Commissioner Justice Marie-Josée Hogue speaks at the Public Inquiry Into Foreign Interference in Federal Election Processes and Democratic Institutions, in Ottawa, on Feb. 2.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
There are looking to be three likely victims of China’s meddling in the federal elections of 2019 and 2021. The loudest claims come from the Conservative Party, which contends that it may have lost up to nine ridings in 2021 as the result of Beijing’s efforts.
Then there is the integrity of the electoral system itself. The ultimate outcome of the vote – who formed government – is not alleged to have been altered, but foreign interference in even a single local race cannot be ignored.
And lastly, there are diaspora communities, the target of pressure from Beijing in many ways, including during the two election campaigns.
That trio should be the focus of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions. But Justice Marie-Josée Hogue has circumscribed the ability of the Conservatives to take part in the factual phase of the proceedings; the party is not completely excluded but it has been pushed to the margins. Conservative MP Michael Chong has been granted full standing.
The electoral system should be the relentless focus of the inquiry (its name is a hint), but Justice Hogue has blurred that focus through her early decisions, most notably the ruling granting full status to independent MP Han Dong and to former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Michael Chan. Each will be able to cross-examine witnesses.
That decision has led to representatives of diaspora communities to absent themselves from the proceedings. The Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project pulled out in January, and the human-rights group Canadian Friends of Hong Kong, or CFHK, followed suit this week.
In response, Justice Hogue has provided only vague assurances: confidential information won’t be shared; the right to cross-examine witnesses (perhaps) will be limited. Even then, her decision from early February indicated she would only impose such limitations after direct examination.
On Thursday, her office issued a statement that attempted to assuage concerns, noting that she could allow testimony behind closed doors with only herself and commission lawyers present. Presumably, no one at the commission noticed the contradiction of witnesses being publicly silenced in testifying about Beijing’s attempts to silence them. That statement also noted that some diaspora groups will still be taking part in the inquiry.
This mess stems from Justice Hogue’s decisions last year that denied the Conservatives full standing and gave such standing to Mr. Chan and to Mr. Dong. The boycott this week by a second diaspora group intensifies doubts about how the inquiry will be able to effectively probe Beijing’s interference efforts and what Ottawa did about them.
Justice Hogue said she denied the Conservatives full standing in part so that the inquiry would be, and would be seen to be, “non-partisan and independent.” The judge has all the powers she needs to shut down disruptive partisanship. She need not leap to a verdict before there has been a crime.
Equally problematic was Justice Hogue’s decision to give Mr. Chan and Mr. Dong rights to cross-examine diaspora groups. The Uyghur group says that the commission has “failed to protect” individuals in its community, while the CFHK says it has “grave concerns regarding the objectivity and the security integrity” of the inquiry as a result of the decision.
Justice Hogue has noted that she retains the right to revoke standing. She should exercise that power, and downgrade Mr. Chan and Mr. Dong to intervenor status, which would allow them to make submissions but strip them of the right to cross-examine witnesses. At a bare minimum, she needs to pre-emptively bar them from cross-examining diaspora groups.
Conversely, Justice Hogue needs to give the Conservatives the ability to question witnesses. A reversal of Justice Hogue’s December decision may be too much to expect. Instead, she could give Mr. Chong the widest latitude to make inquiries on behalf of his party.
The inquiry’s overriding concern should be restoring Canadians’ faith in the integrity of the electoral system and answering the questions of what the government knew, when it knew it, and what actions it took. Everything else is a detour or, as increasingly seems the case, a stepping stone to failure.