Exit, Stage whatever

Mr. Johnston leaves a secret note behind

The timeline of developments around the independent special rapporteur on foreign interference has been nothing short of astounding.

Here is it:

March 6:  The Prime Minister announces the appointment of an independent special rapporteur on foreign interference (alongside no less than three other reviews to be conducted into the government’s handling of foreign interference threats)

March 15: former Governor-General David Johnston is appointed special rapporteur. His terms of reference require a first report to be completed by May 23

May 23: David Johnston issues his first report.  He rejects the idea of a public (judicial) inquiry calling instead for public hearings on a range of issues that he identifies in his report

May 31:  Parliament votes in favour of a motion, sponsored by the NDP, to have David Johnston step aside. The NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, tells a media scrum that “the appearance of bias is so high that it erodes the work that the special rapporteur can do.”  Truly cringe-inducing, that.

June 6: David Johnston testifies before the Procedures and House Affairs committee in its investigation of foreign interference. He defends his reputation and rejects the idea that he should step down.

June 9:  David Johnston sends a letter of resignation to the Prime Minister saying that a “highly partisan” atmosphere has stymied his work. He promises a final report by the end of June

June 10:  Dominic LeBlanc holds press conference on next steps. No mention of Mr. Johnston’s final report.

June 29:  David Johnston submits his final report. Its classified.

See Darren Major’s report for CBC on the final report, here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/david-johnston-delivers-final-report-steps-down-1.6889325

I am not going to rehash this depressing saga.  Its depressing from start to finish. Perhaps the only thing we can be sure of is this: with the tide of opposition party anger that surged around Mr. Johnston’s finding that a public inquiry would not be fit for purpose, the main recommendations of his first report are likely to continue to go unnoticed. That’s a real shame.

As Mr. Johnston exits, his last report says what? Its classified in its entirety, so we don’t know. All we have seen (and even this is not posted to the government website) is a two-paragraph cover letter sent by Mr. Johnston to the PM saying that he has “supplemented the Confidential Annex to my first report,” and urging that the supplement be sent to the two review bodies that are continuing their own studies of foreign interference—the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians.

Supplemented why?  Supplemented how?

To make such a secret exit is, well, sad. It contradicts the spirit of Mr. Johnston’s first report. The first report had included the statement that he had insisted, “I be granted scope to say as much as possible about the intelligence collected by our security agencies that is relevant to my mandate without compromising Canada’s security interests. As a result, the level of disclosure in this report is unprecedented, reflecting the public interest in maintaining trust in our democracy.”  (pp. 2-3)

https://www.canada.ca/en/democratic-institutions/services/reports/first-report-david-johnston-independent-special-rapporteur-foreign-interference.html

With his final report, it seems that scope was gone, disclosure was shut down, the public interest forgotten. Surely a public summary could have been provided so that Canadians would understand the issues that Mr. Johnston felt needed expansion in his final report?

Or, perhaps the government decided that shedding any light on this was not in its interest. That’s a bad call in the current environment, but not the first bad call made—its been a pattern throughout 2023--as the government has scrambled to find a path out of the foreign interference controversy.

What follows from David Johnston’s secret exit? Who knows.

In his June 9 letter of resignation, Mr. Johnston said two important things.  One was that “a deep and comprehensive review of foreign interference, its effects, and how to prevent it, should be an urgent priority…” Yes to that, but there is no point in doing a foreign interference review that can’t look more broadly at the performance of the intelligence system as a whole.

The other was that he hoped the government would “appoint a respected person, with national security experience, to complete the work that I recommended in my first report.”

What hope for either of these hopes? Faint, I would guess.

The only real clue as to what is around this sharp bend, is contained in the press conference held by Minister LeBlanc the day after Mr. Johnston’s resignation.  

See the press conference here, courtesy of CPAC:

https://www.cpac.ca/episode?id=6f8c1a02-a528-4755-9d09-1e06f0b02e98

Dominic LeBlanc indicated he had been given the task by the Prime Minister of consulting with opposition parties on a way forward, and wasn’t ruling out a public inquiry.  But he set a menu of four questions that he wanted to see the opposition parties come together on and provide substantive answers.

Those four questions were:

Name and qualifications of a “respected person” to head a new public process following Johnston

The time frame for a public process

The terms of reference of any public process

Proposed methods for dealing with classified intelligence information.

Each is a loaded question in ways that hardly need spelling out. (But I can’t resist).

Question 1—who would want such a poisoned chalice?  What qualifications are sought involving national security and intelligence expertise? How big is that goldfish bowl? (sorry mixed metaphor)

Question 2—you want it to run how quickly and still be substantive? Here’s looking at you, Mr. Julian (House leader for the NDP)—nine months?  Forget it.

Question 3—is this a review to look back on previous problems (gotcha!) or look forward to solutions.  Opposition parties—let’s look back and root out a scapegoat or three, please.  Government--Let’s look forward, please.

Question 4—you know that secrets cannot and will not be revealed so how does that work for a public inquiry? Ummm…Mummm….

Minister LeBlanc initially suggested he would looking for answers within days (or at least by the end of June).  We are nearly there, calendar wise, but perhaps not nearly there.

Parliament has risen.  Talks are sub rosa. Outcomes, if any, murky. Those masters of avoiding “traps,” M. Poilievre and M. Blanchet—“classified briefings, no sir!”-- are no doubt examining  the teeth of the latest one. As for Mr. Singh, he is perhaps examining how best to deploy  high-sounding principles without having to decide on anything. “Classified briefing”—maybe later, when I know its safe…

But stay tuned.

I may not, for a while. Going on holidays--to beautiful PEI. Or at least post-Fiona PEI.

See you on my return.