The Decibel - Trudeau grilled on foreign interference and Indian expulsions

Episode Date: October 18, 2024

The hearings for the public inquiry into foreign interference led by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue wrapped up earlier this week with testimony from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Prime Minister said he had the names of Conservative parliamentarians who were engaged in or at high risk of being targeted for foreign interference. Trudeau’s testimony came just two days after the RCMP announced they had evidence of Indian officials’ involvement in homicides, extortion and violent crime on Canadian soil, which led to Canada expelling six Indian diplomats, and India expelling six Canadian diplomats in retaliation. Steven Chase is the Globe’s senior parliamentary reporter. He’s on the show to break down Trudeau’s testimony, what else we learned from this round of the inquiry into foreign interference, and how the new revelations about India played into all of this.Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

It's been quite a week for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. On Wednesday, he testified at the public inquiry into foreign interference, led by Justice Marie-José Hogue. Trudeau said he had the names of conservative politicians engaged in or at high risk of foreign interference. His testimony came only days after the RCMP said engaged in or at high risk of foreign interference. His testimony came only days after the RCMP said Indian officials have been involved in homicides and extortion within Canada, increasing tensions in an already rocky relationship between the two nations.

And there's also growing pressure on Trudeau to resign as Liberal leader. An official demand from members of his own party is expected within days. So today, we're speaking to Stephen Chase, the Globe's senior parliamentary reporter. He's here to break down what Trudeau said at the public inquiry and the new revelations about foreign interference in Canada. I'm Maina Karaman-Wilms, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. Steve, thank you so much for taking the time to be here again. Glad to be here.

So this phase of public hearings wrapped up this week with testimony from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. And one of the big things that came out of this, Steve, was that he said he had names of MPs who were susceptible to foreign interference. What exactly did we hear about that? It was a bit of a word salad. But if you sort of lift out of it what Mr. Trudeau was saying, he's saying at least two things. I, as prime minister, have access to secret information. And through that, I have been told or given the names of conservative parliamentarians. And that, of course,

covers both members of parliament and senators, as well as candidates or former candidates who either are engaged in foreign interference or are at risk of being affected by foreign interference. And I wish that Mr. Polly Evra, the conservative leader, would get cleared to hear this information. Okay. So there's kind of a couple different parts there. I want to start just by asking you about these names. These names are not being released to the public. Why haven't they been made public? What Mr. Trudeau is talking about is a bickering match between the liberals and the conservative that actually goes back to June. So it's not a new subject. He just framed it in a new way in what was a spectacular piece of political theater.

Back in June, there was an independent watchdog, which is actually made up of members of parliament and senators. For short, we call it NSICOP. It produced a report that was a bit of a bombshell. It said that we have been made aware of intelligence that shows that some parliamentarians, and again, it's not clear if it's senators or members of parliament, have been wittingly or unwittingly helping foreign states in conducting foreign interference in Canada. Unfortunately, in their public version of the report, they didn't name names or even give indications as to who that might be. So at that point, it sparked a lot of controversy in Ottawa. We had the government under pressure to release the names, them saying that it would be unfair because it could malign people who hadn't had a chance to defend themselves. And then sort of as a pivot,

the Liberal government said, well, why don't all the party leaders get top secret clearance, and then they can read the unredacted version of the report. The New Democrats and the Green Party, which actually doesn't even qualify as a party in the House, got cleared to read the report. Mr. Pauly ever refused. He didn't really give an exhaustive explanation of his refusal, but in talking to his staff and in parsing his words, there's several components of that. One is he thinks he would be forbidden from speaking about it or criticizing the government or taking action because this was secret information and it would bind his hands in a sense. There's a couple of other theories we can get into later. But at that point, the Liberals managed to sort of go after that vulnerability

and refocus the spotlight from foreign interference in Canada to what is Pierre Polly ever hiding. So Mr. Trudeau's appearance on Wednesday, on the last day of the fact-finding phase of the Hogue inquiry, was basically bringing us back to that point and essentially launching a political volley at the man who's leading him in the polls and probably threatens to swamp his government and defeat it if there's an election. So Pierre Poliev is saying, I don't want to get this security clearance so I can see this

information because my hands might be tied. Is there a truth to that, Steve? Is this a common thing for a leader of a party to do? There is truth to that in the sense that we've heard testimony at the inquiry about how it would really bind a leader's hands and what they could do. They might even have to recuse themselves on some of these issues. Now, the New Democrats and the Greens got cleared and they talked obliquely about it. Jagmeet Singh emitted concern afterwards without being specific about what was in the report, whereas the Green leader, Elizabeth May, said she wasn't concerned.

