politics of all this, Steve, is Johnston's resignation,

is that a win for the opposition parties? All three opposition parties, which represent a majority of the House of Commons in a minority parliament, have voted for him to step down. So in some ways, it's an answer to that motion that was adopted. The other thing opposition parties in Ottawa took issue with is that Johnston recommended So in some ways, it's an answer to that motion that was adopted.

The other thing opposition parties in Ottawa took issue with is that Johnston recommended that there not be a public inquiry, right? But public hearings instead is what he's saying we should do. Why has this become such a sticking point? One of the main reasons is because there is a perception that a formal inquiry would be more thorough, in part because the inquiry, whoever headed it, would have subpoena powers to compel production of documents and testimony. And of course, because there would be the ability to cross-examine people, to sort of more aggressively question them. So that is what would happen in a public inquiry, not necessarily what would happen in a public hearing? Yes. And of course, David Johnson's work was supposed to be divided into two parts. One was he consulted a number of civil servants around Ottawa and people in various positions.

I think they number in the dozens. These were done behind closed doors. We don't have access to the questions or the answers or anything like that. And that was the content of his first report. The second part of it was to be hearings specifically and primarily with members of groups who have traditionally been the target of foreign interference. And that was supposed to last or take place during the summer, as well as some interviews with security experts. That, again, would be conducted pretty much like hearings in parliament. People would come up, they'd talk, they'd be asked questions, and not the same level

of rigor, potentially, as a public inquiry. Okay. I guess I wonder, does the public really care though if it's a public hearing versus a public inquiry? Do we know what Canadians, what people think on this? Good question. There have been some polls on this, including polling conducted for the Globe and Mail and CTV by Nanos Research.

Their poll found nearly 60%, 6 in 10 Canadians support a formal inquiry as the appropriate approach to tackling foreign interference. And the same poll found another 25% of respondents said they support or somewhat support the public hearings planned by Mr. Johnson. So it appears that Canadians can distinguish between those two things and there is a clear preference for one over the other. Yeah. Steve, this entire story, everything we're talking about here, this all began with the talk of foreign interference in Canadian democracy. And yet, I'm kind of struck by how right now that point is in the background. We're not talking about that, right? The focus has turned to resignations and political infighting. So I guess what does all of this mean that the people elected by Canadians, a majority

of those are in the opposition benches right now. Despite the fact there's a particular supply agreement between the NDP to support the Conservatives on confidence votes and so on, every single opposition party representing a majority of Canadians has voted three times for a public inquiry. So there's been a clear expression, not once, not twice, but three times for a public inquiry. And the government has, as it's court to decide if it will finally heed the will of parliament as expressed by a majority of parliamentarians or whether it will try to continue to find sort of David Johnson 2.0 to keep going with this. We'll be back in a moment. OK, so let's shift to look forward now, Steve.

The day after David Johnston resigned, Dominic LeBlanc spoke to reporters. He's the liberal minister of intergovernmental affairs. What did he have to say? Among the things he said was that the government is open to setting up a public inquiry into foreign interference. And he attempted to sort of throw the ball back into the opposition court and ask them what their recommendations are. But he told us that a public inquiry has never been off the table and all options remain on the table. A public inquiry has never been off the table. All options remain on the table. A public inquiry has never been off the table. All options remain on the table. The Prime Minister said so when he announced the appointment of Mr. Johnston.

And he's going to hold talks with experts and the opposition over what to do going forward, whether to continue with the public hearings that were planned by Mr. Johnston or to proceed or to set up an inquiry headed by a judge with the full subpoena powers and the right to cross-examine witnesses. I wonder though, because one of Johnson's reasons for not wanting a public inquiry was that we are dealing with very sensitive information here, right? So how might they handle the confidentiality of national security information that would be involved if an inquiry happens. In that case, the hearings where information deemed sensitive, those would be conducted behind closed doors. So the inquiry would switch in and out of public mode when they dealt with

things like that. And of course, Canada has a history of public inquiries, some of which did deal with sensitive information. We have talked to the lead counsel for the Air India inquiry and the Arar inquiry. Mayor Arar. In the first case, we're talking about the Air India flight 182, which killed 329 people, most of which were Canadians. And then a second case, we're talking about Mayor Arar, who was sent against his will to Syria and tortured. So in both those cases, they had to deal with sensitive information, and they would have some hearings behind closed doors,

they'd have some hearings in public, and they managed to do it regardless of those limitations. So there is national security issues involved in those cases, but would this one currently have to be treated any differently than those ones? Yeah, I'm not sure. We did speak to the lead counsel of the Mayor Arar inquiry, and he told us that they heard from 83 witnesses over 75 days of top secret hearings, and then 45 days of public hearings.

And this was dealing with intelligence, including intelligence from allies. One of the messages we got from the lead counsel of Mayor Arar inquiry and of the Arindy inquiry was that they felt that there is another benefit to holding a public inquiry because they felt that it would help restore public faith that Ottawa was taking the matter seriously because people would see it be, seeing it be done, seeing the cross-examination, seeing the more lengthy rigor of the process. Of course, all this being said, Steve, it is still possible that the Liberals could choose not to have a public inquiry.

Do we know when this decision is going to be made? No, we don't. Mr. LeBlanc, the minister, has said that he's going to be consulting in the days ahead. So it's not clear whether there's something they want to solve quickly or whether they want to sort of mull on for a while. I can't help but notice that it feels like we're kind of right back where we started. I mean, Johnson was appointed in March to look at foreign interference, and now he's out of that role. But has anything useful happened in terms of us better understanding foreign interference in Canada? Yes. So Mr. Johnson's report did identify something that many believe is a serious problem, and that is the way that intelligence is not being delivered to elected officials,

to decision makers. As of course, you may recall, the Globe and Mail broke the story that CSIS had warned the government two years ago that Michael Chong, the conservative foreign affairs critic, was being targeted by China. They were investigating his family, who live in Hong Kong, to see if there's possible leverage against him. And this information was packaged in intelligence documents for senior decision makers and officials, and no one did anything about it. So Mr. Johnson highlighted what he called a serious failure to communicate intelligence properly to senior decision makers. And I think that will be an enduring theme in whatever goes forward is that our system is not working properly and our warnings are going unheeded. We also learned later that Jenny Kwan and Erin O'Toole, Jenny Kwan's an NDP MP, who's been very critical of the crackdown in Hong Kong, of China's crackdown on Hong Kong.

And again, they're learning after the fact, in fact, years after the fact. So there's a very troubling problem with the ability to get information to decision makers and upper echelons of the government. Steve, thank you so much for taking the time to be here today. You're welcome. That's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. Our producers are Madeline White, Cheryl Sutherland, and Rachel Levy-McLaughlin. David Crosby edits the show. Adrian Chung is our senior producer, and Angela Pachenza is our executive editor.

Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you tomorrow.