Is Chinese interference in Canadian elections becoming, for this generation of federal Liberals, what the sponsorship scandal was for the previous one?
The facts are of course very different. But there are a lot of similarities in how the government has handled it and its consequences.
The result at the time was a loss of voter confidence and a motion of no confidence in parliament that brought down a minority government and led to a defeat in the subsequent election.
Of course, the facts are very different. For the sponsorships, it was the Liberals who dipped into the fund. Today, it would rather be China who wanted to contribute to the fund – that is to say, to help Liberal candidates, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who seems to have long been considered by China as a good investment.
What is disturbing in the current situation is that we see that the Liberal government has adopted the same defense strategy as during the sponsorship scandal. It happens in four steps.
First, we deny everything: “Move on, there’s nothing to see”, the situation has always been under control. Then we order an internal investigation which concludes that there has been no embezzlement. It is then argued that it is a state secret – the fight against the separatists fell into this category – and, finally, the adversaries are accused of peddling rumours, if not of engaging in smearing.
The problem is that all the while, the public is losing faith in the political system and its institutions – election integrity being squarely targeted in this case. We have seen with our neighbors to the south the dramatic effects that this can have.
All of this should require a very forceful response from the government and its leader. But, on the contrary, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s response was soft, as if the situation did not justify his interest.
We even pushed the envelope by asking the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to investigate not Chinese interference, but the source of the leaks in this file. A bit like the “plumbers” of President Nixon at the time of Watergate and whose mission was to “plug the leaks”.
Meanwhile, many people are calling for a public inquiry into the whole issue of foreign interference in Canadian elections.
We know that a parliamentary committee will not be enough since it will quickly dissolve into partisanship. Already that Liberal MPs are accusing the Conservatives of being conspiratorial and rejecting, like Donald Trump, the election results, we quickly understand that a parliamentary commission is not the solution.
In addition, we have seen Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decree that if there was Chinese interference, it was not enough to affect the results of the 2019 and 2021 elections, echoing the conclusion of a group of experts commissioned by the government.
Unfortunately for him – and a typical manifestation of a particular deafness on ethical questions – the committee was chaired by the former president of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, Morris Rosenberg. However, the foundation has already received significant sums from Chinese businessmen close to the regime.
Mr. Rosenberg is certainly an honorable man, but a small bell should have rung in the Prime Minister’s office to point out that some might see this as a potential conflict of interest. However, on these issues, there does not seem to be a small bell in the Prime Minister’s office.
Nevertheless, Mr. Rosenberg’s recommendations must be taken into account, and not just his conclusion. In particular, he noted a significant increase in attempts – domestic and foreign – to disrupt Canadian elections. He therefore recommends increased monitoring, not only of the election period itself, but also of the months preceding it.
All of this militates in favor of a public inquiry into the integrity of our electoral system. Obviously, it will always be difficult to conduct such an investigation when a substantial part of the evidence must be presented behind closed doors for reasons of national security.
But difficult does not mean impossible. The recent investigation by Judge Paul Rouleau into the use of Emergency Measures Act is proof of this: it demanded that certain testimony be heard in camera, that is, that of representatives of CSIS and the Integrated Terrorism Assessment Center (CIET).
Obviously, an investigation into Chinese interference should include more testimony behind closed doors, but the information that will be collected in this way will make it possible to have a more complete final report, which is obviously in the interest audience.
As the saying goes, “The sun is the best disinfectant. It is only when the facts are exposed in the light of day that the best conclusions can be drawn.