There has, of course, been much attention paid to the deep partisanship on display in Parliament these days. I have to say it was mostly put on hold during yesterday evening’s session with the Procedures and House Affairs committee (PROC) in which I appeared alongside Thomas Juneau, from the University of Ottawa. The committee is chaired by Liberal MP, Bardish Chagger, who wields a mighty stopwatch and an impressive controlling hand to keep discussion within bounds.
We were listened to, with what I thought was respect and interest. We were allowed to say our piece about the importance of enhanced transparency around national security and the need to raise public understanding and awareness of the nature of national security threats and responses to them. A defence of the viability and value of public hearings, as recommended by David Johnston, was aired, without being met by howls of outrage. There were genuine questions, advanced by Bloc MP Christine Normandin, around the nature of secrets and how their protection impacted on whatever form of public investigation into intelligence and its uses in the face of foreign interference is ultimately mounted. Thomas Juneau doubted the added value of a public/judicial inquiry. I share that doubt and am more enthusiastic for public hearings, partly based on my experience of three judicial inquiries into national security issues in which I took part in over the last two decades.
Both Thomas Juneau and I managed to get in a plug for the need for a new national security strategy and review, to update the last effort made in 2004.
For me, one of the most interesting issues raised in the question period was advanced by NDP member Rachel Blaney, who wondered how parliamentarians and their staffs could have access to more knowledge and education about national security. This followed some comments made by Thomas Juneau about the many avenues needed for improving national security literacy, including through better engagement with the media. It all requires a serious effort not, as Thomas said in a funny quip, the “off-loading of government speaking points.”
Liberal MP Ryan Turnbull raised the question of the deep impact of false media allegations, aired by Global News, about MP Han Dong, something that should give all sides of this debate pause.
Partisanship was not, of course completely absent. Who could expect it to be, not least as Chinese interference has come to target opposition MPs directly. But at the core of this partisanship, I found, was the thorny issue of trust—trust in the government and its leaders, trust in Mr. Johnston, trust in his reports.
Trust will ultimately only be repaired, to the extent it can be, by actions. The government has promised a lot, including changes to national security legislation, even to foundation stones like the CSIS Act and the Security of Information Act, and a foreign influence registry of some kind. Mr. Johnston has promised to raise a bundle of issues in his public hearings and to make recommendations for reform in his October report. But time is of the essence and bold moves will be necessary to elevate our response capabilities in the face of foreign interference threats—bold moves mean a real shake-up in our intelligence system, a real shake-up in the ways in which senior decision-makers treat intelligence, and real action to raise the level of national security literacy in Canada.
If all the furore over foreign interference has done one thing, it should be to dispel the cob-webbed idea that Canadians do not care about national security as a fundamental issue and that, therefore, politicians and governments don’t face any real pressure to prove that they have a strong national security strategy.
I will post my opening statement to the Parliamentary committee in a separate column, for those of you who are interested. The full session can be seen on the Committee website and a transcript will appear in a few days in both official languages.
If we have public hearings I hope they will also address foreign interference by right wing American interests.
The allegations levelled against Dong haven't been proven false, they've simply been characterized as such by a man whose expertise on issues of security and intelligence is at best mediocre - to say nothing of the biases he brought to his role as special raconteur. Early on there was mention of audio recordings between Dong and his handler; if those exist, they need to be made public.