So we had two radically different readings, and it left us all confused. There are several other theories about what Mr. Polyev is doing here. It's sort of a standard rule in politics, Canadian politics and otherwise, that opposition parties don't defeat the government. The government defeats themselves. So when the government's in the process of defeating themselves, don't get involved. The liberals are way behind in the polls. The conservatives look like they would form a majority government. There's also a caucus revolt brewing against Mr. Trudeau. So why would Mr. Pauly ever get involved, take responsibility, and then in a sense become

implicated and maybe be under pressure to have to solve things? I don't endorse this. I'm just trying to explain it. The other theory, and this is one I've heard both from senior levels of the government and from the Conservative Party, is that top secret clearance interviews and questions are extremely invasive. There will be written questions about your spouse, your family, your background, your friends. But in the interview, the questions are not set, but they can range from things like what kind of pornography do you watch? Have you had an affair? Have you done drugs? And in Mr. Polly Everett's mind, a man who doesn't trust the permanent civil service, he may feel that that information would be collected and handed over to the liberals. Again, I'm not endorsing this idea. I'm just talking to you about some of the speculation involved here.

Wow. Did Polyev actually come out and make a clear statement about the things that Trudeau said this week? Like, was there kind of a direct response to everything? Yeah. So Mr. Trudeau is on the stand because of reporting by The Globe and other media about failures in the government's response to foreign interference, just basically falling down the job. So he's supposed to be there talking about his government, answering questions about why, for instance, a surveillance warrant by CSIS that was requested, sat on the desk in former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair's office for 54 days, when the average turnaround time is 4 to 10 days.

Instead, he chose to turn the tables on a vulnerability of his opponent and essentially change the channel at the hearings. This all happened before lunch, Eastern time. Mr. Pagliaveri was out with a statement like about an hour later, basically said the following, reiterated his idea that he feels it would bind his hands if he was to get clearance and that it would somehow prevent him from doing his job. But it also said that his chief of staff, Ian Todd, has obtained this top-secret security clearance and has already been receiving briefings from the government on various issues, classified briefings,

and at no point did they ever tell him about any of these MPs or parliamentarians that Mr. Trudeau is talking about. Secondly, Mr. Polly Evra said that he himself had a different kind of briefing specifically on India with the government a few days ago, and they never mentioned this either. Then he said, well, if there's really parliamentarians who you believe are engaged in foreign interference or otherwise, release the names. One of the things I mentioned earlier was that Mr. Trudeau's statement was a word salad.

If you look at it, it actually doesn't even make sense. But there's a category he appears to be talking about of MPs that would be vulnerable to foreign interference. So this could be people who, in fact, are trenchant critics of foreign states, but could be targeted. So that's a category of people who are not culpable, but are in fact just vulnerable. Anyways, that was Mr. Pauly Everett's response. And they're still bickering back and forth as we speak. I just want to be clear here, Steve, could they decide to release the names? Is that an option? Well, a technical answer is Mr. Trudeau is the head of government. And as the

head of government, he can declassify anything he wants. Would it be fair to release the names of people who haven't been able to defend themselves to the public? That's a different question. We'll be back in a moment. Steve, I want to turn to relations with India. Trudeau's testimony at the Foreign Interference Inquiry happened two days after Canada expelled six Indian diplomats. What did Trudeau say about this situation in his testimony? He underlined the fact that what his government did this week, what the government did in the RCMP, is all about demonstrating the capacity and the reality that Canada has been both detecting foreign interference and acting on it. So he made a point of underlining for the testimony that, see, I'm not weak on foreign interference.

I did these things. The RCMP did these things just two days before he was due to testify. I should point out, however, there's something interesting about the timing of recent Canadian government actions when it comes to Indian foreign interference. They seem to coincide with important points in the Hogue inquiry. And what I mean by that is the very first report that the Hogue inquiry delivered was unveiled May 3rd to announce what she'd found. That, for instance, that foreign interference was a stain on our electoral process. It was at that moment that the government chose to get up and announce that there had been three arrests in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nidger, a case which the government has accused India of being behind.

So interesting timing there. And then this week, the entire inquiry has been about the Canadian government's falling down the job when it comes to dealing with foreign interference, especially from China. So just two days before Mr. Trudeau's testimony is due, where he's on the stand to account for this, once again, we have the Canadian government taking action on Indian interference. You have the Canadian government announcing on Monday they were expelling diplomats, and the RCMP announcing are going public with allegations against India and the role it's had in criminality in Canada. So again, it's an interesting timing. And of course, in response, India actually expelled

six of their diplomats. What has New Delhi, what has the Indian government said about these, this situation and the allegations that Canada has thrown at them. India, of course, used similar language to what it said before when Canada's made previous allegations. It called the accusations preposterous. They said that Mr. Trudeau was pursuing a political agenda and, you know, they called it vote bank politics. So let's bring it back now to the latest round of hearings for the public inquiry into foreign interference. Beyond politicians, there was also talk about how diaspora communities in Canada are affected by foreign interference. What did we hear about that? Sure. And this, of course, is a fundamental feature of foreign interference in Canada. Often the Canadians are the people that arrive from other countries and basically sought to build new lives here, are still harassed and intimidated and targeted by authoritarian regimes.

