The foreign interference inquiry begins with one big question — how much must it keep secret?
The inquiry, now underway, is set to hear from the CSIS director and the public safety minister
The independent inquiry into foreign electoral interference began its public hearings Monday morning with a pledge to uncover the truth. But before it can take stock of the problem, the commission first needs to work out what it can — and can't — talk about publicly.
The inquiry — officially the "Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions" — was triggered by media reports last year which, citing unnamed security sources and classified documents, accused China of interfering in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue has been asked to investigate the extent to which Beijing, Russia and other nations interfered in those elections, and how information about foreign interference flowed within the federal government. Just last week, the commission asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government to share information about possible meddling in elections by India.
In her opening remarks Monday, Hogue said she and the commission's counsel will make every effort "to get to the bottom of things and understand what the country has faced, and what it may still be facing, in terms of foreign interference."
"We represent the public interest and our goal is to uncover the truth, whatever it may be," she said.
Hogue, a Quebec Court of Appeal judge, said the commission's goal is to share that truth with the public as much as possible. But that's easier said than done.
Commission counsel pointed out Monday that the inquiry must respect the laws that protect Canada's national security interests, especially when top-secret documents and sources are involved. Hogue and her team of lawyers have been granted permission to look at classified information, but they don't have the authority to declassify it for the public.
Later this week, the commission will hear from two players who do have that power: Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director David Vigneault and Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc.
Gordon Cameron, one of the commission's lawyers, said the inquiry will try to persuade the federal government to disclose as much information as possible — and if the federal government disagrees, the commission could challenge it in court.
Cameron said 80 per cent of the documents disclosed to the commission so far are classified at the "top-secret" level or higher.
"The methods used to gather foreign interference information often include highly sensitive sources such as human sources whose lives are at risk, or technologies — investigative techniques or methods — the government has of gathering information that it simply does not want adversaries to know about," he said.
Cameron said everything that comes out of the inquiry will be analyzed by some of the most sophisticated intelligence agencies in the world.
"These intelligence agencies have massive databanks of information and have the ability to take the crumbs that come out of this inquiry and combine them with that information and draw conclusions that are very difficult to predict," he said
Stephanie Carvin, a professor of international relations at Carleton University and a former national security analyst with CSIS, said the intelligence service has an opportunity to be more candid with Canadians about the threat.
"This is a very big public forum to make a very definitive statement about the situation in Canada. There is an opportunity here for the service to put its case forward," she said.
"Whether or not the service will take the opportunity to do so is questionable. They're not comfortable in these environments, just to put it mildly."
Former CSIS director Ward Elcock said the service still has a lot to lose by discussing its methods in a public forum.
"I do worry about the issue of sources and methods becoming public and impairing the ability of our country to ... defend itself from foreign interference," he said.
"Foreign espionage is something carried out by a bunch of professional intelligence officers from another country. Once they're identified, they disappear, or that that particular branch of their efforts will disappear and they'll pop up somewhere else. So once you've identified them, you don't always want to reveal that you've identified them. And that's the problem."
Inquiry will dig into the big picture in March
Hogue said Monday the commission — Canada's 373rd commission since Confederation — will consider holding in-camera hearings for those who fear for their safety and the safety of their families.
Carvin said there should be an environment where victims of foreign interference feel they can come forward without facing retaliation.
"My hope is that the victims will be heard," she said "For too long, we've looked at foreign interference as a non-Canadian problem. We've looked at this as an overseas problem, or as an issue that doesn't impact Canadians. But these are our neighbours."
In March, the commission will examine the extent to which foreign interference occurred in past elections. In the fall, the inquiry will examine the government's ability to detect, deter and counter foreign interference.
The road to this inquiry has been long and contentious.
The government initially resisted opposition pressure to call an inquiry and instead asked special rapporteur on foreign interference David Johnston to investigate the issues and decide whether an inquiry was needed.
The former governor general concluded that foreign governments are attempting to influence Canadian politics but recommended against an inquiry, arguing that much of the classified information he had reviewed would need to remain secret.
Opposition parties were outraged by Johnston's conclusion. The NDP tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling for his resignation. The motion passed with the support of the Conservatives and Bloc Québécois; both of those parties had questioned Johnston's impartiality in the past.
Johnston resigned the position in June, saying his role had become too muddled in political controversy for him to continue.
Opposition MPs then argued that a public inquiry into foreign interference would be the only way to maintain Canadians' confidence in the electoral system.
Clashes over party status
The inquiry is still mired in controversy, calling into question what it can expect to achieve.
In December, Hogue turned down a plea by a coalition of human rights groups to limit the standing of three men accused of having ties to the Chinese government.
The Human Rights Coalition opposed granting full standing to independent MP Han Dong (a former Liberal MP) and Markham's deputy mayor Michael Chan, and intervener status to Sen. Yuen Pau Woo, arguing their "possible links and support for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)" disqualified them.
Hogue wrote in response that she "cannot make findings of fact or jump to conclusions before hearing the evidence." The men have denied the allegations.
Hogue also rejected the Conservative Party's request for full standing and instead granted it intervener status.
In a statement, the Conservative Party called Hogue's decision "deeply concerning" and said it "undermines the credibility of the entire process."
Conservative MP and foreign affairs critic Michael Chong, himself a target of an interference campaign, does have full standing in the inquiry. Former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole, who has said CSIS informed him he's been an ongoing target of a Chinese government campaign of misinformation, has intervener status.
NDP MP Jenny Kwan — who says CSIS has told her she has been targeted by the Chinese government — has full party status in the inquiry, while her party has intervener status.
Hogue said she could still ask interveners or the interveners' lawyers to ask certain witnesses questions "if I feel, along the way, that it may be useful in better understanding certain facts."
Her interim report is due May 3 and her final report is due by the end of the year.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
