Evidence of meeting #80 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was johnston.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
It was led by Sheila Block, Madam Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, yes, I've been assisted by a team of legal experts.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, no, there would be no question of drafting assistance from the PMO. We're completely independent in our work from the PMO.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Did you receive advice from the PMO as to what should be contained in the report?
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, we had continual discussions with PMO officials as we were seeking information and trying to get different—
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
Did you receive drafting assistance from the PCO?
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, the report is something I wrote, with assistance from my senior legal team, and that was it.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Johnston, thank you for taking the time over the last three hours to appear in front of us.
The core of your mandate is to assess foreign interference in our electoral process. That's the core of your mandate.
In Canada, there is only one federal electoral process, and that is the process whereby Canadians get one vote for their local member of Parliament. Everyone else in our system is appointed. The Senate is appointed. The Prime Minister is appointed—as you know, as a former governor general. The cabinet is appointed. Everyone else is appointed. The only electoral process federally in our system is for the House of Commons. It's the only part of our system that has an electoral process. It's the only part of our system that is democratic. It's the only part of our system where Canadians get a vote, and that is for the House of Commons.
The majority of the people's 338 elected representatives have voted three times in the last three months for an independent public inquiry, yet you and you alone—with respect—have recommended against one. How can you and the government, in this process that you are involved with as an independent rapporteur, restore trust and confidence in our democracy if the government continues to defy the democratic wishes of our only national democratic institution, the House of Commons?
12:45 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I was asked by the government of the day to undertake a job to review foreign interference, and that included the question of whether a public inquiry would be the best way to do it. After very thoughtful consideration, we concluded that it was not, but that conducting public hearings on the matters that were not classified information would be a very appropriate way to build trust in our institutions.
That work continues to be very important, and I think we need to bring a sense of urgency to get on with that task.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
I have a very different question, Madam Chair, a very short one.
Mr. O'Toole indicated that the report had been sent to translation on the weekend before he met with you. On what date was the report sent to translation?
12:50 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
If my memory serves me, Madam Chair, [Technical difficulty—Editor] for translation, but on the basis that we'd get the translation started and that there would be changes and amendments to that report. Within the two days following our meeting with Mr. O'Toole, which I again emphasize was an extremely important and helpful meeting, we made changes to that report and ensured that they were in the translation.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
Time is so short, and I did let you get one extra one in there, so I'll note that.
Ms. O'Connell, I'll give the same time to you.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was hopeful. Since my last intervention, we did receive some questions from the Conservatives on foreign interference, but it appears that we came back full circle to a new conspiracy theory questioning whether you actually wrote the report that you wrote. After three hours of desperation, that's what comes our way now.
Let me get back to what we're talking about here. Mr. Johnston, you spoke throughout your testimony today of the great care you took to write and share information that everyday Canadians can easily read and understand. As a former NSICOP member, I can say that this is something that NSICOP looks at very carefully, too: How do you write public reports that can be consumed by people who are not national security experts?
In your report, what I appreciated so much was the comment about how you would be providing all of the information on which you based your recommendations or your findings. You would be compiling that in an annex, and you would make it available for scrutiny. I think I wrote down that you “welcome the scrutiny” based on the information that you made your recommendations on.
Is it reasonable for people to question not only your integrity but whether you've written the report and what information you had or didn't have, when those very parties had the opportunity to read all of the national security confidential information but chose not to? Do you think it's reasonable for someone who chooses not to read the information to then make judgments about what information you had or didn't have?
12:50 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, let me respond to that question in very generalized ways. I think that in dealing with something as important and as growing as foreign interference in our elections and creating mistrust in our institutions—and by the way, those enemies are rubbing their hands with glee as they observe the kind of paroxysms that we're going through—we would have to work very hard at acquainting parliamentarians with foreign interference, but the public really understands very little. In this blessed country of Canada, we'd rather consider ourselves kind of protected and not have to worry about that.
We do have to worry about that. It does create very challenging difficulties for us, and it will continue and get worse.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
Another criticism that often comes up about why certain party leaders won't receive national security briefings and review the information that you reviewed is that they say they will be silenced. You have now been here for about three hours discussing the very nature of this report, the information. You have the security clearances. You wrote an entire report based on national security secure information. Do you feel that you are silenced from talking about these things, when you wrote an entire report on it and have been here for three hours answering questions from all parties on the very matter, which has national security confidentiality in it?
12:50 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, the first thing I would say is that this is accountability, and that's what Parliament is about and should be about.
Second, I would say that it's very possible for parliamentarians to take top security clearance, as some of you have, without in any way restricting their responsibility to speak publicly and openly about what they know in their head. What they have to guard against is disclosing classified information. That's the difficulty we have with public inquiries that are supposed to shed light on things when you have a problem of classified information that you just can't disclose for reasons we've discussed.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Absolutely. Thank you for sharing that, because I've raised it in the House, as well.
I'm a former member of NSICOP, and being able to distinguish.... What you said earlier in your testimony reminded me of the red folder and the green folder. Sometimes it's hard to remember what is confidential and what isn't. That is why it's so important to actually have these open conversations. It's not a secret that you're trying to conceal from Canadians; it's about maintaining the sensitive nature of this information in a reasonable and respectful way that is ultimately in the interest of all Canadians.
How do we have these more open conversations with Canadians, so they have a better sense of what national security is all about in this country?
12:55 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
I'm a teacher, and I very much believe in seeing the world through the eyes of my children, and now my grandchildren. I think we have to work harder at educating our young people about our civic institutions, the quality of those institutions, and how they're protected.
Democracy is a very thin veneer. It's like the garden cultivated next to the jungle, as Hugh MacLennan wrote in Voices in Time. It must be very carefully cultivated, because if it is not constantly cared for, the weeds and then the jungle will take it over. We need the constant gardeners. You people here, parliamentarians, are the constant gardeners.
I think we have to imbue in our young children a sense of the preciousness of this country, that we have much to protect, and that we must engage ourselves in that to be sure the country is a better place for those who come after us.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Democracy is being threatened. We have to ensure that the public has confidence in this democracy. Some 72% of the population are calling for an independent public inquiry. The majority in the House is calling for an independent public inquiry. Many experts are calling for one as well. Some didn't call for it initially, but Mr. Johnston's report convinced them it was necessary. They then joined with the experts who were already calling for an independent public inquiry. This is the only way to obtain the documents needed to understand and limit this interference. It's the only way to meet with interference victims in camera. What Mr. Johnston is proposing is public hearings without obligation to which we only invite people. Victims have already said they won't appear at them.
The benefit of Mr. Johnston's approach is that it's less costly. How much is a healthy democracy worth? We're talking about democracy.
Mr. Johnston says his approach is faster. This is unfortunately a botched job. It's faster, but no light will be shed on the subject. It's so quick that he didn't meet with Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, or Caroline Simard, the commissioner of federal elections. Speed, in this case, has resulted in a botched job.
The only thing to do is to hold an independent public inquiry. Democracy demands it. The House demands it. The public demand it. Mr. Johnston talks about protecting democracy, but he doesn't respect it.
I unfortunately think his appointment was a mistake.
12:55 p.m.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
I have no response, Madam Chair.