But foreign interference, and the Liberals’ non-response to it, is still a serious concern.

By Andrew Coyne | The Globe and Mail

Summary

Political commentator Andrew Coyne critiques the final report of the public inquiry into foreign interference in Canada’s democracy, led by commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue.

Coyne notes that just because Justice Hogue did not find evidence of extreme violations of public trust and office—such as officials selling top-secret defense plans to Russia—doesn’t mean there is no need to worry about the engagement of some elected officials with foreign agents. This example, and others, demonstrates Coyne’s view that Justice Hogue downplayed the threat of interference her inquiry was charged with investigating.

Coyne’s key points are listed below:

No. The Prime Minister was not found to be an actual Chinese asset. But his government’s “remarkable and sustained inactivity in the face of repeated warnings of the efforts of hostile foreign powers to interfere in the country’s elections” should not be ignored.

Foreign states may not have succeeded in determining the outcome of an election, but it does matter that they tried.

Justice Hogue declared there was no list of “parliamentarians” (MPs or senators) who “semi-wittingly” or “wittingly” aided foreign powers in various ways. But, says, Coyne, that doesn’t mean these individuals did not exist. “With the help of the intelligence agencies, the judge was able to reverse-engineer the names, working backward from the allegations in the report to the intelligence on file.”

Justice Hogue found evidence of conduct that she called “troubling” and “questionable.” She wrote: “Some elected officials have maintained relationships, or had interactions, with foreign officials that may have crossed the line beyond normal diplomacy. The intelligence also indicates that some elected officials may have knowingly received support from foreign officials or proxies.” What Hogue attributes to as, for the most part, naiveté or poor judgment, she notes “some information in the intelligence may be cause for concern or may justify further investigation.” Coyne urges this thread of inquiry would be worth pursuing, particularly before the next federal election.

The “traitor” MPs are not actually the core of the foreign interference story, declares Coyne. What the final report does confirm, he says, is the “litany of reports on efforts by foreign powers, particularly China, to interfere with Canada’s electoral process and harass and intimidate its citizens.”

Turning to Han Dong, the former Don Valley North MP alleged by a Global News report to have advised a senior Chinese diplomat in February 2021 that Beijing should hold off on freeing Canada’s “Two Michaels,” Coyne writes that perhaps there was nothing improper in the conversation recorded by Canadian intelligence. “But why was he talking to officials of the People’s Republic at all, at such a sensitive time, and without the government’s knowledge?”

Coyne digs deeper: when Prime Minister Trudeau was alerted mid-campaign of concerns relating to Dong’s nomination, why was the response so “lackadaisical”? And why was China “so eager that Mr. Dong win the nomination in Don Valley North?” The “Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity in the Dong affair is only one example, among many in the report,” continues Coyne, “of intelligence warnings that either went missing, or were not passed on, or were passed on but weren’t read, or were read but simply unheeded.”

Even if Justice Hogue did not find “deliberate intent” to expose Canada to foreign meddling on the part of elected officials, her finding that the government’s response to the threat was slow or incompetent is no great comfort, concludes Coyne.

The original version of this commentary is available at the publisher’s website here.