Foreign influence inquiry won’t work
Special adviser David Johnston says a full-scale public inquiry into attempts to subvert Canadian democracy would serve no purpose.
He’s mostly right. A public inquiry might go over well with members of the chattering classes. But as a strategy for dealing with real threats to Canadian democracy it simply wouldn’t work well.
The logic is brutally straightforward.
An inquiry into national security must rely on information that to all intents and purposes is secret and because such information is secret it cannot be revealed publicly.
The result would be to lock any serious judicial inquiry into a classic Catch-22 situation. You cannot talk openly about secret information before such an inquiry. But at the same time you cannot ignore it.
Johnston’s solution appears to rely for oversight on existing parliamentary committees that are made up of parliamentarians with security clearance.
The opposition Conservatives say this isn’t enough and want more. It’s not clear, however, how much more Pierre Poilievre’s party will demand. It seems they will not be satisfied until the Liberals ditch Johnston and his recommendations completely.
Poilievre will not accept anything less than full capitulation.
This is unfortunate since much of Johnston’s report is useful. His section on media, for instance is worth reading.
Much of the controversy whipped up over the past few weeks is the result of information leaked to media. Johnston makes the valid point that these leaks are too often taken out of context. In one case, Johnston says, one media outlet published information about a leaked document that was patently false.
All and all, Johnston’s report will do us all a favour if it encourages media to be more careful when reporting on attacks against Canadian democracy. Some of the so-called leaks reported in the press make no sense when examined more carefully.
Others, such as the threats allegedly levelled by the Chinese government against the family of Conservative MP Michael Chong, have proven more complicated under scrutiny than they initially seemed.
“Only upon seeing the full picture with the benefit of all relevant information can one conclude that much of reported intelligence has been misconstrued in media reports,” Johnston wrote.
In general terms, it is possible to construct a scenario where a committee of inquiry was formed to examine threats against democracy.
As lawyer Paul Cavalluzzo pointed out on CBC last week, the years-long inquiry into political prisoner Maher Arar was an example of a judicial inquiry’s ability to exist under conditions of extreme secrecy. Theoretically, a similarly broad inquiry could be held under Johnston. But it would be expensive and a lot of work.
I’m not sure it would be worth it.