Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 6th, 2023

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

The role, as a member of the association, is to attend annual general meetings and to vote in the board of directors, but I have had nothing to do whatsoever with any of the decision-making of the Trudeau Foundation.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Were you aware of the reporting that the Trudeau Foundation was targeted for a foreign influence campaign by Beijing and that the foundation accepted $140,000 from the Communist dictatorship in Beijing?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, the first knowledge I had of that particular gift was when it appeared in the newspaper and, as a member of the association, I received a memo from the CEO, as I think other members of the association did, that they had started a press release indicating that this gift was being returned.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you for confirming your knowledge of it.

Given your ties to the foundation, the foundation's involvement with Beijing and Beijing's role in your report, do you see a conflict of interest?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, my connection with the association of the Trudeau Foundation had no role whatsoever in the decision-making of the board of directors, the acceptance of gifts and so on, and—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, sir.

You've been friends with Frank Iacobucci for decades. Is that correct?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, Professor Iacobucci and I were young law professors at the University of Toronto, when I was about 25, and yes, he's been a lifelong friend.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Iacobucci, also a member of the Trudeau Foundation, is whom you sought an opinion from on the matter of whether you were in a conflict of interest, for which he provided you the exemption or excuse that you were looking for.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, Justice Iacobucci was not a member of the Trudeau Foundation. He was a mentor to one or two students who were scholars of the foundation. The function of the foundation is not only to provide scholarships but to provide the possibility of mentorship for those students by people who are respected in their area, and he served in that capacity.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Yes, when allegations were made about me having a conflict of interest—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you, sir.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

—he's known me for a long time, and he indicated I had none.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Sir, I believe there are at least 12 retired Supreme Court justices who aren't associated with the Trudeau Foundation like Mr. Iacobucci.

Mr. Iacobucci's law firm, Torys LLP, was also hired. You hired them to assist you. Working for Torys was long-time Liberal donor Sheila Block.

We have you with an association to the Trudeau Foundation. We have Mr. Iacobucci, who is associated with the Trudeau Foundation. We have Ms. Block, who is a lifetime donor and supporter of the Liberal Party, including attending fundraising events with the Prime Minister in recent time. Given all of that, don't you see a conflict of interest?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, with respect to the question of Ms. Block, she is a pre-eminent counsel. She—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

The question is with respect to conflict of interest, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, let's just pause. You just took 23 seconds to ask that. Let's just provide the witness 23 seconds to answer that.

I can't believe I'm sitting here timing how much time it's taking for the questions and the answers so that I can run a functional meeting. All members have asked for three hours of time from this person—three hours. That's a long time to be meeting. We talk about how important our time is, but then you want me to keep interrupting.

Mr. Johnston, the floor is yours.

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I do not see a conflict. Sheila Block is a pre-eminent counsel. She served me very faithfully when I was invited by Prime Minister Harper to undertake another very difficult inquiry 15 years ago or so. She is renowned for the quality of her work, and certainly important work that's done well, but that said, the conclusions in the report are mine.

Whatever lawyers in practice or others do with respect to contributions to political campaigns, these are all on the public record and well understood.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Next is Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks for being here, Mr. Johnston.

I would say that we all owe you a debt of gratitude for your service to Canada over decades. I want to thank you for the many roles you've taken on and faithfully served and fulfilled, and for the latest role you've taken on.

I do recognize that your report has come with some questions, and there have been some concerns that others have expressed. Maybe I'll quote PM Harper, which I don't often do. When you were originally appointed as the Governor General, he said that you represented “the best of Canada”.

I appreciate the fact that you're here today in front of all the parliamentary members answering our questions for three hours. It really is a testament to your service to Canada.

I want to start by mentioning a few things that we've heard here at this committee, online, in press conferences and in House proceedings.

Mr. Calkins has said that Han Dong is “an agent for Beijing”.

Pierre Poilievre has said repeatedly that Justin Trudeau “is acting against Canada's interest and in favour of a foreign dictatorship”. That was on March 7.

Pierre Poilievre also said that the PM “expressed his admiration for the basic Chinese Communist dictatorship.... Seeing this ideological bond, Beijing decided it had a friend and wanted to help the Prime Minister get elected. It interfered in two successive elections.” Poilievre also said, “We also know that the Prime Minister has been aware of many of these facts for a very long time and yet chose to do nothing.”

