Not Interfering with Foreign Interference

June 22, 2024

HERE'S MY TAKE

Are foreign agents lurking about in Parliament? That question and the whole problem of foreign political and election interference by hostile governments will only get worse if our leaders don’t stand up and deal with the issue directly. Sadly, the House of Commons adjourned for its summer break this week without meaningfully dealing with this.

Clearly, you and I don’t know all the details about foreign interference in Canada. However, even without recounting the complete history of this file, there are many things we do know. Since any meaningful analysis relies on a common understanding of facts, here’s the story as I understand it.

• More than a Decade of Allegations of Foreign Interference
  China and Russia are the usual suspects, but other international actors have also occasionally popped up in foreign interference stories. In 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau established the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) drawn from four parties and some Trudeau-appointed senators. Notably, the Conservatives opposed this committee’s structure since it reports to the prime minister, not Parliament, and members of the committee sign a confidentiality statement in which their parliamentary privilege is suspended. So, they’re subject to criminal consequences if they share confidential information, even in Parliament. (The ordinary principle is that to allow for transparency and to prevent legal intimidation against our elected officials, statements made in Parliament cannot be used against an MP or senator for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution.) The committee has produced annual reports since its inception, but the government has mostly ignored its recommendations.

• Damning Headlines
  Foreign interference exploded into public prominence again after a series of early 2023 Globe and Mail and Global News stories based on leaks from the intelligence community. Clearly intelligence officials had become frustrated by the lack of government response to their concerns about sophisticated strategies of foreign interference that affected the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, as well as various riding-level nomination contests and party leadership races. The coverage implied that foreign governments were trying to influence Canadian politicians by intimidating the politcos’ family members living abroad, that China had set up police offices on Canadian soil to intimidate Canadians of Chinese origin into voting in particular ways, that foreign governments (China especially) were funnelling significant amounts of cash into political campaigns, and that foreign students were being bussed to nomination meetings to support particular candidates under the implied threat that their status of staying in Canada was at risk if they did not cooperate. There was also some suggestion that elected officials had held private meetings and conversations with individuals closely affiliated with foreign governments.

• Deflect, Dance, and Deny
  Shocking media reports prompted mostly deflection on the part of the government. When it became impossible to resist further, the prime minister appointed David Johnston as a “special rapporteur” to investigate the matter. Mr. Johnston’s initial report in May 2023 appeared to vindicate the government. Soon, however, Mr. Johnston was accused of bias given his personal relationship with Prime Minister Trudeau. Johnston resigned his position and the government established the Foreign Interference Commission led by Justice Hogue in September 2023. Her initial report in May 2024 outlined various problems in how intelligence had been dealt with, the roles and communications between various government players, and the reality that foreign interference had not changed the outcome but had “left a stain” on Canadian electoral processes. Still, Justice Hogue concluded that she had not heard evidence of “bad faith” by the government.

• Bombshell Report
  On June 3^rd, the NSICOP (currently chaired by Liberal MP David McGuinty) report was released. (The public version censored several details, which were included in the original report submitted to the prime minister in March.) The public report didn’t name names, but did note that the committee had “seen troubling intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, 'semi-witting or ‘witting' participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics." (Emphasis in the original.)
   
• Chaotic Aftermath
  The last few weeks have seen intense debate. Without publicly releasing any names in the NSICOP report, all 430 Parliamentarians are essentially implicated as potential suspects. The government offered to let party leaders read the full report, as long as they took an oath of secrecy first. Green leader Elizabeth May and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh both did so. May initially said the report reassured her, while Singh came away “more convinced than ever” that some Parliamentarians were “traitors to the country” and had engaged in “criminal” behaviour. He slammed the prime minister for having known about this for months without doing anything about it, strongly implying that this was to cover up guilty parties in the Liberal caucus. Bloc Québécois leader Yves Blanchet says he will read the report but not talk about it. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre refused to read the report, arguing the silence it would impose on him would prevent him from doing his job and that if Conservatives were implicated, it was the government’s obligation to tell him.
   
• Inconclusive Machinations
  After a few weeks of jousting, the House of Commons passed a Bloc motion to send the report and the allegations to Justice Hogue as part of her ongoing investigation. In the meantime, the prime minister flipped from pointing to the NSICOP as evidence taking the matter seriously, to suggesting that the committee was misreading the intelligence and that its findings should not be taken at face value. It is hard to see what powers Justice Hogue has to deal with the issue that aren't already available, making this simply a political punt rather than a meaningful solution.

So the politicians have politicked, and then punted the issue to Justice Hogue’s inquiry, which is scheduled to report by December 31. While the entire saga did prompt the parties to cooperate in the past few weeks to pass a bill to set up a foreign influence registry, this is an initiative that other countries undertook the better part of a decade ago. Canada’s delayed action was not due to disagreement; it simply hadn’t been a government priority.

