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\u2019t what the opposition wanted to hear. So they took a different tack \u2013 going after the ex-G-G\u2019s 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 \u2013 in secret \u2013 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\u2019s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2013 all the while demanding a public inquiry to restore to the electoral system the integrity they have been actively undermining with their exaggerated claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019s review of classified information failed to substantiate that accusation the Conservatives and Bloc moved from fact to perception \u2013 an apprehension of bias based on the former G-G\u2019s past relationship with his \u201cski buddy\u201d Justin Trudeau, his family and the foundation named after his father. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
That was the moment at which parliamentary reporters and Jagmeet Singh\u2019s NDP could have done an unbiased assessment of Johnston\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Singh explained joining the Conservative and Bloc demands for Johnston\u2019s resignation and a full public inquiry because of the NDP\u2019s concern that because of the perception of bias attached to the former G-G, his findings will not restore the public\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Media keep it going<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n For their part, journalists who don\u2019t work for the leaked-to media (Globe and Mail <\/em>and Global-TV) seem to be swept along by another common phenomenon \u2013 scandal-mongering. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Fools for Scandal: How the Media invented Whitewater<\/em> is the title of a book published in 1996 about the U.S. media\u2019s 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For Poilievre and his \u201csovereigntist buddy\u201d 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\u2019s report which shows that in terms of actual evidence to support the headlines, the story has been running on fumes for months. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s instructive to consider what his First Report, presented on May 23, says about the series of leak-based reports by the Globe and Mail<\/em> and Global that have touched off and sustained the prolonged scandal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnston\u2019s report contains a blanket exoneration. \u201cI 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.\u201d And his examination of the evidence takes the shine off most of the media\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What Network?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Global News got the ball rolling in November of 2022 with a story claiming that the PRC gave $250,000 to a \u201cnetwork\u201d of 11 political candidates in the Toronto area for the 2019 federal election, some of whom were \u201cwitting affiliates\u201d of the PRC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnston found \u201cfrom 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.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere 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.\u201d As for the network, \u201cno network was known to exist.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019t 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\u2019s refrain about \u201chow Beijing helped the Liberal Party in multiple elections.\u201d But so far, the even more inconvenient fact that four Conservative candidates were among the intended beneficiaries hasn\u2019t provoked media interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Campaign finance violations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n On Feb. 17, 2023 the Globe and Mail<\/em> 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\u2019s report had this to say about that. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cCSIS 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n So did the Globe\u2019s <\/em>source make up that scenario, or was it based on something somebody somewhere said might be a good idea?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dong nomination <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Han Dong, MP for Don Valley North, was twice a target of Global and its sources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201csenior Liberal party officials\u201d to warn that Dong was a \u201cwitting affiliate\u201d of the PRC\u2019s election interference efforts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnston\u2019s investigation basically corroborated the Global story, but found nothing particularly alarming about it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIrregularities were observed with Mr. Dong\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnston seems to be giving Trudeau the benefit of the doubt. Others could well disagree with the Prime minister\u2019s call on Dong\u2019s 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\u2019s leadership?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Han Dong and Global<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Global-TV took a second run at Han Dong in March of this year, alleging that he met with the PRC\u2019s consul-general in Toronto in February 2021 and advised against releasing Canadian hostages \u201cthe two Michaels\u201d 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 \u2013 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n His case looks stronger in light of the Johnston report. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere 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 \u201ctwo Michaels\u201d with a PRC official, but did not suggest to the official that the PRC extend their detention. Ministers and the Prime Minister \u2026did 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Targeting Chong\u2019s family?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n And then there is the case of Michael Chong, long-time Conservative MP and outspoken critic of the PRC\u2019s mistreatment of China\u2019s Uyghur minority. Chong has become something of a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre<\/em> in the wake of a May 1 Globe and Mail<\/em> 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 \u2013 within days the Liberals expelled Zhao Wei, a diplomat attached to the Toronto consulate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n David Johnston\u2019s report did not provide much of a justification for the Liberal government\u2019s newfound assertiveness. \u201cThere 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,\u201d he writes. \u201cThere is no intelligence indicating that the PRC took steps to threaten his family. There is intelligence indicating they were looking for information.