Trust is key in influence inquiry
The most important sentence in former governor general David Johnston’s initial report on foreign interference is its opening sentence: “Democracy is built on trust.” The fragile state of democracy today is beyond the mandate of Johnston’s ongoing (until October) inquiry — which is broad enough as it is. His task, in brief, is to kick the tires of Canada’s multi-part security apparatus, to figure out which parts work and which don’t, and to recommend actions that the government needs to take to better protect the nation against attempts to undermine or subvert Canadian democracy.
Although the “independent special rapporteur” (to give Johnston his formal title) aroused critics by deciding not to recommend a public inquiry at this time, he presents solid reasons for his decision; he promises to hold public “hearings” in the second phase of his mandate to discuss his findings, and he leaves the door open to a full public commission of inquiry (as fully public as an inquiry involving state secrets can be) if one is deemed advisable after he presents his final report in the fall.
Trust is a theme that runs through his 28,000-word First Report.
The government has to be able to trust CSIS to deliver factual reports, untainted by input from CSIS officers with personal grievances who leak classified information to reporters.
It also has to trust its intelligence agencies to flag sensitive reports, such as attempts to influence elected representatives (like Michael Chong) for the immediate attention of the prime minister.
In turn, CSIS has to be able to trust its political masters to take its warnings seriously, and to trust the Prime Minister’s Office to implement a fail-safe system, which it has not had, to ensure that intelligence information reaches the intended official and is not left, ignored, in the inbox of a person who is away from the office.
Today’s hyperpartisan, confrontational politics breeds mistrust among practitioners of opposing parties. As Johnston writes, “While political parties may disagree about policy and priorities, they should do so from a common understanding of the true facts, not as speculated or hypothesized from media reports based on leaks of partial information.”
He takes a well-deserved jab at Pierre Poilievre, the only party leader who refused to meet with him: “While I recognize that in normal political circumstances an Opposition Leader may not want to be subject to the constraints of the SOIA (Security of Information Act), this matter is too important for anyone aspiring to lead the country to intentionally maintain a veil of ignorance on these matters.”
The First Report is replete with scathing comments about leaks and “misleading” news reports based on incomplete or false leaked information: “It is my view that the leaks and the subsequent media reporting have led to … misapprehensions, particularly relating to incidents that are alleged to have occurred in the 2019 and 2021 elections. This, in turn, has led to further unsubstantiated speculation, inaccurate connections being drawn, and a narrative emerging that the government allowed or tolerated foreign interference, potentially for its own political gain, or potentially out of neglect or incompetence. … I have found that the narrative that the government failed to act is not a fair conclusion based on the facts.”
Whether the country will accept the rapporteur’s conclusion will depend on another question of trust. Will Canadians trust the man Poilievre calls “Justin Trudeau’s ski buddy” to be the independent and impartial interlocutor that people who know David Johnston best believe him to be?