The unease one feels when reading David Johnston’s first report on foreign interference in the Canadian political process can be summed up in a sentence the Special Rapporteur uttered during his press conference.
“A public inquiry would not have the degree of transparency required” to meet the expectations of the Canadian public, he said. So, if we are to believe the special rapporteur, it would be better if there was no transparency at all.
It is true that it is difficult to hold public inquiries into matters of national security. Mr. Johnston is right on one point: it is impossible to give the public full access to all sorts of documents which are – and must remain – confidential.
It is difficult to hold a public inquiry in such circumstances, but it is not impossible. In the 1970s, the Macdonald commission on the security services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, in Quebec, the Keable commission on the work of the police force after the crisis of October 1970 did exactly that.
Having documentary evidence that cannot be disclosed – unless it is rigorously redacted – does not preclude public hearings.
It is then necessary to trust the commissioners to ask their questions in such a way as not to jeopardize the security of the State.
In the American Congress, despite the unbridled partisanship that prevails there, we have succeeded in carrying out important investigations, among other things, into the illegal activities of the CIA. In the 1970s, in particular, the Church and Pike reports on intelligence agencies passed into history without compromising the national security of our neighbors to the south.
Citizens are just as capable of making sense of things. They know that we could not publish everything. But they still want the government to put in place an investigation mechanism that will demonstrate a minimum of transparency on an issue that affects the integrity of our democratic processes.
In short, if we want to have a public inquiry, we can have a public inquiry. It will certainly be complicated, but it is possible.
It would have been interesting to hear the opposition parties say it loud and clear on Tuesday and offer their cooperation for what would be a public inquiry which would necessarily be a delicate mission.
Instead, they preferred to question the integrity of Mr. David Johnston and his ties to the Trudeau family. It’s unfortunate and inappropriate. Mr. Johnston’s public service record in a number of important offices does not justify these personal attacks.
By the way, to whom would Mr. Johnston be most indebted? Towards his “Trudeau family ski friends”, as the Conservative leader puts it? Or to the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper who elevated him to Governor General? To ask the question, is to answer it.
But we must still have a critical reading of the document he has just published.
First, there is an unpleasant form of elitism. As if Canadians really had no interest in being informed – in outline, of course not in minute detail – of the degree of foreign interference in Canada and, in particular, in the democratic process and elections.
A little more, and we heard the famous line of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men “You can’t stand the truth. »
There are also a few shortcuts in Mr. Johnston’s report that would merit further study and recommendations.
When it is said that “attempts at foreign interference are ubiquitous, particularly from the People’s Republic of China”, then one can only argue for a simple improvement in how the Canadian government should change its practices so that the information circulates better will be sufficient to counter this interference.
Similarly, when the report states: “In general, the People’s Republic of China has no party preference [politiques canadiens] is a bit short. The former Canadian ambassador to China, Guy Saint-Jacques, noted Tuesday that, while he was in post in Beijing, the preference of the Chinese authorities towards the Liberals was quite clear. What we know about Chinese attempts to interfere in Canadian elections seems to prove him right.
For the rest of the process, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proposes – without giving too many details – to swear in the leaders of the opposition parties to give them the “top secret” classification which allows access to all documents.
It’s a bit big as a trap. Once sworn in, party leaders will no longer be able to discuss in public the information given to them. In fact, here is one more reason to have a real public inquiry, despite all the risks, but with all the advantages that entails.