The Decibel - Why there won’t be a public inquiry into Chinese interference

Episode Date: May 24, 2023

Former governor general David Johnston has ruled out a public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s elections, despite ongoing calls for one. Johnston was appointed special rapporteur in March to look into allegations of Chinese interference, driven largely by The Globe and Mail’s reporting.Today, The Globe’s senior parliamentary reporter Steven Chase explains why Johnston decided against a public inquiry, and the significance of that decision.Don't forget to fill out our survey!Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail]

Foreign governments are undoubtedly attempting to influence candidates and voters in Canada. That's former Governor General David Johnston, speaking at a press conference on Tuesday. He was appointed special rapporteur in March to look into growing concerns that China was interfering in Canadian politics. 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. Many people, including opposition party leaders,

were calling for a public inquiry. But when Johnston released the 55-page report on the matter, he ruled that out. Senior parliamentary reporter Stephen Chase has been at the forefront of the Globe's coverage on foreign interference. Today, Steve is here to explain the significance of this decision. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms, and this is The Decibel from The Globe and Mail. David Johnston would recommend a public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada, and he did not. Johnston said that due to the sensitivity of the documents, a public inquiry couldn't actually happen and that information must remain secret. So Steve, what was his reasoning here?

His reasoning was that much of the public inquiry, in his opinion, would have to be conducted behind closed doors, effectively out of the reach or view or ear of the public, and therefore it wouldn't be much of a public inquiry. What we're saying is that a public inquiry into the questions of who knew what, what they did at what time, and what they did with it, cannot be discussed in public, because to understand that fully, you must deal with classified information. So the very process is not possible to get at things that you really want to get at, that people want to get at. So what would be threatened if this information was made public? Like what kind of stuff are we dealing with? Well, I think Mr. Johnson sort of

argued that everything, including the kitchen sink, would be at risk. What he's saying is that not only would the public inquiry might expose the sources and methods of intelligence collection, but also could that in these cases, they would have to go behind closed doors during that part of the public inquiry, which is something we've done before with the Arar inquiry and the McDonald Commission. Nevertheless, yes, he has brought up a variety of excuses for why we could not have a proper public inquiry into this subject, even though he says that foreign interference is a growing problem in Canada and that the People's Republic of China is one of the foremost aggressors. And you mentioned the Arar Report and the MacDonald Commission. Just very briefly, can you just remind us what those were? Sure. The MacDonald Commission was a commission investigation to illegal activities by the RCMP. And Mayor Arar was a Canadian who was basically abducted from the United States and

taken to a third country where he was tortured. And of course, the blame was put on Canada for not properly protecting him and not properly preventing him from this happening. So there was a very exhaustive inquiry into what happened there. So essentially, this is a national security argument then? Yeah, it is. It's a bit surprising that he makes this argument because people were saying this right at the start, before he even began his investigation, that it would be difficult to hold some of this inquiry in public. So that was certainly a warning from some people at the get-go. Is there anything different about this situation then? Like, did he make a distinction between those, you know, for example,

those examples that you just threw out and this specific situation now? No. Mr. Johnson doesn't bring any sort of national security or counterintelligence experience to the job. He basically, this was a crash course for him starting two and a half months ago. And the arguments he's making are not arguments that we haven't heard before. So in some ways, I'm not sure if he's aware of the history of the Arar Inquiry or the MacDonald Commission to the RCMP.

But there you have it. He said Canadians could not rely on a public inquiry because they wouldn't learn anything because so much would be held behind closed doors. Okay. So to be clear, he's not saying we're still investigating this stuff. It's just not going to be available to the Canadian public essentially. Well, it's also a process he's avoiding. He's avoiding a process where you create a public inquiry with subpoena powers and with far more evidence to compel people

to, people would have to swore oaths when they testified. There'd be a lot more on the line. So he's offering up an alternative, which is just public hearings during which the witnesses would not be reaching the same threshold of obligation to tell the truth. And the public hearings wouldn't be able to compel witnesses or documents. Okay, so let's talk a little bit about that. Because yeah, even though he said there shouldn't be a public inquiry, he did say that a public process is needed. So what's the difference there? And what would this public process entail? Well, he's talking about public hearings. Now his appointment goes until October. And he is charged with continuing to investigate how Canada responds to foreign interference and whether things could be improved. And so he wants to hold public

hearings, and these would primarily focus on the experience by various diaspora groups of the harassment and intimidation that they encounter at the hands of people like the Chinese government. We're talking here about Hong Kongers, Taiwanese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, everybody who left China and the vicinity for a better life here, but who also happen to be the main targets of foreign harassment. And these public hearings, what exactly would that look like like and how public would that process be, Steve? Well, they're going to be public because they're not going to be discussing the inner workings of foreign interference. They're going to be basically talking to Canadians about the suffering that they've encountered being victims of foreign harassment and foreign intimidation. So, Steve, Johnston was chosen as the special rapporteur.

