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.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Through the chair, could you be more specific about that package? I just don't have a context for it.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Sure. Mr. Singh had commented on some public reporting from Mr. O'Toole, and he spoke about a dossier that the Conservative Party had about some of the WeChat information. Mr. Chiu demonstrated that there was all this evidence submitted to him, but he had no longer saved it, or something along those lines. Then, in January 2022, the Conservative Party received the results of an internal review that they did, led by James Cumming.
Did you receive any of that documentation in your review?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, I want to be careful in my answer, because I don't have a specific recollection of receiving those specific documents.
What I do have is that we asked Mr. Poilievre on four different occasions to make submissions, if he could, and to meet with us, but he chose not to.
I think two or three days before our report was published, we had a package of documents, which were largely reports from newspapers and other media reports. I don't recall the specific document you mentioned.
Liberal
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to ask some brief questions, and I'm hoping for some short answers this time. I don't want to put any pressure on Mr. Johnston, but I only have two and a half minutes.
Mr. Johnston, we agreed that it's very important to a restore the public's trust. That, among other things, is the purpose of this exercise.
Which do you think will restore the public's trust, an independent public inquiry or no inquiry at all?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, thank you for the question.
Clearly, that is our job: to restore confidence. In the balance of our report and of our work for the next five months, we hope to devote ourselves to having as much light as we possibly can on the key issue, and that is, how is our system of dealing with foreign interference working? According to the report that you've read, not at all well. It needs significant improvement.
Through those public hearings, hearing from experts and from others, and with your help as the review committee continuing your work, I hope we can treat this with the urgency it deserves and can stand proud before Canadians to say we are doing everything in our power to protect them.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
What I'm hearing is that Mr. Johnston is going to shed some light, that we shouldn't worry, that this is why he's here, and so on.
The problem is simple. Before Mr. Johnston tabled his report, experts were opposed to an inquiry, but they're in favour of it now that the report has been submitted.
Does that mean that the attempt to shed light very quickly and at low cost, as Mr. Johnston proposes, is a failure? I have some names here: Daniel Stanton, whom I mentioned earlier, formerly of CSIS, Michael Wernick and Artur Wilczynski. Those people changed their minds after the report was tabled.
Does that ultimately mean we need a report from a commission of inquiry? You haven't convinced people. Since your report was submitted, they've mainly been convinced that an independent public inquiry is really necessary.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, again, thank you for that question.
We have set out the reasons why we think a classic royal commission public inquiry would not serve the process of rebuilding trust, but the public hearings that I mentioned will.
I come back to Justice O'Connor, following the Arar committee, who said that public inquiries, in the traditional sense, are not particularly useful and can be horrendous in dealing with these kinds of things. There are appropriate ways to deal with them. That's what we have to do in the next five months.
Liberal
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Global News reported on February 8, 2023, “National security officials [warned] Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his office more than a year before the 2019 federal election...that Chinese agents were 'assisting Canadian candidates running for political offices'”. In Mr. Johnston's report, an early draft of the memo containing “similar but not identical language” was noted. The draft was “significantly revised”, according to the report, before the memo went to the Prime Minister.
Did Mr. Johnston inquire as to who changed the memo, and why it was changed?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, thank you very much for this question.
I want to go directly to our report. There are two parts of my brain functioning here. One is the part that deals with classified information, and the other is the part that deals with open information. It's important that I not cross that boundary.
To deal specifically with the question that has just been raised, Madam Chair, page 23 of our report, dealing with these statements and conclusions in the press, states:
The PRC Interfered with the Nomination of Han Dong as the Liberal Party Candidate in Don Valley North (Global News, February 24, 2023)
Then it says:
Irregularities were observed with Mr. Dong’s nomination in 2019, and there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC Consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Dong maintains relationships. In reviewing the intelligence, I did not find evidence that Mr. Dong was aware of the irregularities or the PRC Consulate’s potential involvement in his nomination.
The Prime Minister was briefed about these irregularities, although no specific recommendation was provided. He concluded there was no basis to displace Mr. Dong as the candidate for Don Valley North. This was not an unreasonable conclusion based on the intelligence available to the Prime Minister at the time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Mr. Johnston, if you just reference where you would like us to note that, we'll take it, because time is limited.
I'm going to go back to Ms. Kwan
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I read the report several times over. Quoting it again to me is not going to answer that question.
My question was, did Mr. Johnston look into who changed that memo and why it was changed?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, again, I must be conscious of the classified information. The memo that appeared in the Global News—
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Sorry, I'm going to interrupt for a second. It's a yes-or-no question.
