Canadians “want the facts” when it comes to suspected Chinese interference in the nation and what the government knows about it, experts say.
Whether that should play out in a forum such as a public inquiry will be decided by special rapporteur David Johnston, who will present his recommendation on the issue Tuesday.
“Canadians and parliamentarians want the facts about why so many CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) assessments were sent to the government and were evidently not actioned,” said Charles Burton, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a former counsellor at the Canadian embassy in Beijing.
“The idea that we would have some neutral figure, who would have full access to all the classified documents and who could make an assessment as to what would be in the public interest to make public and what wouldn’t, would be highly desirable.”
Johnston, 81, was named in March by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the special rapporteur on foreign interference. Part of his job is to decide whether a public inquiry or another independent process is needed to examine allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections and society.
The Liberal government has been under immense pressure to explain not only what it knew about foreign interference in recent elections, but also how it is protecting Canada’s democratic institutions.
The recommendation will come following months of reporting by Global News and the Globe and Mail into allegations of attempts by Beijing to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
For months now, opposition MPs have been demanding a public inquiry be called. Trudeau, in turn, tapped Johnston to make that call, and ordered a slew of investigations into the allegations.
Further allegations have continued to surface, including one earlier this month from the Globe that China reportedly was looking at ways of intimidating Conservative MP Michael Chong and his relatives in Hong Kong.
That led to the government expelling a Chinese diplomat at the heart of the allegations, as well as issuing a new policy directive to CSIS to inform the government of threats towards MPs, regardless of whether they are considered credible.
Beijing in return expelled a Canadian diplomat and warned of further, though unspecified, retaliatory measures.
“We really need to know exactly what’s going on here and why there’s been so much evidence presented of very serious allegations against the Chinese diplomatic authorities here in Canada,” Burton said.
Michael Wernick, who holds the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa and is the former clerk of the Privy Council, told Global News that while an inquiry may be necessary to restore public confidence, it is a “looking backwards exercise.”
“It’s inevitable that an inquiry would recommend strengthening Canadian legislation on foreign interference.… The inquiry is not the place to write legislation — that’s the job of legislators and parliamentarians,” he said.
“We can get on with the legislation preparing for the future right away. There’s no reason a bill on foreign interference can’t be tabled very soon and passed by Christmas.”
If an inquiry or judicial review is recommended and eventually struck, its scope should be broad, Wernick suggests.
“I would prefer a broader scope that looks at foreign interference wherever it comes from, and it should have a very long timeline. It should go fairly far back into the past because the issue of foreign interference goes back at least 10 or 15 years,” he said.
“I’m not sure that it’s going to be easy to find any Canadian to head this inquiry that won’t become the subject of partisan attacks and trolling,” he added.
“It would be a good idea to ask somebody from the U.K. or Australia to lead the inquiry, somebody who’s familiar with national security issues, somebody who has government experience. There are plenty of people in the U.K. and Australia who might be suitable to run this exercise.”
Guy Saint-Jacques, a former Canadian ambassador to China, told Global News in an email that a public inquiry is necessary at this stage, and it’s one that could be done by a judge. He suggested former Supreme Court of Canada justice Louise Arbour, who last year tabled a scathing report into the Canadian Armed Forces that found the military as it is currently structured is a “liability” to the country.
Burton suggested if that does become the case, the individual heading the inquiry should be a “distinguished, neutral figure” who must have full access to all documents.
“Someone who would have the ability to call anybody to appear before this distinguished figure and required to testify under oath to everything that they know, and that there should be the power of judicial consequences for people who resist,” he said.
As part of his mandate, Johnston will submit regular reports to Trudeau, which will also be shared with leaders of the opposition and made available to Canadians. He is expected to complete his full review by Oct. 31. He will have access to any relevant records and documents, classified or unclassified.
Johnston will also consult and work with institutions, agencies and officials across the federal government – including the Communications Security Establishment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Privy Council Office and Elections Canada – as well as political parties represented in the House of Commons.
“There’s nothing really holding back the government from taking action and measures between now and October,” Wernick said.
“Obviously, the advice from Mr. Johnston will be very helpful to them, but they don’t have to wait for it.”
Comments