So his task is essentially to find out as much as he can about what's going on here and give recommendations. Can you just remind us, why was David Johnston in particular chosen for this role? That's a good question. And the government says because he's an eminent Canadian who has a history of public service. But I think also it was chosen because he was the man tapped by Stephen Harper to be the governor general back when the conservatives were in power. And so the liberal government of the day, the Trudeau government today, obviously felt that that would inoculate Mr. Johnson to a certain extent from attacks that he was the wrong person for the job, in the sense that he had been judged

to be deemed you know, deemed worthy by a conservative government. So I think it was an attempt to sort of bridge a partisan divide. Okay. And when we're talking about the information that he was reviewing, what exactly did he have access to? Like, what is he basing these decisions on? Mr. Johnson had access to a cabinet memorandum that is, you know, top secret cabinet memos. He had access to intelligence reports that were drawn up by CSIS, intelligence assessments. And he had access to senior decision makers, both in various government departments, but also at the top of spy agencies like CSIS. And there's also two ongoing probes that are happening. Can you just remind us

what those are? And this is something also that David Johnson has access to as well in this process. So yeah, there's two bodies with very hard to remember names, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and CIRA, which is currently reviewing CSIS activities, CSIS operations with regards to combating foreign interference and whether they they're doing the job properly then there's also another organization which is the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians which in fact is not a committee of parliament even though it sounds like that it's a body created by the prime minister with mps from all major parties and and well as senators. And their job is to

review security organizations in Canada and how they perform. In this case, ANSICOP, as it's also called, is also reviewing how well Canada has been doing and combating foreign interference. The problem with their processes is they're behind closed doors and the reports can be censored if the government feels that there's anything at risk, national security there. So behind closed doors processes and reports that we find are often censored. Steve, I want to ask you about media here, because this came up in Johnston statements on Tuesday. Media, in particular, the Globe and Mail has been reporting, reporting from you and Bob Fyfe specifically, been reporting on the investigations and these allegations of China's interference in Canadian politics. What did David Johnston have to say on Tuesday about the media's role in all of this?

He said that the media reporting raised legitimate questions, but he also tried to play down the role of intelligence reports. And this is something we've seen from other members of the government who've been very defensive about the problems that have been exposed with respect to Canada's inability to combat foreign interference. Mr. Johnson said that intelligence reports are like brushstrokes and that you have to step back from the intelligence reports to get a better sense of the entire painting. And so they have to be put into a certain context and they can't be misconstrued. So he basically said that the media was reporting on intelligence reports, but that he has a better sense of things because he's stepped back and looked at the whole picture.

Okay. And just to be clear, though, he didn't dispute any of the Globe and Mail's reporting. No, he did not. We'll be right back. There have been a lot of questions of how much Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knew about attempts at interference by China. What did Johnston have to say about the prime minister's actions on this? He basically worked to sort of exonerate the political class in Canada. Mr. Johnson basically said that the political class in Canada didn't really do anything wrong as far as he could tell. He didn't see any evidence that they had ignored recommendations. He didn't find any

evidence that they had taken a partisan tack on things. In fact, he reserved most of his criticism for the public service. And when you say public service, what do you mean by that? Well, he's talking about the bureaucrats, the public servants who run different departments, who run CSIS, who run our various intelligence agencies. What he's saying is that there is not a process to get information to elected officials that is working. In fact, he says it's a mess. One of the most interesting revelations in this report is about, in fact, he says it's a mess. One of the most interesting revelations in this report is about, in fact, the Globe reporting on Michael Chong, the conservative MP whom the Globe reported was being targeted by the Chinese government, by Chinese diplomats, for having sponsored and spearheaded a motion in 2021 that criticized, or basically said that China's conduct

or treatment of the Uyghurs constitutes genocide. And in fact, as the Globe and Mail reported, the Chinese government was targeting Michael Chong and was looking for his family in Hong Kong in order to press him and be able to put leverage on him to intimidate him. We should step back and point out that Mr. Chong didn't know he was being targeted until May 2023, this month, after we reported that, in fact, this has been a warning had gone out from CSIS two years ago on this. So Mr. Johnson, he probed this and found out that

a warning on this had gone out from CSIS to then Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, to Mr. Blair's Chief of Staff, and to the Deputy Minister of Public Safety, but they hadn't read it. And in fact, they don't have access to the top secret email network on which this warning was sent. So it's a bit of, it's ridiculous. It's a bit of a joke. This alert was sent to the Public Safety Minister in 2021. He never read it. Nothing was done. And that's a familiar refrain in this report, that there is reporting that goes nowhere. It goes to nobody. He talked about, you know, the PMO staffers saying that they go to briefings and they

have nobody to give them context. And they sit there with a binder and someone tells them something and no one tells them if it's important or not. And they end up leaving kind of bewildered. So there is a real problem with getting intelligence to decision makers in this country. And that's something that Mr. Johnson has exposed in his report. Yeah, it really, it sounds like what you're describing is really kind of breakdowns in communication essentially here, but that what things that have big consequences or can have big consequences. It's mediocrity in government. It's mediocrity for which there is nobody who's actually being accountable.

