Oh my, did I get that wrong!
Several weeks ago I wrote optimistically that the “Chinese election interference scandal” that has poisoned federal politics for months was beginning to run out of steam. Unfortunately, just like ex-Governor-General David Johnston, I failed to take into account a couple of things – the old adage that in politics perception is more important than facts, and the new reality of hyper-partisanship.
Johnston delivered a report last month demolishing much of the flimsy collection of allegations underpinning claims from the opposition and some media players that the Trudeau government failed to act on warnings about election interference by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) because the meddling was to the Liberals’ political benefit.
That narrative was based on a series of leaks by “national security” sources to the Globe and Mail and Global-TV. Given access to the intelligence behind the media reports, Johnston found that “the specific instances raised are less concerning than some media reporting has suggested, and in some cases tell a different story from what has been reported to date.”
Although Johnston reiterated concerns about foreign interference that go back years and announced plans for public hearings on how best to deal with the issue, that wasn’t what the opposition wanted to hear. So they took a different tack – going after the ex-G-G’s credibility and demanding a full no-holds-barred public inquiry conducted by someone else. The Conservative and Bloc leaders even turned down the chance to view – in secret – the classified material upon which Johnston had based his recommendations. That opportunity came with an invitation to report publicly if they reached a conclusion different from Johnston’s.
The secrecy provision would presumably prevent Poilievre and Blanchet from fully explaining why they disagreed. But remaining ignorant of the facts also left them free to keep spinning a conspiracy tale that works to their political advantage – all the while demanding a public inquiry to restore to the electoral system the integrity they have been actively undermining with their exaggerated claims.
It should be noted that the reporting, and the spin put on it by the Conservatives and Bloc, practically accused Trudeau and the Liberals of complicity with PRC interference efforts. When Johnston’s review of classified information failed to substantiate that accusation the Conservatives and Bloc moved from fact to perception – an apprehension of bias based on the former G-G’s past relationship with his “ski buddy” Justin Trudeau, his family and the foundation named after his father.
That was the moment at which parliamentary reporters and Jagmeet Singh’s NDP could have done an unbiased assessment of Johnston’s work so far and moved on to the question of how best to protect future elections from interference by foreign governments and other troublemakers. (See truckers convoy). Instead they chose to enable Poilievre and the sovereigntist Blanchet in their campaign of vilification against Johnston, a proxy for their hatred of Trudeau.
Singh explained joining the Conservative and Bloc demands for Johnston’s resignation and a full public inquiry because of the NDP’s concern that because of the perception of bias attached to the former G-G, his findings will not restore the public’s faith in the integrity of our electoral system. But the NDP may also enjoy being able to have the cake (influencing government policy in a minority parliament) and eat it too (responding to popular demand for a public inquiry).
Media keep it going
For their part, journalists who don’t work for the leaked-to media (Globe and Mail and Global-TV) seem to be swept along by another common phenomenon – scandal-mongering.
Fools for Scandal: How the Media invented Whitewater is the title of a book published in 1996 about the U.S. media’s obsession with an Arkansas land deal involving Bill and Hillary Clinton. That saga went on for many years without the proverbial smoking gun, until ending with the failed impeachment of Bill Clinton three years after the book came out. Most of those who report or comment on the national scene in this country seem willing to emulate their American peers from a quarter-century ago.
For Poilievre and his “sovereigntist buddy” Blanchet, keeping the scandal going involves refusing to look at the classified material that Johnston says explains his recommendation against a backward-looking public inquiry. For the scandal-obsessed media keeping the ball rolling means downplaying the main thrust of Johnston’s report which shows that in terms of actual evidence to support the headlines, the story has been running on fumes for months.
Johnston bowed to opposition pressure and announced on Friday he will resign after completing a brief final report, and recommended that Trudeau and the other party leaders find a replacement to carry on with public hearings on how best to shore up defences against foreign interference. But as the former G-G tries to make a dignified exit from the barroom brawl that has engulfed him it’s instructive to consider what his First Report, presented on May 23, says about the series of leak-based reports by the Globe and Mail and Global that have touched off and sustained the prolonged scandal.
