“Democracy is built on trust [des citoyens]. Responsible leadership requires that we take action to reaffirm Canadians’ confidence in democracy,” Justin Trudeau said Tuesday.
Prime Minister Trudeau is right: we are not playing with citizens’ trust in democracy.
This is why the Trudeau government should have, long ago, set up an independent and public inquiry into the troubling allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian democracy.
Did China fund federal election candidates in 2019 and again in 2021? Did it otherwise help candidates or harm them? An independent judge with no connection to the actors involved must decide these questions within the framework of a public inquiry.
Instead, Mr. Trudeau appointed in March an independent special rapporteur, former Governor General David Johnston, who has the mandate to make recommendations to him for the future.
Normally, Mr. Johnston, an eminent jurist whose integrity is not doubted for a single second, would have been an excellent choice. Except that he was a member for a few years of the Trudeau Foundation, involved in the case of interference from China because of a donation of $ 200,000 from Chinese business people who would have been reimbursed by Beijing. That should have automatically disqualified him for this mandate.
The verdict of Mr. Johnston fell Tuesday: to everyone’s surprise, a public inquiry is not necessary. Mainly because… he himself did the work in the meantime. Work that he will continue over the next few months with public consultations and recommendations to improve our system of defense against attempts at foreign interference.
Mr. Trudeau will follow the recommendation of his special rapporteur: there will be no public inquiry.
The Trudeau government is making a mistake here.
In this politically polarized file (Pierre Poilievre constantly pushes the limits of bad faith here), the Trudeau government must wash more white than white.
He did not do it.
Mr. Johnston therefore believes that a public inquiry is not necessary for three reasons: 1) he has already done the work; 2) any investigation should be conducted behind closed doors due to national security; 3) it would take too long.
None of these three reasons hold water.
We understand that a “public” inquiry would not be truly public. The objective is not to make ratings at RDI or LCN, but to understand what happened and to make recommendations for the future. Either, a large part of the investigation would take place behind closed doors. But officials would have access to all classified national security documents, and the findings of the investigation would be public. This is what is most important.
That’s essentially what Mr. Johnston did. He concluded :
1) there is no evidence that China funded 11 candidates in the 2019 federal elections;
2) that China had no scheme to facilitate the election of a minority liberal government in 2021;
3) that Liberal MP Han Dong discussed the “two Michaels” case with a representative of China, but did not suggest that China extend their detention;
4) that China was seeking information on Conservative MP Michael Chong, but there was no indication that it had taken “actions to threaten his family”;
5) that there are “serious deficiencies” in the way national security information is communicated to the government, which would explain why the Trudeau government learned most of the allegations in the media (The Globe and MailOverall).
All of that is probably true. Mr. Johnston is also asking two independent committees – a committee of experts chaired by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps and a committee of parliamentarians – to examine his report (including the secret documents). And then to confirm or refute its conclusions publicly.
It’s a great idea, but it won’t be enough. Nor politically. Nor to reassure Canadians.
Allegations of foreign interference are so serious and touch so much at the heart of our democracy that we need maximum transparency. In this context, only a public and independent inquiry will truly reassure Canadians. An investigation led by a judge who washes so white that his conclusions cannot be questioned.
We would then have the heart net. Once for all.