Did Mr. Johnston look into who changed it, yes or no?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
The answer to that question is that the memo that was referred to in the Global News report was an early draft that had certain statements. That draft was not circulated further. There was a final draft that came to quite a different conclusion about what transpired.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Chair, if I can finish my thought, I take that to mean that Mr. Johnston did not ask who changed it and why it was changed.
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Madam Chair, again—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm not going to comment, but I think, Mr. Johnston, your comment does stand as to what your response is. How people received information is not the debate today, but the focus is on foreign election interference.
We're going to continue.
We're going to go to Mr. Chong for five minutes, followed by Mr. Fergus.
Then we will suspend.
Go ahead, Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Johnston, for appearing.
You've made several mentions during this hearing today about the need for Parliament to do its work. You've said that it's the work of Parliament to help counter what you call the ever-increasing threat of foreign interference. You've pleaded with us and made pleas to us to focus on the issue of foreign interference.
Our job here is to hold the government accountable. It's set up in the opening clauses of the Constitution Act from 1867. Section 18 gives us immense powers to do that.
The problem is that Parliament has not been able to do its work because our hands have been tied by the government. We haven't been able to get the answers we are seeking to questions concerning the PRC's foreign interference in Canada. Government documents that are requested aren't released. When they are, they're often so heavily redacted that they make little sense. Government witnesses aren't forthcoming with answers to our questions.
Not only are we not able to do our work because of that, but the government is deliberately bypassing Parliament through the very entities that you've referenced in your report and your testimony: NSICOP, NSIRA and even—with respect, sir—your position. All of these entities are appointed by the government. They're appointments of the Prime Minister and serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.
We've been unable to do our work. It's been incredibly frustrating. Over the last four years, we've spent a lot of time and effort holding hearings on foreign interference. We've had four committees of this House examine the matter: the foreign affairs committee, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, the Canada-China committee and this committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. By my count, these four committees alone have held 70 meetings where PRC's foreign interference was examined, heard from 364 witnesses and received 152 hours of testimony. The testimony consisted of 1,902 pages of evidence and resulted in five reports with 31 specific recommendations relating to foreign interference.
Despite all of this work, we still haven't gotten the answers we sought from the government and, with respect, neither will you. In your first report, you've indicated that your upcoming hearings will not be focusing on who knew what and when. The focus will not be on looking at government records and speaking to government personnel.
If Parliament hasn't been able to get the answers over the last four years, if you're not going to seek the answers in your upcoming hearings and if we're not getting a public inquiry with all the powers of subpoena to call witnesses and to gather evidence, then how on earth are we to get the answers we need to play our constitutional role and hold this government accountable?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
I should say that my counsel and I spent a very profitable hour and a half or two hours with Mr. Chong going through some of these things. We benefited enormously from the work that he himself has done on this matter and other matters.
First of all, NSICOP and NSIRA—assisted by the leaders of the three major parties, I hope—will have an opportunity to review our report, review our conclusions and find out if there is fault in us not assessing responsibility where it lies.
With respect to the question of the inability of Parliament to move government, we will be looking very carefully at the oversight bodies. We will look, in particular, at NSIRA, which has been in place since 2019, and NSICOP, which has been in place since 2017.
We'll have expert testimony from foreign intelligence experts and advice that we get from you, Mr. Chong, which we will very much welcome, including what you've said has been done over four years. We'll have a much more strengthened, robust role of those two committees to provide proper oversight and ensure that the operations of our foreign interference oversight are much more effective than they are at the present time.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you for that answer, Mr. Johnston.
I'd like to also follow up and ask you a question about how you can restore public trust and confidence in our institutions. Eight months ago, when this foreign interference scandal first blew wide open, reasonable people could have argued that public trust could be restored without an independent public inquiry. That door closed a long time ago.
The House of Commons, three times in the last three months, has voted for an independent public inquiry. The majority of Canadians in polling want a public inquiry. You, however, have recommended against a public inquiry. Do you not see how recommending against a public inquiry undermines confidence in our democratic institutions?
Independent Special Rapporteur on Foreign Interference, As an Individual
Thank you again for that question, Mr. Chong.
What we have recommended—and what we intend to do in the next five months—is having public hearings on these very important questions of whether our systems are adequate and, if they are not, how we improve them in very substantial measure. We intend to focus on that as a really important matter of Parliament and our agencies, and for the public generally, to ensure that we do a much better job than we are doing at the current time.