Johnston’s report contains a blanket exoneration. “I have not found examples of Ministers, the Prime Minister or their offices knowingly ignoring intelligence, advice or recommendations on foreign interference or being driven by partisan considerations in dealing with these issues.” And his examination of the evidence takes the shine off most of the media’s prized revelations. Bearing in mind that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, many of the headline grabbers in this saga should have been approached with caution.
What Network?
Global News got the ball rolling in November of 2022 with a story claiming that the PRC gave $250,000 to a “network” of 11 political candidates in the Toronto area for the 2019 federal election, some of whom were “witting affiliates” of the PRC.
Johnston found “from limited intelligence that the PRC intended for funds to be sent to seven Liberal and four Conservative federal candidates through a community organization, political staff and (possibly unwittingly) a Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario MPP.”
“There is uncertainty about whether there was money, if it actually went to staff or the provincial MPP, and there is no intelligence suggesting any federal candidates received these funds.” As for the network, “no network was known to exist.”
Initial reporting had suggested the 11 candidates included nine Liberals and two Conservatives, the Conservatives presence an inconvenient fact that was overlooked because it didn’t fit the notion that interference was aimed at helping the Liberals. Now that Johnston has reported a 7-4 Liberal-Conservative ratio (and the possibly unwitting Ontario Conservative MPP) that canard should be abandoned and with it Poilievre’s refrain about “how Beijing helped the Liberal Party in multiple elections.” But so far, the even more inconvenient fact that four Conservative candidates were among the intended beneficiaries hasn’t provoked media interest.
Campaign finance violations
On Feb. 17, 2023 the Globe and Mail had a blockbuster of a story, featuring among others the claim that the PRC hatched a scheme whereby donors making campaign contributions to favoured candidates would be reimbursed the difference between the value of the tax credit and the contribution. Johnston’s report had this to say about that.
“CSIS is aware of allegations that the PRC engages in this activity. These allegations are concerning because the activity, if it were carried out, would be a credible threat to the electoral process. That is why this activity is prohibited by the Canada Elections Act. If there were credible evidence to justify an investigation, it would be referred to the Commissioner of Canada Elections. However, CSIS has not collected intelligence showing this activity is actually occurring.”
So did the Globe’s source make up that scenario, or was it based on something somebody somewhere said might be a good idea?
The Dong nomination
Han Dong, MP for Don Valley North, was twice a target of Global and its sources.
On February 25, Global reported that Dong had won the Liberal nomination in 2019 with help from several busloads of voters transported courtesy of the Chinese consulate. The story claimed that a few weeks before the election CSIS conducted a classified briefing with “senior Liberal party officials” to warn that Dong was a “witting affiliate” of the PRC’s election interference efforts.
Johnston’s investigation basically corroborated the Global story, but found nothing particularly alarming about it.
“Irregularities were observed with Mr. Dong’s nomination in 2019, and there is well-grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC Consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Dong maintains relationships. In reviewing the intelligence, I did not find evidence that Mr. Dong was aware of the irregularities or the PRC Consulate’s potential involvement in his nomination. The Prime Minister was briefed about these irregularities, although no specific recommendation was provided. He concluded there was no basis to displace Mr. Dong as the candidate for Don Valley North. This was not an unreasonable conclusion based on the intelligence available to the Prime Minister at the time.
Johnston seems to be giving Trudeau the benefit of the doubt. Others could well disagree with the Prime minister’s call on Dong’s candidacy. However, that would invite questions about how all parties pick their candidates, or even their leaders. Who were those tens of thousands of new Conservatives who signed up to support Poilievre’s leadership?
Han Dong and Global
Global-TV took a second run at Han Dong in March of this year, alleging that he met with the PRC’s consul-general in Toronto in February 2021 and advised against releasing Canadian hostages “the two Michaels” because it would benefit the Conservatives. The story looked fishy at the time. Dong confirmed he met the diplomat, but denied he advocated against releasing the hostages – which makes sense considering that it would likely have been the government, not the Conservatives, that would benefit from any release. Dong resigned from the Liberal caucus to clear his name, and sued Global for libel.
His case looks stronger in light of the Johnston report.
