Former governor-general David Johnston appears before a Commons committee reviewing his nomination as elections debates commissioner on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Nov. 6, 2018.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Jean-Pierre Kingsley served as Canada’s chief electoral officer from 1990 to 2007.
To David Johnston:
You have accepted the unenviable task of deciding upon the course of action to be followed by the government in the matter of Chinese intervention in Canada’s electoral process. You’ve been asked to review the findings of two closed-door panels that the federal government has set up to investigate Beijing’s interference activities in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and make recommendations that could include a formal inquiry, a judicial review, or some other process. That is the commitment that was made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau when he appointed you as the independent special rapporteur on foreign interference in March.
Please make no mistake about it: The matter of how the information has been treated within the various security establishments – as well as between them and the government, and possibly within the government too, including with the Deputy Ministers National Security Committee – is the overarching concern, and Canadians eagerly await your unbiased findings. But the vital piece remains the involvement of China in our electoral process, and on that issue, there are many important outstanding questions that you must unearth the answers to, for the sake of Canada’s democracy.
How was the interference perpetrated? What messages were sent and when – were they sent before or during the electoral campaigns? Which candidate and which political party were favoured or disfavoured? Which media were utilized? Which persons or organizations were involved inside and outside Canada? How were the reported messaging campaigns funded, and were the financing and third-party provisions of the Canada Elections Act breached?
The financial regulating regime of Canadian elections is second to none in the world, and it remains the envy of countries that are grappling with the effects of money and its influence-seeking providers on their less stable democracies. Your questions will allow us to defend that priceless institution.
Much has been said and written about the perceived difficulty of holding a public inquiry because of the national security implications of bringing classified information to the public. But we already know that it’s Beijing that is behind these efforts to pervert our democracy; the Prime Minister and members of his government have made that clear in their words and actions, including in the recent expulsion of Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei from Canada over his reported role in targeting a member of Parliament. A wider investigation can also only benefit Canadians, so that they know if there are other countries, entities or individuals that are meddling in our affairs. Protecting our sources of security information is certainly crucial, especially in the name of trust among our allies in the international community, but if you were to order a public inquiry, an impartial head – perhaps a judge of standing, since our courts are already set up to deal with the potential disclosure of classified information – could decide upon the best way to treat such delicate matters. In the end, what needs to be made clear is that our security apparatus exists to serve our democracy; it cannot be an obstacle to that cause.
The stakes are high, and you face an unenviably tall order. But there is good news, Mr. Johnston: It seems to me your work will be relatively straightforward. After all, it has become increasingly clear that we need a public inquiry.
Only a public inquiry will steer Canadians in the re-establishment of our trust in our electoral system. It is the first in the world to have been established under an independent Officer of Parliament, having been done so by prime minister Sir Robert Borden through legislation in 1920. There is widespread agreement that our system has served us exceedingly well. Moreover, you will have had the time to design the inquiry so as to allow Mr. Trudeau to establish it practically upon receipt of your report. This is a positive thing, as we can no longer suffer any further delay, and too much time has already been lost.
Mr. Johnston, you have a sterling reputation that is well-earned from your years as professor, university administrator, and of course, as a former governor-general. Your review will surely be impartial. But much has come out through investigative reporting since you began your review. No matter how prestigious your credentials, the fact is that a broader body of Canadians must be given the power to determine what exactly took place. And that means that Canadians need a public inquiry. The time, very simply, has come.