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, what Johnston reports is not very different from the Globe and Mail<\/em> article that launched the Chong chapter. According to the newspaper, CSIS reported that an officer of China\u2019s intelligence service (later identified as Zhao Wei) sought information on Chong\u2019s relatives \u201cwho may be located in the PRC, for further potential sanctions.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference between the two versions is in the partisan spin. As Conservative critic Michael Cooper would have it, the Chinese diplomat Zhao had \u201carranged to sanction and punish family members in Hong Kong.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Johnston is critical, as were others, of the government\u2019s mis-handing of the leaked overview document and a separate \u201cissues management note\u201d to the Minister of Public Safety about the targeting of Chong\u2019s family. The overview report ended up with Trudeau\u2019s national security advisor who apparently didn\u2019t read it. The second document never reached the Public Safety Minister because he was not on the Top Secret Network e-mail list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As bad as it looks, that breakdown in communication is nothing compared with CSIS\u2019 failure to communicate with the targeted Chong. According to Johnston\u2019s report, the issues management note indicated that CSIS intended to provide Chong and another MP with a briefing. \u201cCSIS conducted the briefing, but we understand from Mr. Chong\u2019s statements to the media and PROC (a parliamentary committee) that it did not include the detail with respect to his family.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n So on June 24, 2021, about a month after circulating a note about Chong\u2019s family being targeted by the PRC, CSIS conducted a briefing with Chong and failed to mention that particular detail. If that doesn\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Challenging the substance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s review of two assertions in the story published in the Globe and Mail\u2019s<\/em> Feb. 17 edition. Citing security sources, the newspaper reported that the PRC had established \u201can orchestrated machine\u201d with two primary aims \u2013 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201dThere 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\u2019Toole\u2019s (the CPC) leader\u2019s strategy regarding China. However, the re-circulation could not be attributed to any state actor.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cthe misinformation could not be traced to a state-sponsored source.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Former Conservative leader Erin O\u2019Toole, 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 \u201corchestrated\u201d 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 \u201ca state-sponsored source\u201d since Johnston completed his investigation? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leakers, partisans and the media<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n David Johnston had some tough words about leakers and excessive partisanship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSuffice 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\u2019s response. It also risks great harm to Canada\u2019s 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.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n On opposition politicians who refuse to to be sworn to secrecy to examine the intelligence basis for his findings, Johnston wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c\u2026 <\/em>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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He went easier on the media, suggesting the worst sin was failing to put information in context. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen 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.\u2026 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.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on his analysis he could have been a lot tougher \u2013 not just on the reporters and editors at the Globe and Mail<\/em> and Global TV but on many of those working for most other media outlets. They\u2019ve run with the story based on content they haven\u2019t independently verified. When presented with evidence that many elements of the story were \u2013 to put it gently \u2013 misconstrued, they\u2019ve moved on to join in the campaign to discredit the messenger and keep the scandal rolling along.<\/p>\n\n\n\n My earlier report on this controversy used the headline \u201cLeakers, the Conservatives and the media turn a molehill into a menacing mountain.\u201d The molehill has been further diminished by facts and evidence, but with Johnston\u2019s departure the latest shovelful, the mountain built on partisan venom and media complicity continues to grow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n -30-<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oh my, did I get that wrong! Several weeks ago I wrote optimistically that the \u201cChinese election interference scandal\u201d 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 \u2013 the old adage that in politics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1011,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-miscellaneous","category-federal-politics","et-has-post-format-content","et_post_format-et-post-format-standard"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3057"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3060,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057\/revisions\/3060"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1011"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.formac.ca\/starrspoint\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}2 COMMENTS<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
![\"Bruce](\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a31dacb338884e4cc82d39899c537c7f?s=80&d=mm&r=g\")
\n
![\"Richard](\"http:\/\/0.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f0606ab0a6785b35c1e701955a0fa342?s=80&d=mm&r=g\")