This Tuesday, Justice Hogue’s long-awaited Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference (PIFI) finally dropped. It leaves the shortest of all possible runways to implement it before the selection of a new Liberal leader (and prime minister) and an upcoming federal election.
The headline of the report is that foreign interference is an increasingly sophisticated and growing problem in Canada’s political processes and broader society. Hostile ideological opponent states do seek to direct resources and funnel votes behind preferred candidates, deploy retaliatory disinformation campaigns—the real threat to democracy that the PIFI underlines—against politicians who have criticized them, and commit crimes on Canadian soil to intimidate and silence their diaspora populations.
But none of this is a real surprise to anyone who lives in the real world, Hogue herself concedes. Fortunately, she concludes, we have been lucky: there have been no catastrophic democratic subversions…yet.
Hogue does throw a few jabs. The Liberal government has “taken too long to act” and served as a “poor communicator” to the public on foreign interference matters. No kidding.
Since stories first broke in the winter of 2023 about allegations of the People’s Republic of China meddling in the Liberal nomination contest of Don Valley North four years previous, the Trudeau government has begrudgingly shared only the minimal amount of information they could get away with. They started with a “nothing to see here, the allegations are racist” approach, before moving to the “this is an internal party matter” ruse, to then trying the farce of appointing a family-friendly “special rapporteur,” before finally settling upon the inquiry that the situation demanded from the outset.
Invited late to the party, Hogue and company did a lot of work. After 39 days of public hearings (and nearly half as many behind closed doors), hearing from more than 150 witnesses, reviewing over 50,000 documents (some of which required hounding the government to cough up), and the gainful employment of dozens of “commission frequent flyer” lawyers and academics, we got a seven-volume document that runs nearly 900 pages.
The upshot is that most of the errors and allegations of impropriety around foreign interference that have dominated our headlines for nearly two years are the result of nobody taking foreign interference seriously enough. While there was no smoking gun, layers of government incompetence were unearthed.
When it comes to poorly communicating and slowly acting upon intelligence between the security establishment and the machinery of government (involving, say, gross delays to the ministerial signing of politically delicate warrants), Hogue says most players saw their role and responsibility ending when information was passed along to the next guy. The mantra seemed to be “It’s no longer my problem.” Too few protocols in place, in other words, for when and what to expect in response, without indicating something was off the rails to require follow-up.
Foreign Inquiry commissioner Marie-Josee Hogue looks on as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears as a witness at the federal inquiry into foreign interference in Ottawa on Wednesday, Oct. 16, 2024. Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press.
The same story of underestimating foreign interference appears when it comes to parliamentarians sidling up to foreign powers. Famously, in its report released last year, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) spoke of “witting and semi-witting” beneficiaries of foreign interference. While the committee never used the words “treason” or “traitors,” that is what their report was taken to mean by party leaders, journalists, and the public. Demands for the release of lists of names ensued.
But Hogue pours cold legal water over these interpretations. As a judge, she highlights there is no evidence to suggest that any parliamentarians have acted as “traitors” by the legal definition: “conspiring with foreign states to undermine the interests of Canada.”
Rather, she stresses, there is merely intelligence to signal that some parliamentarians have engaged in “troubling” and “problematic” relations with foreign governments that were not ultimately seen as undermining the interests of Canada.
This was occasionally done out of “naivety” (i.e., misunderstanding the nature of foreign interference), and sometimes through “questionable ethics” (i.e. accepting personal or electoral benefits from mysterious sources, possibly turning a blind eye and asking too few questions in the process). The immediate media reaction to the PIFI report yesterday afternoon was to suggest that Hogue had repudiated NSICOP.
But David McGuinty, the chair of NSICOP, took to CTV’s Power Play with Vassy Kapelos to stress that there was in fact “not a lot of difference” between his committee’s and Hogue’s conclusions. It appears that NSICOP’s interlocutors, such as NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, were using a popular or political understanding of “traitor,” falling short of Hogue’s strict legal definition, but in keeping with the idea that there appear to be “naive” fools and opportunistic creeps with “questionable ethics” with seats in Parliament.
Indeed, Hogue is criticizing the reaction to the NSICOP report itself, more so than its content: “The situation is not as clear cut, nor as extreme, as the fears provoked by the NSICOP report,” the justice writes.
Criminal “traitors,” “fools,” or “creeps”—regardless of the poisonous word you pick, with the publication of Hogue and the public’s newfound understanding of the foreign interference threat, there is now no excuse for us continuing to play footsies with hostile foreign interests.
After all the bloodletting, most of the 51 recommendations Hogue makes would require legislative and institutional reform that the currently comatose Parliament simply cannot undertake prior to an incoming election. Nevertheless, it is within the power of all political parties to act on Hogue’s urgent calls to immediately tighten up leadership and nomination contests, and for all leaders to avail themselves of full security clearance so that they may hear all CSIS has to tell them about foreign interference.
It is all well and good that the Liberal Party has finally chosen to heed calls to stop allowing foreign nationals on student visas and those without a Canadian address to participate in their upcoming leadership vote. But who ensures these rules are even being followed? It still sounds a lot like an honours system.
It will further be important for all parties to follow Hogue’s urging to undertake proper analysis of their registration data to ensure those voting in nominations are who they say they are and live where they say they live. Likewise, paper cash should be removed from the party donations process, as cheques and electronic transactions are far more difficult to doctor.
Hogue waggles her judicial finger at all the political parties, noting their “resistance” to have any constraints placed upon their internal voting practices. But with the PIFI report in hand, it would be an insult to the intelligence of Canadian voters for any party to resist these basic reforms for another moment.
Michael Kempa is a criminologist with the spirit of an investigative journalist. He focuses on exposing the politics behind policing, security and criminal justice operations, policies and reforms. Based out of the University of Ottawa, he has contributed to The Hub, The National Post, CBC, Walrus Magazine, and others. He…...
