The Foreign Interference Commission, chaired by Justice Hogue, has just announced a new decision on participation in the Commission’s hearings.
The announcement indicates that MP Michael Chong, the Conservative Party’s critic for Foreign Affairs, has taken up the Commission’s invitation to apply for individual standing, and that his application has been accepted, primarily because MP Chong himself has been a target of Chinese foreign interference plans.
MP Chong will have standing in both the upcoming factual inquiry phase of the Commission’s work, examining Chinese electoral interference efforts in the 2019 and 2021 federal campaigns, as well as the policy phase of the inquiry which will start later in 2024 and examine the broader issue of the federal government’s response capacities in the face of foreign interference from whatever quarter.
MP Chong will have the right to question all witnesses in both phases of the Inquiry, something that should take the sting out of Conservative Party claims that the Commissioner had shown bias and undermined the legitimacy of the Inquiry in refusing it standing in the factual phase. In the Conservative Party’s original application, it had noted that MP Chong would play a leading role. And now he will.
There is nothing surprising in the Inquiry’s decision on standing for Mr. Chong. Similar standing was granted to two other politicians who have been cited in the media for their involvement in Chinese foreign interference-Liberal MP Han Dong and former Ontario Liberal MPP Michael Chan. Nor should it be seen as a sop to the Conservatives—just to put a stick in that wheel. The offer to apply for standing was extended to MP Chong before the Conservative party rolled out its over-the-top criticisms of Justice Hogue’s well-founded concerns about turning a public inquiry into a partisan debating forum.
If wrinkle number one was to be expected, wrinkle number two may be something else again.
In her explanation in the MP Chong decision about the various rights that attend full standing and intervener standing, Justice Hogue appears to have opened the door to allowing both the Conservatives and NDP to exceed what is normally allowed to participants with intervener standing, by indicating that either political party might be able to question witnesses in the factual phase of the inquiry, “if it can demonstrate to me how this appropriate in the circumstances.”
To my mind this puts the Justice in a potentially difficult position of having to deny requests to question witness—say government officials or Ministers—or alternatively let a partisan debate ensue. It also raises questions about the efficiency of what are bound to be very time-constricted public hearings during the factual phase.
Do I hear the grinding sound of a large can opener applied to a sizeable can of worms?
The Ministers are Liberal party members so to be fair other political parties should be allowed at the same level of standing.
Once again, I think it would be a more impartial inquiry if ANY instances of foreign interference were considered. Have no pro conservative instances of foreign interference been considered? Is no one concerned about the impressive amount of US dollars that the Convoy was able to raise?