“There has been considerable media attention about an alleged transcript of this conversation. I have reviewed the same intelligence report that was provided to the Prime Minister relating to this allegation, which I am advised is the only intelligence that speaks to this issue. I can report the following. The allegation is false. Mr. Dong discussed the “two Michaels” with a PRC official, but did not suggest to the official that the PRC extend their detention. Ministers and the Prime Minister …did not believe the media reports when they came out, as they found Mr. Dong to be a loyal and helpful member of caucus. They received no recommendations about this allegation, as it is false.”
Targeting Chong’s family?
And then there is the case of Michael Chong, long-time Conservative MP and outspoken critic of the PRC’s mistreatment of China’s Uyghur minority. Chong has become something of a cause célèbre in the wake of a May 1 Globe and Mail report suggesting that his relatives in China were somehow victimized to deter him and others from criticizing the Chinese government. That Fife and Chase effort was based on CSIS intelligence contained in a May 20, 2021 overview of PRC interference. The newspaper report last month was followed by a response long advocated by anti-PRC hard-liners – within days the Liberals expelled Zhao Wei, a diplomat attached to the Toronto consulate.
David Johnston’s report did not provide much of a justification for the Liberal government’s newfound assertiveness. “There are indications that PRC officials contemplated action directed at both Chinese-Canadian MPs and their family members in China, and sought to build profiles on others,” he writes. “There is no intelligence indicating that the PRC took steps to threaten his family. There is intelligence indicating they were looking for information.”
Interestingly, what Johnston reports is not very different from the Globe and Mail article that launched the Chong chapter. According to the newspaper, CSIS reported that an officer of China’s intelligence service (later identified as Zhao Wei) sought information on Chong’s relatives “who may be located in the PRC, for further potential sanctions.”
The difference between the two versions is in the partisan spin. As Conservative critic Michael Cooper would have it, the Chinese diplomat Zhao had “arranged to sanction and punish family members in Hong Kong.” But there is no evidence sanctions or punishment being arranged, even from Chong, who says he cut off communication with his family in China in early 2021.
Johnston is critical, as were others, of the government’s mis-handing of the leaked overview document and a separate “issues management note” to the Minister of Public Safety about the targeting of Chong’s family. The overview report ended up with Trudeau’s national security advisor who apparently didn’t read it. The second document never reached the Public Safety Minister because he was not on the Top Secret Network e-mail list.
As bad as it looks, that breakdown in communication is nothing compared with CSIS’ failure to communicate with the targeted Chong. According to Johnston’s report, the issues management note indicated that CSIS intended to provide Chong and another MP with a briefing. “CSIS conducted the briefing, but we understand from Mr. Chong’s statements to the media and PROC (a parliamentary committee) that it did not include the detail with respect to his family.”
So on June 24, 2021, about a month after circulating a note about Chong’s family being targeted by the PRC, CSIS conducted a briefing with Chong and failed to mention that particular detail. If that doesn’t stretch credulity to the limit, add the fact that Chong met again with CSIS in August 2021, February 2022 and July 2022 yet says the Globe story on May 1, 2023 was the first he heard about his Chinese relatives as potential targets. So far those charged with covering politics in our national capital have been too busy chronicling the mugging of David Johnston to look into that astonishing breakdown in communication. However, further light may be shed when the head of CSIS testifies this week to one of the three parliamentary committees still hunting for witches.
Challenging the substance
Most of the opposition response to the Johnston report has ignored the substance of his findings on the media leaks and have gone straight to the personal attacks. However, one factual dispute has emerged from Johnston’s review of two assertions in the story published in the Globe and Mail’s Feb. 17 edition. Citing security sources, the newspaper reported that the PRC had established “an orchestrated machine” with two primary aims – to ensure a minority Liberal government and defeat certain Conservative candidates. After reviewing intelligence and interviewing CSIS and a gaggle of top government officials, Johnston reported the following.
“There was an unconfirmed indication that a very small number of PRC diplomats expressed a preference for the LPC to the CPC in the 2021 Election. Other members of diplomatic staff have had a variety of opinions and preferences over different periods of time, and in different elections. But there was no indication that the PRC had a plan to orchestrate a Liberal minority.