Trying to make sense of all of this is difficult. While there are some things we can be reasonably sure of, there are elements of this story that do involve national security and the need for fair process. That said, two questions emerge:

1. Are our leaders really taking foreign interference seriously? While the government has been defending itself and serially creating investigative processes, bumping the issue from the headlines as needed, it stretches credibility to believe the government is treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. And while the governing Liberals certainly bear the bulk of the blame here—they have had the intelligence reports in real-time and completely unredacted reports months before the public hears about them—it’s hard to see how any of our political parties look good. The Conservatives (probably correctly) believe this isn’t a vote-driving issue and so they have not let it displace their “axe the tax, build the homes, etc.” mantra. The NDP leader is prepared to use “traitor” and “criminal” language publicly but maintains his parliamentary support for the government. I suspect this is because NDP fundraising hasn’t filled up the election war chest yet and because Jagmeet Singh’s leadership of the party will be in jeopardy if he doesn’t improve the NDP’s electoral fortunes. We can never eliminate political and electoral considerations from any question before Parliament. However, the integrity of elections (and of parliamentarians) is fundamental to the very existence of democratic politics. To avoid existential questions because of individual strategic and tactical considerations is a disservice to Canada.
2. Is it unfair to name parliamentarians based only on intelligence reports? Yes, there is great potential to unfairly tarnish the reputations and potentially the careers of some. Still, that doesn’t mean the names should stay secret. It is worse and more fundamentally unjust to implicate everyone while the interference continues behind closed doors. Many in politics have had their reputations sullied and careers truncated due to allegations that ended up being untrue. That isn’t just, but given what we do know (arguably because governments have neglected this issue for so long, intelligence sources leaked information to the media) there seems little alternative now but to name names.

Foreign interference is a global problem that demands a domestic (and international) response. Sadly, it appears that Canadian leaders have prioritized their personal and party interests over the integrity of our processes. It may not be the short-term vote-driver but it’s the sort of thing that should rise above partisanship and be prioritized as a matter of basic patriotic loyalty. As any corporate or organisational leader knows, the failure to deal with issues in a timely manner almost always ends up having to react to a bigger issue later that will likely cause even more harm. Such is the case here.

WHAT I’M READING

Running for Mayor - a Year Later

Brad Bradford was a Toronto councillor who launched an unsuccessful bid to become mayor in 2023. A year later, he penned some reflections on political campaigns and culture, the consequences of elections on ordinary folk, and the challenge that those reflections prompt regarding the importance of political engagement and commitment. He offers an insightful and honest consideration that shows both the challenges and opportunities of political life.

Trump and Trade

This profile in Foreign Policy of Robert Lighthizer, the “idea guy” behind some of Trump’s thinking on trade policy is worth a read. It suggests that U.S. trading partners, including Canada, should prepare to buckle up for a bumpy ride, no matter who wins in November. In brief, what Lighthizer envisions “is a United States that worries far less about being a stabilizing force in the global economy and far more about pursuing its own narrow economic interests.”

The British Vote

The polls are suggesting that although the ballots in the UK election won’t be counted until after the polls close on July 4th, the results of  a significant defeat for the governing Conservatives seems inevitable. This City Journal analysis gets ahead of the “what does this mean for UK politics” chatter suggesting that the “big tent” conservatism that has kept the political right united will divide between a populist Reform party and the traditional Conservative party.

Overlapping Protests

I’m with most in thinking of the protest movements of Black Lives Matter and anti-vaccines in 2020 as reflecting very different parts of the political spectrum. I was surprised to learn from this Atlantic article that there is about a 30% overlap of people who attended both protests. There is much more to the story than the headline and there is complexity in understanding the diverse motives of protestors, but it is clear that there much more happening than many assume.

Managing Debate Expectations

Next week’s US Presidential debate will be analyzed for the health and mental sharpness demonstrated by Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump more than the policy arguments that might occur. This New York Times piece suggests that the campaign’s focus on President Biden’s age and failing health has so lowered the expectation bar that he might win simply by showing up and appearing coherent. Politicos may recall that this strategy backfired on the 2015 Canadian Conservatives, running a campaign that argued Justin Trudeau “wasn’t ready,” and that it would be a surprise if Trudeau came into "the debate with his pants on." Trudeau more than survived the debate and came from third place to win a majority government in that campaign.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

No Defence

NATO released its report on defence spending of member countries this week. Canada ranks 27^th out of 32 countries, spending 1.37% of GDP on defence. Overall, NATO countries increased their defence spending by 18% last year. A record 23 countries are spending the committed target of 2% that is part of their agreement with NATO. In April, Canada announced an increase of $8.1 billion over 5 years which it claims will raise the defence to GDP ratio to 1.76% by 2029-30. A further commitment of $73 billion over 20 years was also made. However the track record of long-term defence spending pledges suggests that they are less than reliable.

TAKE IT TO-GO

I See Canada Day Coming

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In this space so is punning about whatever we are beholding. This week it’s lasers and eyes as I underwent a procedure that aims to improve my vision. Not to be cornea about this, but Insights does provide a current affairs look through my lens, so it seems only fair to share the news that my perspective is in the process of being altered. I trust any changes will be subtle. The surgeon assures me that he’s improved things to 20-20 perfection for reading distances. That should help me provide a laser focus on the topic du jour.

Speaking of an upcoming du jour, next weekend includes Canada Day. This newsletter takes long weekends off. Happy 157^th to this great nation we get to call home. Look out for us with clarity of vision to be back in your inbox on Saturday, July 6^th.