Government must get serious about foreign meddling
Ensuring a fair election is no small issue, says Phil Gurski.
This commission report will be relegated to the usual filing cabinet.
There is much to take away from all the recent analysis and counter-analysis of foreign interference in Canada's elections — and none of it is good.
In summary, our government minimized the threat to our electoral process, admitting that while there “may” have been “some minor” efforts to sway voter intention, when all was said and done the results were not affected. (I am waiting for someone to explain how this conclusion was drawn: does the government know the reasons individual Canadians voted and the reasons for their choice of party/candidate?)
From an intelligence angle, while not much new was introduced at the Foreign Interference Commission last week, a few take-aways need re-emphasis.
1. Canada's “intelligence culture” is worse than I feared. Politicians and senior bureaucrats do not understand, appreciate or know how to use the information provided by The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and others to help them identify threats to our national security and counteract them.
2. The prime minister does not read intelligence reports (or does he? There were mixed messages on that front) but prefers to be “orally briefed.” In theory there is nothing wrong with that as long as those doing the briefing have a background, preferably a strong operational background, in intelligence. Relying on “advisers” with no experience at the spy coal face to tell you about the nature of intelligence and its meaning is akin to asking your cousin Clem about your lung cancer rather than going to a qualified medical source. Not a great strategy.
3. Our leader arrogantly dismissed CSIS intelligence — which was provided on at least 34 occasions over the past few years — on People's Republic of China shenanigans as “inadequate” and uninteresting. Accusations such as “it was not evidence” expose a significant ignorance of what intelligence is and is not.
No, it is not collected to an evidentiary standard (and is not normally used in court cases) but what is eventually provided to the prime minister and his team has been very carefully analyzed, corroborated, debated, checked and double-checked and is subject to intense scrutiny before it leaves the building.
Is it perfect? No, nothing is. But based on what I saw over 32 years at the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and CSIS, the product is damn good. It is as accurate as can be given the sources and the fact that investigations leading to useful intelligence are in constant motion.
Where do we go from here, then? While the inquiry did provide the average Canadian with a peek into the shadows of espionage and counter espionage, under the guise of what foreign powers are doing on our soil to harm our democracy, this commission report will be relegated to the usual filing cabinet, like the results of other inquiries.
In other words, thanks for coming and testifying but there is nothing to see here, so please move along.
The other sad fact is that national security issues are rarely, if ever, important on the campaign trail.
Voters care more about inflation, interest rates, the housing crisis and what can be done to help a Canadian team win the Stanley Cup (31 years and counting). What the PRC and others are doing to threaten diasporas, steal votes and seek a government that will do its bidding simply does not register. Yes, these other challenges resonate more, but if you cannot ensure a free and fair election, what does your democracy stand on?
My normally optimistic self notes that we have seen this movie before and will see it again, unless we take major steps to prevent it. We need a national security adviser with real intelligence experience, not a part-time bureaucrat. We need the prime minister to meet regularly with the heads of CSIS, CSE and the RCMP.
We need a government to take intelligence and threats seriously.