Mr. Johnston offered a sword to fall on

Strangely, he decides against

If there was a watchword to describe the reception to David Johnston’s appearance before the House committee studying foreign interference, it was… Suspicion. Suspicion of his role as the government’s appointed special rapporteur; suspicion of his independence and impartiality; suspicion of his failure to call for a “public” (e.g. judicial) inquiry; suspicion of the findings of his first report, issued on May 23. To that roll call must be added suspicion about his reasons for not bowing to Parliament’s will and stepping aside; bowing out, as one Conservative MP unctuously called it, “with honour.” That’s a lot of suspicions.

Opposition parties packed the committee meeting room in the West Block with star troopers (not the other kind), many displacing the usual committee members who sit on PROC (Procedures and House Affairs committee). The committee chair, Liberal MP Bardish Chaggar, reminded members at the outset of the three + hour session, that the committee has high viewer ratings (on Parl TV mind you).  Nevertheless, the appearance of the special rapporteur before a Parliamentary committee for the first time since he released his report on May 23 was a real magnet. The swollen ranks of Opposition party members were there to turn the committee into a mini House of Commons. Jagmeet Singh, the NDP leader, came to remind everyone, before the cameras, that his party wants a judicial inquiry, that Mr. Johnston cannot shake an “appearance of bias,” and that he should obey the will of Parliament. The Bloc House leader, Alain Therrien, came to, well I am not sure exactly what beyond expressing astonishment at Mr. Johnston’s efforts. The Conservatives brought Michael Chong, the foreign affairs critic, and Raquel Dancho, the public safety critic.

Thanks for reading Wesley Wark’s National Security and Intelligence Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Make what you like of the suspicions at play. The only one that could do real damage is suspicion of the contents of his report. If Mr. Johnstons’ first report proves a hollow shell, he is done.

He was pressed on a number of issues. From the NDP, on why he is silent about what the party calls the government’s “lack of curiousity” about foreign interference and its failure to be more pro-active in response. NDP MP Jenny Kwan, who herself has been identified as a target of Chinese state interference, pressed Mr. Johnston on details of his report and was frustrated when he sometimes struggled to answer or simply read back excerpts from his report. The NDP leader, Mr. Singh, accepts the report’s findings that there was no malfeasance, no desire to benefit from an alleged Chinese regime stance that preferred the Liberals to the Conservatives, but why did they not do more to counter the threat? There is something to the NDP criticism about the lack of a more pro-active policy by the Government, which Mr. Johnston was prepared to acknowledge. But it’s not a game changer for his mandate.

Conservative suspicions about his report’s findings run much deeper. The danger posed by Conservative critiques comes when they are able to set aside their more conspiratorial theories and focus on something more evidence-based. Conservative  MPs don’t all line up behind this approach, witness Larry Brock’s heated question to Mr. Johnston asking him who actually wrote his report (was it PMO, PCO, backroom people with unknown ties, who…)

But on the evidentiary front, Conservatives MPs pressed Johnston hard about his findings on the absence of a known state sponsor hand behind misinformation and disinformation campaigns targeting Conservative candidates, and on discrepancies between his report and what the former Conservative leader, Erin O’Toole, was apparently told in his conversation with the CSIS Director about Chinese interference operations. On the latter point, Mr. Johnston had to admit he was at a disadvantage because he was not aware of the contents of the CSIS discussions with Mr. O’Toole. He also accepted that there might be more light shed regarding the substance of Conservative party claims about election interference in the 2021 election. It’s a murky story at this point, not least because the Conservative party’s own internal review of election interference in  2021 remains out of sight, but it could prove damaging.

Questions about assessments by the intelligence agencies on Chinese state sponsored activities in the disinformation space may prove damaging to one of Mr. Johnston’s findings, to the effect that an information operation against a Chinese-Canadian MP, Kenny Chiu, who lost his seat in 2021, “could not be traced to a state-sponsored source.”  Conservative MP Michael Cooper seized on a record provided to the committee regarding disinformation monitoring by the Global Affairs unit called the “Rapid Response Mechanism” that appeared to suggest the opposite. Note to Mr. Johnston and his team—it is really important that you get straight the difference between misinformation and disinformation.

Conservatives also continue to pry away at the story of what the government knew about the activities of MP Han Dong.  While they appear to have abandoned any interest in running with the discredited Global News story that Mr. Dong told Chinese consulate officials in Toronto that he recommended that the Chinese regime continue to hold the two Michaels in detention, they are now more focused on what the government knew about irregularities in Mr. Dong’s nomination in 2019.  The opening is provided in Mr. Johnston’s report where he states:

“Irregularities were observed with Mr. Dong’s nomination in 2019, and there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC Consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Dong maintains relationships.”

Conservatives wanted to know more about these irregularities. Mr. Johnston couldn’t provide any real answer. What we know from his report was that the PM was briefed on these irregularities but decided against replacing Mr. Dong as a candidate. The Johnston report calls this a “not unreasonable conclusion based on the intelligence available to the Prime Minister at the time.”  Double negatives don’t make for strong arguments, and the Conservatives know this.

Conservative critics continue to raise suspicions about Bill Blair’s failure to receive a briefing note in May 2021 (when Blair was Public Safety Minister) containing intelligence about the specific targeting by Chinese officials of MP Chong. They talk about top secret email log-ins and the like, but this dog doesn’t hunt. It just shows that Conservatives have been out of office for so long that few members of their party know how Ministers’ offices work or know anything about how the CRO (“Crow”) system for the transmission of top secret material by CSE officials operates. Jody Thomas tried to explain it all, apparently to no avail, at least so far.

If some of Mr. Johnston’s conclusions are found to be too sweeping, too favourable to the Liberal government, or, worst of all, in error, that will sink him.  We are not there, or even nearly there yet, but that is the precipice. How soon the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA) may respond with its own observations on his report, remains unknown.  The same is true for the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, whose established policy of non-partisanship will be truly challenged. When Mr. Singh might rally himself to review the Johnston classified annex and make his own observations on its findings is also up in the air (Mr. Singh seems to prefer to keep it so). Mr. Poilievere and Mr. Blanchet will not review the report, allegedly for fear of being trapped into silence. Truly lame, that.

Where are we now?  Mr. Johnston survived his appearance before the committee. That’s something, but not a guarantee for the future.  Public hearings will begin in July. Mr. Johnston would have to be a fool not to appreciate that the next phase of his mandate is highly vulnerable, and he is no fool.  New information may come to light; critiques may call his findings into question; the public hearings may be under-powered.

But he has one new tool to draw on, mentioned at committee in an aside. He is going to appoint three special advisers to assist him during the public hearings. When asked who they would be, he said he hadn’t yet made that determination. These special advisers are clearly meant to bolster Mr. Johnston’s credibility and deepen the expertise he brings to bear.  Deepen his expertise on what subjects exactly, we don’t know.

Will they bolster credibility? That’s another unknown.