Alok Mukherjee, The Way I See It

Canadians have a hankering for public inquiries. Even when the facts are known, they want a public inquiry. Is this because they have so little faith in their politicians and institutions, or trust in their honesty? Or is there some deep psychological explanation?

The latest demand is for a public inquiry into the mischiefs that China and Chinese diplomats are supposed to have been up to in Canada. This despite a very clear report by a person whose credentials are above question – former Governor General of Canada, David Johnston – debunking all the anonymous allegations, innuendos and accusations. Johnston is a distinguished Canadian, a very effective university president and a highly respected legal scholar, whose integrity has never been questioned.

Unable to challenge his findings or credibility, except through personal attacks and character assassination, the demand is now for a public inquiry to “clear the air” and “restore credibility.” Amazing.

For some time now, citing two anonymous sources from Canada’s intelligence agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), a section of the Canadian media have carried reports of purported attempts by China to influence the Canadian electoral process, finance friendly candidates of Chinese origin, forge improper relationships with some chosen Chinese Canadian politicians, and intimidate and threaten others who supported the protests in Hong Kong. 

Not surprisingly in the context of the current tensions between the US-West and China, these media accounts gave rise to a sustained political controversy, with the opposition parties accusing the government of failure to act decisively to protect the Canadian interest. It was to be expected that there would be calls for a public inquiry, even though an all-party committee of the Canadian Parliament was conducting its own inquiry, with testimony from people who had information, such as the Director of CSIS and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff as well as National Security Advisor.

Some months ago, bowing to the pressure, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau named Johnston a Special Rapporteur and tasked him to look into the thorny and messy issue of China’s alleged interference in Canadian politics. He was given a broad mandate to examine the risk of foreign interference broadly and also to consider whether a public inquiry should be held into the allegations of Chinese interference. He was given the highest-level security clearance so that he could have access to the most confidential intelligence documents.

On May 23, Johnston issued his report. He found the media had “misconstrued” the information about, among others, China funding chosen candidates in elections; a Chinese Canadian Liberal MP, Han Dong, advising Chinese diplomats to not release two Canadians, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, from detention; and, a Conservative MP, Michael Chong, being targeted for intimidation for his support of Hong Kong protests. Johnston also found serious breakdowns in the communication of intelligence by CSIS to the government or handling of the same by the government.

Johnston rejected the idea of a public inquiry because it would serve no useful purpose since it could not make public highly classified intelligence. Instead, he proposed to hold a series of public hearings himself to elicit ideas and advice for action. He also recommended that the opposition parties’ leaders be given full clearance so they could review the documents he had seen.

You would think that the politicians, the media and the public at large would be relieved and focus their attention on the failures that need fixing.

I can suggest a few things worth examining:

1.         Secrecy: Are our governments too secretive? Why is their such a tendency to designate so much information as “classified,” not to be seen by the public? Why not take a second look and embrace a culture of openness so that more information is “declassified” and made public?

2.         Leaking: All the media stories have been attributed to two anonymous sources within CSIS. It has come out in the testimony given to the all-party parliamentary committee that the information these two leakers gave to selected media – without any concrete documentary evidence – was at variance from what CSIS was officially telling government officials, including the Prime Minister’s Office. Who are these leakers? What motivated them? Did they set out to shop their stories until they found willing takers? In light of the serious, and potentially damaging, impact of their deed(s), shouldn’t we demand a thorough investigation to find these rogue elements who were clearly out to undermine the agency and possibly a house-cleaning to ensure that CSIS is staffed by ethical professionals and not ideologically motivated people?

3.         Introspection: We are living in dangerous times when Canada, along with its Western allies, is deeply involved in what is being called a new “Cold War,” one that is far more serious than the previous one with the potential to turn into a “Hot War.” We cannot turn a blind eye to the risk to our quality of lives, economic and social security and community harmony if the situation persists or, worse, escalates. Our personal lives may be disrupted or made more expensive due to the inevitable breakdown in supply chains, but our communal lives need not be. 

Those of us who are old enough to remember history, remember well how communities were stigmatized, hated, dispossessed, harassed, and deprived of their life chances, and how individuals were intimidated, pushed out of their professions and jobs, criminalized and ostracized. I fear that the new “Cold War” may do all this all over again. Except, this time, it may also disrupt the Chinese Canadian community. Internally, we are seeing a separation between the mainland Chinese and those from Hong Kong and Taiwan. The façade of a homogeneous community is broken. Externally, since the rest of us cannot distinguish between one Chinese from another, everyone who looks Chinese could be at risk if things get much worse.

So, I suggest introspection all around. To our political leaders and the media, first of all: please think hard about the impact of your actions when, based on unverified rumours and unproven allegations, you decide to promote salacious stories for your own benefit. Please exercise your best judgement, discretion and good sense and resist the temptation to pursue political benefit or corporate profit.

As for the rest of us, let us collectively show that we are as good, tolerant, fair-minded and just as we believe we are. Let us not buy into salacious stories about a country’s alleged skulduggery holus-bolus nor form sweeping judgements or conclusions, slandering some one and a half billion people we do not know whose language we do not speak and whose culture and history remains shrouded in mystery for those who have the most to say. We must be sceptics.  

I suspect this, too, shall pass. Remember that it was not that long ago when our politicians and business leaders were making treks to China, salivating about making trade deals and pacts, and speaking glowingly about modern China. I recall people in senior positions urging me to go to China and see for myself the rapid and amazing changes happening there. Our economic and people ties are too strong to be severed, except to our own detriment.Let us use huge big grains of salt when reading/hearing/watching media accounts, speculative pronouncements of retired Cold War era diplomats and self-styled national security experts or listening to self-serving politicians.

Those are my suggestions, to which I will add one more: please, let us put a damper on our urge to call for a public inquiry at the drop of a hat!

We could do better than that and demand that our governments produce report cards on what they have done with all the wise recommendations made by all the past public inquiries. I can recall so many: the McDonald Commission, the Ipperwash inquiry by Justice Sidney Linden, the Ontario Commission on Systemic Racism in the Criminal Justice System, the Braidwood inquiry into the killing of Robert Dziekanski by RCMP, the review of G20 policing in Toronto by Justice John Morden, the review of police handling of people in crisis by Justice Frank Iacobucci, the Public Order Emergency inquiry, the Ontario SARS Commission Inquiry, and the Nova Scotia Mass Shooting investigation. These are just the ones that come to mind spontaneously.

Does anyone of us know for sure what happened to the thousands of recommendations those conducting these investigations, inquiries and reviews made? Did anyone in our federal and provincial governments actually read all of them? Can we find any account of how and to what extent all of those recommendations were put into action?

I think this could be the subject of a few very interesting PhD theses! I also think it would be wonderful if the next person holding a public inquiry made just one recommendation: implement all the recommendations from the past reports that are gathering dust in government archives.

In the meantime, let us temper our collective appetite and not ask for another serving.