Dear Readers,
I made a number of predictions this morning about the likely substance of the PM’s testimony this afternoon before the FI Commission. I said I thought there would be a measure of defence, offence, and some reaching across the political aisle about doing a better job to keep opposition parties and politicians informed about foreign interference threats. I said there would be lots of political theatre.
How good was my crystal ball on this April 10th day? Like intelligence, far from perfect.
Trudeau did indeed start his testimony (the beginning of a four-hour run) with a defence of the actions his government had taken in its first mandate (2015-2019) to confront possible foreign interference. He mentioned the creation of a Parliamentary oversight function for the national security and intelligence community, the process of learning lessons from the experiences of other democracies facing similar threats, and the work undertaken to put in place new protective mechanisms such as SITE task force, the Panel of Five and the election protocol for public warnings. He talked about the Canadian creation of the G7 “rapid response mechanism” (RRM) to monitor online interference from foreign state actors.
There was a quick segue to Trudeau’s views on foreign interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections. More defence, but skillfully played, I thought. He are some snippets from hours of testimony.
Trudeau was asked about his response to intelligence regarding irregularities in the nomination of Han Dong in the Don Valley North riding in 2019. He took the Commission through his deliberations in detail (deliberations that took place in an airport lounge while on the campaign trail) coming to the conclusion that the available intelligence did not meet the test for removing Han Dong as the Liberal candidate—what he regarded as a “very significant threshold.” He said there was follow up after the election. The nature of this could not be disclosed.
When he was brought by the Commission lead counsel, Shantona Chaudhury, to the 2021 election, the Prime Minister testified that he was unaware of specific information available to the intelligence community about disinformation and misinformation campaigns against certain candidates, but learned about it later, including through public pronouncements by the Conservative Party. Trudeau said he regarded the idea that the PRC officials might have a preference for a Liberal minority government as improbable, given tense Sino-Canadian relations over the detention of the “two Michaels” and the government’s global campaign to put pressure on the PRC for their release. His chief of staff, Katie Telford, had previewed this testimony in her own statements to the Commission the day before.
In a final, softball question in lead examination, Trudeau was asked what more needs to be done. He had two answers—one is that there is always more for the government to do, and he looked to the FI Commission for recommendations. Nice touch. The other was that Canadians need to have confidence in their democratic processes. This had a little more political sting to it, suggesting that Conservative complaints were undermining that confidence. He stressed that his government had repeatedly tried to reassure Canadians that the 2019 and 2021 elections were free and fair. He stressed that it was important for Canadian to have trust in their democratic institutions and to feel safe. He saluted all Canadians who were willing to step up in an increasingly fractious world to take on political roles. Political experience showed when he did not take the bait of responding to the emotive statement from failed Conservative candidate Kenny Chiu that he was drowning in misinformation during the election campaign in 2021 and wanted the government to do something.
Cross-examination was where political fireworks were expected—at least by me and I think the long-suffering assembled media corps. The fireworks mostly fizzled. There was lots of repetition of speaking points and political interest agenda-items. Case in point. We heard yet again about the Han Dong nomination contest and a concern about whether the PRC might have been behind a busload of Chinese-speaking students (one bus, c. 20 students according to Han Dong’s testimony). There were also questions of the extent to which briefing notes provided to the CSIS Director were actually conveyed to the PM. Answer was that some of the more sweeping statements were not, and that the briefings usually quickly dived into specific cases. We heard again about the foreign interference experienced by NDP MP Jennie Kwan because of her human rights activism in her Vancouver riding. We were returned to discussions about the “high” threshold of the Panel of Five in exercising their potential power to warn Canadians of interference that would threaten a free and fair election. Back to Han Dong and allegations made in the media about the nature of his conversation with the Chinese consul general in Toronto. The PM stressed the findings of David Johnston in that regard, that Han Dong had not argued for the extension by Beijing of the detention of the two Michaels. That the allegation was simply false.
The swirl of repetition would have been dizzying if it had been less banal.
But there was something new, a bit of a frisson, towards the close of cross-examination
Counsel for the Sikh coalition was the first to pointedly accuse the PM of having failed, in particular failed to pay sufficient attention to Indian interference, and of having missed opportunities to respond to it. The oddity of this was that the charge was based on speculation about redacted passages in declassified documents. So it rested on the thinnest of thin air. Trudeau managed to get in a shot against the Harper government for its allegedly “cozy” relationship with the Indian government. The next question, from counsel for the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, took up a similar cudgel, speculating that the government failed to detect evidence of Russian foreign interference in our elections. No evidence, but what the heck. Trudeau shot back by suggesting that the speculation really just benefits Russian efforts to destabilise Canadian democracy.
Bottom line. The Prime Minister came away unscathed. He may not have changed minds already made up, but that is another matter. There can be no doubt he shines in these circumstances. His testimony before the Foreign Interference Commission reminded me of his performance before the Public Order Emergency Commission in the Fall of 2022. He is the master of his brief, he exudes confidence, his memory is sharp (at least when he can speak to that memory without falling foul of secrecy constraints). After nearly nine years in his self-described “crazy job,” he doesn’t yet look crazy. And he can rise to polemical high notes and heartfelt sentiment, not least with regard to the need to protect diaspora communities, as required.
I liked his fancy silver pen. It was another piece of (muted) showmanship.
But as far as my original prediction went, well I might have got aspects of his defensive strategy right, but I must confess I expected more offense (it was fairly muted) and certainly more political theatre, especially during cross-examination. Maybe there is just something about being in a Library and Archives building that damps things down.
I did wonder whether the Prime Minister might be inclined to throw his own intelligence officials under the bus, at least over certain episodes, reminding us that political failures can easily be disguised as intelligence ones. I didn’t think this would have been a good move, and he didn’t make it. But it is not easy to read the PM’s attitude towards intelligence. Clearly he reads some of the voluminous reporting sent to him (no mortal could read it all) and trusts to verbal briefings from the NSIA and other senior officials to keep him apprised. He praised the professionalism of the national security and intelligence community.
But what he really thinks of the performance of the intel community remains, well, a secret. We will have to wait for his memoirs.
No, this is not a prediction about the outcome of the next election.
I thought your Nostradamus act was spot on. Basically, Justin will be a politician as usual. Nothing new to see here. It made sense to me also, although we both should have remembered how he actually nailed the Convoy inquiry. This was a repeat performance for sure. I wish he could be that guy every day…
I am always impressed with your dispassionate and objective take on these issues. Thank you for that.
It’s more interesting to me to see how differently the Globe’s headlines and overall take is from yours. He’s definitely throwing CSIS under the bus. He only hears what he wants to hear, or worse, he lies about ever hearing it, and he can’t even be bothered to read the reports or get his priorities straight . He is suspiciously at odds with the clear and obvious views of the intelligence community and our allies conclusions. He’s hiding something. A lot of things. He can’t be trusted.
As a lifelong reader of the Globe, nobody has had more influence over my views on politics. It appears obvious from their headlines, news stories, editorials, and opinions, that Justin was just never ready and now well past his best before date. It’s time for the adults to take back the controls. Or, maybe they are just fanning the fire because it’s good for business. I’m more worried about disinformation spread via social media, either by foreign or domestic actors. To me, as far as free and fair elections are concerned, this is the biggest threat to Canadian and global security.
Is that it? Is that it?
Intervention in our electoral processes (not just the elections themselves) can be withheld from the voters because Liberal staff and appointees decide that allegations about Liberal nominations don't meet a threshold? What threshold?