The Foreign Interference Inquiry has started its final round of public hearings, following the release of its Initial report in May. The hearings will run for four weeks. The Inquiry is still in its “fact-finding” phase, spelled out in clause “C” of its original terms of reference established in September, 2023. This requires the Inquiry to examine the ability of the government to “detect, deter and counter” foreign interference, with a focus, as Commissioner Hogue indicated at the outset this morning, on the present and future. But as Commission counsel indicated, fact-finding will at times involve testimony on policy issues, a subject otherwise left for a final and separate week of roundtables, to be conducted the week of October 21.
The approach is, in my view, odd, not least in the vagueness of the overlap between fact-finding and policy examination, and the limited time allotted by the Commission (one week of “roundtables” in October ) to what should be the key matter—examining ideas about how to improve the government’s ability to confront foreign interference.
The first week of the public hearings looks like a warm-up for the following three weeks, which will involve testimony by Government officials, Ministers and ultimately the PM himself. Week One involves appearances by a raft of political party officials and from MPs who have been subject, in one way or another, to foreign interference. Some of the MPs (or former MPs) are making return appearances, including Michael Chong, Erin O’Toole and Jenny Kwan.
Commissioner Hogue made clear that the Inquiry will not be naming names, as it delves deeper into the report issued by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians on June 3.[1] No surprise there, whatever the hue and cry, but PIFI should at least be able to provide its own reading of the broad significance of the allegations made that some members of Parliament were “semi-witting or witting” accomplices in foreign interference schemes.
At the moment, what we have are diametrically opposed remarks about the seriousness of these allegations delivered by political party leaders who gained security clearances and provided public comments—Elizabeth May for the Greens (not shaken), and Jagmeet Singh (shaken and stirred) for the NDP. The Bloc leader, Yves-Francois Blanchet, also indicated that he would be getting a security clearance and reading the classified version of the NSICOP report but to the best of my knowledge has either not done so, or not made any public comments on the report. Pierre Poilievre has refused to get a clearance and read the classified version of the NSICOP report, allegedly on the grounds that it would tie his hands.
Following remarks by the Commissioner and lead Commission counsel, we were treated to a series of pretty boring briefings on: official entities involved in responding to foreign interference; the meaning of “intelligence;” and the contents of the recently passed legislation on foreign interference, Bill C-70. Some of the briefing material on C-70 seemed wide of the mark, not least with regard to new CSIS powers.
Time would have been better served by making the Commission “overview” reports, on which the commission counsels’ briefings were based, available, rather than leaving that for a promised “soon.” The day ended before noon.
That’s all, folks.
[1] National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, Special report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions, “ June 3, 2024, https://nsicop-cpsnr.ca/reports/rp-2024-06-03/intro-en.html
It sounds like this is not a very serious inquiry into this most serious situation. I am amazed that a party leader dos not have a security clearance. How can any leader expect to have the ability to formulate good policy on one of the most important duties of the job is the security of the country and our democracy