You know, there's intelligence communication failure after intelligence communication failure, but nobody's taking responsibility for it, and nobody's informing people. So it's a bit of a farce. There was also criticism about David Johnston being chosen for this position because of his connections to the Trudeaus. So was he the right person for this job?

I think Canadians will have to make that assessment. He definitely is a family friend of the Trudeaus, and he was also a member of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which is the only taxpayer-backed foundation in the country that's dedicated to the memory of a prime minister. And so there was questions raised about whether he was too close to the Trudeau family. He says that that's ridiculous, that the skiing trips he went on with the Trudeaus don't have any bearing on this. My friendship with the current prime minister was based only on a few skiing expeditions with my children until he became a Liberal member of Parliament. And I was governor general. I had no meetings with Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Justin Trudeau.

I had no letters that I can recall, no telephone calls. And he tried to make it seem like he's not that great a friend of the Trudeaus. Steve, we know there will not be a public inquiry into this, but all opposition parties were calling for that. Will Johnston's report be accepted by the opposition parties or is this only going to really, I don't know, add that this is ridiculous, and that they're going to keep pressing for an inquiry. So I'm not sure whether the opposition leaders were the target of Mr. Trudeau's efforts here. He's probably not the one they're trying to win over. Mr. Trudeau is probably trying to win over public opinion. But the opposition parties, the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives have all said this is unacceptable

and that this report falls short of the mark. So is any of what will be suggested in this report, is it going to be binding? Like, does the government have to do anything based on what happens here? There are no recommendations yet because he's still working until October on a broader report with more serious machinery or government recommendations. This is just sort of a preview that was designed to address the issue of a public inquiry quickly while he goes on to write his broader report and the recommendations that will be contained in that report. I also want to ask you about a piece that Aaron O'Toole wrote following his meeting with David

Johnston in this whole process. Can you tell me about that, Steve? Sure. Yeah, it was Mr. O'Toole put his thoughts to paper on his Substack blog. He talked about his meeting with Mr. Johnson. He was flabbergasted during the meeting to discover that Mr. Johnson's report had already been sent to the printers for translation. Before he even met with him? Yeah. In fact, he was left with the impression that what he had to say wasn't going to be in this report. And Mr. O'Toole writes about how he felt the meeting with Mr. Johnson was just a box-checking exercise. And in fact, that he wasn't asked any serious questions or that, in fact, Mr. Johnson was trying to get to the bottom of the problems that Mr. O'Toole had encountered. Of course, Mr. O'Toole was the former leader of the Conservative Party during the 2021 election.

And he has been on record several times to say that he believes Chinese foreign interference played a role in the defeat of Conservative candidates, many of them incumbents, in as many as nine ridings. Of course, we do know that there was a disinformation campaign at work on Chinese language social media applications to Canada, such as WeChat, during the election, which was targeting a conservative party and their recommendation or their proposal for a foreign influence registry of the kind that Australia and the United States already have. And so Mr. O'Toole has been on the record several times to say that he thinks this costs the Conservative Party quite a number of seats. And of course, therefore, one would imagine that Mr. Johnson would be interested in talking to him. But to be interviewed so late in the game by Mr. Johnson, and to be informed that the report had already been sent to translation.

I think it left Mr. O'Toole feeling like he was a bit of an afterthought. Steve, before I let you go, I guess I want to ask you a big picture question here, because if this whole process is really about understanding how China interfered in Canadian politics, are we any closer now with this report to knowing what's actually going on here? I think we're only part way. Mr. Johnson's report today is just an interim report. And it hints at what he has decided is a number of problems with the communication of intelligence to decision makers in Canada. And it talks about his feeling that more needs to be done with respect to making it more difficult

for people to conduct foreign interference in this country. One of the things that people who worked at CSIS have said to us is that Canada is considered a high reward, low risk environment for conducting foreign interference because there's not a lot of penalties.

There's no foreign influence registry to require people to register when they're working on behalf of foreign governments. And there's no explicit criminal code offenses for foreign interference. And so I'm getting the sense that Mr. Johnson is slowly wrapping his head around a number of changes that he would recommend. But these won't come out until October. And that report is left to be written.

You said this is an interim report. Something else is coming out in October. What are the next steps here, though, in more the immediate term? In the immediate term, we're expecting these public hearings. These public hearings, we are told, are going to focus on the problems faced by diaspora groups, people who have immigrated to Canada and are targeted for foreign interference by foreign governments like China and Russia. And so we're going to hear from them in open forums. Steve, thank you so much for taking the time on such a busy day to speak with me. You're welcome. That's it for today. I'm Mainika Raman-Wilms. Our interns are Wafa El-Rayyes and Tracy Thomas. 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.