”There was heavy re-circulation on WeChat of an article from The Hill Times (Canadian media) and The Global Times (PRC-operated media) questioning Mr. O’Toole’s (the CPC) leader’s strategy regarding China. However, the re-circulation could not be attributed to any state actor.”
That same Globe story claimed that some Conservative candidates, including defeated Vancouver-area ex-MP Kenny Chiu, were targeted by the PRC. Johnston conceded there was online misinformation aimed at Chiu and his proposed foreign agent registration bill. Again, Johnston reported that “the misinformation could not be traced to a state-sponsored source.”
Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole, following a private briefing with the head of CSIS, has a different interpretation. He claimed in a House of Commons speech on May 30 that CSIS told him that a campaign of misinformation and voter suppression was “orchestrated” by the PRC before and during the 2021 general election. Perhaps CSIS head David Vigneault will clear that up when he goes before the aforementioned committee this week. Has CSIS found evidence of orchestration by “a state-sponsored source” since Johnston completed his investigation?
Leakers, partisans and the media
David Johnston had some tough words about leakers and excessive partisanship.
“Suffice it to say, leaking secret intelligence is unlawful and a breach of duty by the leaker. It cannot be justified by any frustration the leaker may have with the government’s response. It also risks great harm to Canada’s ability to gather intelligence (and the safety of intelligence sources) and to work cooperatively with allies in doing so. Sources dry up, and some may be in physical danger.”
On opposition politicians who refuse to to be sworn to secrecy to examine the intelligence basis for his findings, Johnston wrote:
“… this matter is too important for anyone aspiring to lead the country to intentionally maintain a veil of ignorance on these matters. While political parties may disagree about policy and priorities, they should do so from a common understanding of the true facts, not as speculated or hypothesized from media reports based on leaks of partial information.
He went easier on the media, suggesting the worst sin was failing to put information in context.
“When viewed in full context with all of the relevant intelligence, several leaked materials that raised legitimate questions turn out to have been misconstrued in some media reports, presumably because of the lack of this context.… when the intelligence is reviewed and considered in the context of all relevant intelligence, the specific instances raised are less concerning than some media reporting has suggested, and in some cases tell a different story from what has been reported to date.”
Based on his analysis he could have been a lot tougher – not just on the reporters and editors at the Globe and Mail and Global TV but on many of those working for most other media outlets. They’ve run with the story based on content they haven’t independently verified. When presented with evidence that many elements of the story were – to put it gently – misconstrued, they’ve moved on to join in the campaign to discredit the messenger and keep the scandal rolling along.
My earlier report on this controversy used the headline “Leakers, the Conservatives and the media turn a molehill into a menacing mountain.” The molehill has been further diminished by facts and evidence, but with Johnston’s departure the latest shovelful, the mountain built on partisan venom and media complicity continues to grow.
-30-
2 COMMENTS
Bruce wark on June 11, 2023 at 11:04 pmThanks Richard for this thorough analysis. Aside from the journalistic failings you document so convincingly, I agree that members of the Ottawa Press Gallery have grown tired of Trudeau and have therefore, joined in the push for “a new man with a new plan” to star in their Parliament Hill soap operas. News, after all, is a serial as media scholar John Fiske pointed out long ago — an ongoing soap opera, he said, where men in suits perennially vie for power. The afternoon soaps, on the other hand, he pointed out, are about emotional and family relationships told from women’s perspectives. Journalists like to think that their work is based strictly on facts, but their “stories,” as you show here, are old-fashioned morality tales where black-hatted villainy battles against the white-hatted crusaders for truth & justice proving the truth of the age-old journalistic maxim that is often repeated only half jokingly: “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story!”REPLY
Richard Starr on June 12, 2023 at 1:31 pmAnd now we read that Fife and Chase have won the Charles Lynch Award for outstanding national affairs coverage for their work as stenographers for CSIS leakers. This rivals Henry Kissinger winning the Nobel Peace Prize
Well done, Richard. You have a talent and skill for taking the facts that are out there and actually paying attention to them, then restating them in ways that clarify and focus their meaning for the rest of us. It brings order out of the clamour, and I really appreciate it and hope you’ll keep on doing it.