On foreign interference, Johnston asks Canadians to trust him — and Parliament
CBC
Like Canada's grandfather emerging from his study intent on imposing some order on the grandkids making an unholy racket, David Johnston cleared his throat and appealed for calm and reason on Tuesday.
"Our democracy is built on trust," the nearly 82-year-old former governor general said.
He spoke in a quiet and gravelly voice. Nearly everyone within earshot of it was found wanting.
In his report, Johnston says that while foreign states are actively bent on interfering with Canadian politics, some of the intelligence gathered by Canada's security agencies has been "misconstrued" in media reports, leading to "unsubstantiated speculation" and "inaccurate connections being drawn." In a couple of instances, Johnston writes, the reporting was simply wrong.
As for the leaks themselves, Johnston says that the "leaking of secret information … cannot be justified by any frustration the leaker may have with the government's response." Such leaks can be destructive and dangerous, he adds, and finding the responsible public servants is a "matter of urgency."
In Johnston's estimation, the available evidence does not show that the government allowed or tolerated foreign interference — the most explosive insinuation made by the opposition. But the "machinery of government needs significant improvements" because the flow of intelligence information within government is haphazard and disorganized, he writes. More also needs to be done to raise the public's awareness of the threat of foreign interference.
In response to all this, Johnston writes, the nation's political actors have fallen far short of showing the seriousness required.
"I fear that the way that this story unfolded has led elected officials to engage with it in an excessively partisan way, which harms the confidence Canadians have in their institutions," he says. "There has been too much posturing, and ignoring facts in favour of slogans, from all parties."
WATCH: David Johnston on calls for a public inquiry
But Johnston did not recommend that the matter be taken out of the political arena and assigned to a public inquiry presided over by a former judge or legal scholar. Quite the opposite, in fact.
An inquiry had appeared almost inevitable — at least politically. The government needed to do something to address the mounting questions about its handling of attempted foreign interference by the Chinese state. A public inquiry would be something big and definitive — therefore, the government would call an inquiry.
But Johnston's argument is that an inquiry wouldn't be able to do or say much more than he now has. It would run into the same need to take evidence in secret and keep important information in confidence. It also would not be wrapped up quickly.
Johnston's alternative puts the onus back on Parliament and parliamentarians.
For the moment, Canadians are being asked to take Johnston's word for it. But in addition to the 55-page public report released on Tuesday, Johnston has prepared a classified annex which explains how he came to his conclusions in greater detail and with references to the relevant secret documents.