Mr. Cooper, who is on this committee, said, “The invitation of a 'briefing' is a blatant trap to muzzle Poilievre under national security laws.” The truth is now a trap, apparently.

In the long list of baseless and absurd claims that the Conservative Party is making, the latest is on their website. It says, “Trudeau’s Fake Rapporteur Continues Interference Coverup”.

I would submit to this committee, and to you, that these are not just harmless exaggerations or isolated instances of partisan hyperbole. They're intentional and inflammatory. They're baseless allegations, and they're harmful and false. They erode the trust in our democracy. They're stoking anti-government sentiments for political gain.

In your first report, Mr. Johnston, you said that you incorporated into it a wide range of sources, including the proceedings of this committee. You noted that at times members of this committee asked “insightful questions”. You also referred to the “element of political theatre”.

Do you think this debate, and the importance of providing answers to the Canadian public, is well served when the political theatre element drowns out the probative fact-finding work that we're all called upon to do?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I would encourage the members of the committee to read the report we have prepared and to focus our attention on the real danger we have here, which is clear, present and pervasive foreign interference in our elections.

In our report, we tried to avoid the discussions of the partisan kind that you refer to and to follow the facts and apply the law thoroughly and thoughtfully. I would urge us to get on with this important matter of foreign interference, which does require immediate attention by this body and the institutions of Parliament to protect our national security and protect our citizens.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

It seems to me, based on our conversations in this committee, that there are some members participating in these debates and proceedings who want to get to the facts and the matter at hand, and there are others who are painfully avoiding the facts and don't seem to want to talk about them.

Mr. Johnston, it's clear to me that the Conservatives sang your praises and extolled your virtues for over a decade. In fact, in 2007 Pierre Poilievre himself said this about you on your appointment to the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry:

I think we're dealing with a very credible individual, and I think that that distant history bears little relevance to the fact that he has a very distinguished career. If we're suggesting just because at some point in history he was appointed by a former Conservative prime minister that he should be disqualified from participating in public life, I think that is a little bit extreme. This is a very qualified individual, and frankly, I haven't heard anybody question his integrity, and I have no reason to do so.

Mr. Johnston, why do you think Mr. Poilievre has changed his mind from 2007 until now?

[The Right Hon. David Johnston]

Madam Chair, I think my focus throughout this has been on dealing with the facts of foreign interference, trying to apply the law and putting before you as comprehensive and as thoughtful a report as we possibly could, knowing it would be reviewed by NSICOP and NSIRA, and, I hope, with the participation of the leaders of the three major parties—and I thank Mr. Singh for agreeing to be one of those—who will review what it is we're about.

Quite apart from changes of positions by people on whether my integrity evaporated three or four years ago for some reason with the change of government, I'm anxious that we get to the real issue here, which is foreign interference. Let's look at this report with our recommendations. Let's review it, and let's move with urgency on dealing with a problem that is very, very serious and is affecting not simply our national security but our citizens in very direct, immediate and difficult ways.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Johnston.

The Conservatives seem to claim that you suddenly betrayed your character, that you built up this character over many years that they said was credible and had high integrity, and all of a sudden you just abandoned your principles and integrity when you were appointed by PM Trudeau for this particular position, which to me is utterly absurd.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and you've built your character over time to be an honourable person who has integrity and is credible. Many people have said that about you over many years, and yet here we are.

I ask myself, why is it that they're so intent on attacking your character? The only thing I can come up with is that they don't like the conclusions of your report. The main one that I think they're scared for anyone to report on or talk about is the main finding, where you said in your report, on page 2:

I have not found examples of Ministers, the Prime Minister or their offices knowingly ignoring intelligence, advice or recommendations on foreign interference or being driven by partisan considerations in dealing with these issues.

Yet we still often hear and see claims to the contrary, with facts often distorted, misconstrued and misrepresented. We see here, in a parliamentary setting, and outside of the parliamentary setting that sort of rhetoric, those claims that are being made without evidence and the often bad-faith mis-characterizations.

Does this kind of activity itself do damage to our democracy, in your view?