And as recently as October 1st, we had testimony from Canadian journalists from the Chinese and South Asian communities talking about how Beijing and Delhi wield immense influence over the digital print and broadcast media that serve Canada's diaspora communities. And they said that them and their owners face pressure from the Indian consulate or the Chinese consulate or advertisers when they're too critical of the Chinese government or the Modi government. I want to ask you about a specific issue that came up at the inquiry as well. This was about a CSIS warrant application. Former Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and his chief of staff were questioned about a 2021 application that went unsigned for 54 days. A normal turnaround, I understand it, is usually about four to 10 days. So this was much longer. Steve, what was that CSIS warrant about?

Well, the Globe broke the story last year, and it's about a surveillance warrant that was applied for to surveil a liberal power broker, Michael Chan. He is currently the deputy mayor of Markham, but previously used to be in a provincial government that was run by the Liberals. So this warrant was to surveil him, and it was applied for in March 2021. However, as you said, it sat on the desk in Bill Blair's office for nearly eight weeks, which is an extraordinary time. We heard other public safety, former public safety ministers, such as Marco Mendicino, talk about how they turned these around in a day. There was testimony by Bill Blair, the safety minister at the time, and his chief of staff, Zita Estravis. But we really, I would say, didn't get to the

bottom of this. Ms. Estravis was asked to explain why she kept this from the minister until the last minute and what kind of inquiry she made regarding the warrants and whether she communicated the warrant application to anybody else in the government, which she said she didn't. situation where a Liberal minister's office is made aware of a request to eavesdrop on somebody connected to the party, and then an extraordinary waiting time. Again, we did not get a lot of answers from Mrs. Stravis or Mr. Blair. We did not come out of this inquiry with a solid understanding of the reason for that extraordinary delay. So Steve, you've been following this public inquiry very closely throughout the whole thing. We're wrapping up the last little bits of it here. In your takeaway, how would you say this is all gone? I think that it's a good thing to have a public inquiry. I think that it helps send a message to people in Canada who are thinking of conducting foreign interference or thinking of intimidating and repressing diaspora groups that their actions will be

scrutinized. One of the things that happened in June was the government passed new legislation that would give CSIS more powers to deal with foreign interference and, of course, would create a registry that would require people who are working as foreign agents for foreign governments to register. I think in some ways that's one of the most important legacies of the foreign interference debate in Canada. With the inquiry, I think there were some flaws with the way it was structured. One of the problems with the inquiry is that the actual people in the intelligence community who know what's going on have generally not been allowed to testify.

Instead, we get their bosses in the C-suites who are testifying. And generally, the inquiry heard from a lot of government officials, and no surprise, they think they've done a sterling job. So that was, I think, a flaw, as the people who identified the problems were not called to testify. We were given national security reasons for that. But then their bosses, of course, who are basically on the hot seat, really were here to sort of essentially defend their role and defend the job they did. I also found that commission counsel was very solicitous and very quite a soft touch when it came to questioning the government. Often we'd wait for

the other parties in the room for different members of parliament, for former conservative leader Aaron O'Toole, for the conservative party or representing diaspora groups. That's where the real questions were asked and the real pressure was put on the system. I think one of the things that is clearly coming up or has been identified as a problem through this inquiry, but also in other reports that came out earlier this year and last year, is nomination races in Canada. That's when parties pick their candidates for who will run in each riding. These are the Wild West in Canada. They are not regulated. The only thing Elections Canada does is keep track of fundraising. That is what has been identified as the best spot for foreign countries to get involved. Because especially

if you're if it's a riding that doesn't change parties, essentially, whoever wins for a particular party tends to win that riding. The nomination race is the best place to interfere. And of course, we've heard a lot about interference in Don Valley North. You're talking about basically this is, you know, a safe liberal riding, for example, and whoever's running as the MP for that. So it's kind of an internal thing. You don't have to be a Canadian citizen to vote in this. This is this is what you're saying is the issue that we're finding here. Yeah. In the case of the Liberal Party, you don't even have to be a permanent resident. In fact, you can just be a foreign student who's living in Canada for a while. So the parties each guard their responsibility for these and they do not want government regulation here. All of them have spoken out

against that. So I think we're going to see, probably see the Hoag Commission suggest it, but we've already had a major pushback from parties, including Mr. Trudeau, who is defending the fact that foreigners can vote in nomination races. Just lastly, Steve, this part is wrapping up now of the inquiry. What do we expect to happen next? Well, the second phase of the inquiry is wrapping up, but there's a third phase called the policy phase. There's going to be a series of discussions and roundtables later this month about what to do about this. What changes should be made to Canada's security structure, to the security system?

What can be done? And that's where I expect the question of regulating nomination races is going to come up again. After that, Justice Oge is expected to deliver a final report on all of this by December 31st. And there'll be also, I think, a classified version of the report that will contain more information that we're not allowed to read. I'm sure we'll have you back on to talk about this when it happens. Steve, thank you so much for taking the time to be here. You're welcome. That's it for today.

I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. This episode was edited and mixed by Kevin Sexton. Our producers are Madeline White, Michal Stein, and Allie Graham. David Crosby edits the show. Adrienne Chung is our senior producer, and Matt Frainer is our managing editor. Thanks so much for listening, and I'll talk to you soon.