Former governor general David Johnston says he will resign from his role as special rapporteur on foreign interference because of the “highly partisan atmosphere” around his appointment.
“I am therefore tendering my resignation, effective no later than the end of June 2023, or as soon as I deliver a brief final report, which I hope to be earlier,” Johnston said in a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on June 9.
Johnston said that while his objective as special rapporteur was to build trust in Canada’s democratic institutions, in practice, “given the highly partisan atmosphere around my appointment and work, my leadership has had the opposite effect.”
Johnston’s appointment was strongly criticized by all opposition parties. Among the concerns cited were his past ties to the Trudeau family and the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, as well as his own dealings with Beijing.
Trudeau appointed Johnston to the role on March 15 amid media reports based on intelligence leaks of rampant interference by Beijing in Canada, including in elections. Trudeau, who had refused repeated requests by opposition parties to hold an independent inquiry into the issue, said he would hold one if Johnston concludes one is required.
‘Urgent Priority’
In his June 9 resignation letter, Johnston said that reviewing the issue of foreign interference should be an “urgent priority” for the government and Parliament.“Although I concluded that a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act would not be a useful way to deal with what is almost exclusively classified information, I recommend public hearings both to educate the public and to consider necessary reforms to various aspects of the government’s systems and policies dealing with foreign interference,” he wrote.
“The concluding pages of my first report identified numerous areas in need of study, analysis and reform, including, although not limited to, the effects of foreign interference on diaspora communities, legal and regulatory reforms necessary to more comprehensively address foreign interference, and a comprehensive review of the way in which intelligence in communicated and processed from security agencies through to and within government.”
He also asked Trudeau to appoint a “respected person” with national security experience to complete the probe.
Opposition Reaction
Reacting to Johnston’s resignation, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre reiterated his call for a public inquiry into Beijing’s interference.“He has destroyed the reputation of a former Governor General all to cover up his own refusal to defend Canada from foreign interests and threats.”
“Now the Prime Minister must call a public inquiry, so that we can restore trust in our democracy,” he tweeted.
Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said his party welcomes this “dignified decision,” while urging the Liberal government to allow the Parliament to direct the probe into foreign interference.
Committee Hearing
Johnston appeared before MPs at the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs committee on June 6 while still serving as special rapporteur.A number of opposition MPs outlined their concerns with his appointment and his May 23 report.
“We still haven’t gotten the answers we sought from the government, and with respect, neither will you, because in your first report, you’ve indicated that your upcoming hearings will not be focusing on who knew what and when, and that the focus will not be on looking at government records and speaking to government personnel,” Conservative MP Michael Chong said.
He also raised concern that Johnston, along with the other bodies tasked with reviewing foreign interference, all “serve at the pleasure of the prime minister,” rather than Parliament.
“There were very few if any criticisms of the current Liberal government in the report. And I found that concerning as well that you'd left out the Trudeau Foundation, given the leaked report from CSIS that $140,000 had been given through various channels from the Communist Party of China to the Trudeau Foundation,” Dancho said.
Johnston told the committee that he’s impartial.
“To suggest that I’m part of a Liberal clique is just wrong,” he said.
He also said his report points out a number of areas that aren’t working in the government’s apparatus in dealing with the issue of foreign interference.
“[It points out] a number of areas defects. I have welcomed the initiatives that have been taken, such as working now to establish a foreign agent registry, which would put that in the public realm. That’s been a matter that I had to study, because it’s got pros and cons,” Johnston said.
Not All Intelligence Reviewed
During his testimony, Johnston also said he could not be certain that he had consulted all relevant information before producing his report on foreign interference.“Am I confident that we saw every bit of information that we would like to have had or perhaps should have had, given the ocean of information? The answer is no,” he said.
“I’m not sure how we could absorb any more than we had in the space of eight weeks.”
Johnston’s admission that he was pressed for time in the review was seized on by the opposition.
Bloc Québecois MP Alain Therrien said rushing the work to address the foreign interference issue was leading to a “botched” job. “[It’s] faster, but we won’t shed light,” he said.
Other MPs also sought clarification on how Johnston could come to certain conclusions in his report about recent allegations that have surfaced in media reports.
“How could you have such different conclusions from what Mr. O’Toole received?” asked Singh.
Singh pointed to a section in Johnston’s report that concluded “misinformation could not be traced to a state-sponsored source” in the case of former Conservative MP Chiu.
“The evidence that we had before us that permitted us to come to the conclusion as you suggest was what was available to us that time,” Johnston told the committee.
Conservative MP Michael Cooper asked Johnston if this meant he didn’t have all the material evidence and intelligence when writing his report.
“When we drafted our report, we had the intelligence then available from CSIS and other sources, and that was the basis of our conclusion,” Johnston replied.
He reiterated that he and his team were working with the information “available to us” when pressed further by Cooper.
“The only way to reconcile what Mr. O’Toole says versus what is in your record is one of three things: either you omitted material information, you misinterpreted that information, or this government withheld that information from you,” Cooper said.
