Dealing with any technical points and questions. Our democracy is built on trust, trust in our institutions, our governments and our fellow Canadians. Unfortunately, recent allegations of foreign interference have threatened that trust, raising legitimate questions and also undermining our confidence in our government's ability or willingness to protect our democracy. Canadians deserve forthright answers about the impact of foreign interference. And whether the government has failed to act appropriately. To be able to make any improvements to the systems that protect our democracy. We must first answer who knew what, when they knew it and crucially, what was done regarding these recent allegations. This is the focus of my first report
on culottes over the past two months, I have reviewed all the relevant facts and materials related to these allegations. This includes original source intelligence files. Additionally, I have interviewed the most senior intelligence officials and elected officials
to level of access. I work with the security agencies to disclose to Canadians as much as I responsibly and possibly can, in my report, more than has been done before.
Based on my review, I have reached five clear conclusions. First, foreign governments are undoubtedly attempting to influence candidates and voters in Canada.
foreign interference is a real and growing threat and more remains to be done promptly to strengthen our capacity to detect, deter and conquer foreign interference and elections. Second, when viewed in full context with all of the relevant intelligence, several leaked materials that raised legitimate questions turned out to have been misconstrued in some media reporting, presumably because of the lack of this context. Third, I have identified serious shortcomings. In the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government. Fourth, a further public process is required. But there should not and need not be a separate formal public inquiry. A public inquiry examining the leaked materials could not be undertaken in public given the sensitivity of the intelligence. However, public hearings on the serious governance and policy issues identified to date should and will be held at the earliest possible gate as part of the second phase of my mandate.
Finally, I recognize this report, its conclusions will be met with skepticism by some, especially by those who are in good faith at work to raise legitimate questions around these issues. The challenge is this. What has allowed me to determine whether there has in fact been interference cannot be disclosed publicly? A public review of classified intelligence simply cannot be done. Therefore, fifth I recommend the Prime Minister invite the two oversight committees on national security and succop and in sera to review my conclusions and provide them with all supporting materials, including an annex which contains the classified information. If they disagree with my conclusions, they should say that the VL is suivante Sukima.
What allowed me to determine whether there had actually been interference cannot be disclosed in public and public review of classified intelligence simply cannot be done. Therefore, and fifth, I recommend the Prime Minister invite the two oversight committees on national security to review my conclusions and provide them with all supporting materials including and then x, which contains the classified information if they disagree with my conclusions. They should say that publicly
under the parliamentarians who are already members of NZ cop, I encourage the Prime Minister to invite the leaders of the three major opposition parties to join that process. Personally, so they can assess for themselves the intelligence and my conclusions. This is a necessary step and transparency and accountability to provide Canadians confidence in my conclusions. My review has shown that common techniques of foreign interference include cyber attacks, online influence campaigns, disinformation and the exploitation of human relationships. Fortunately, measures put in place by our governments have been largely successful. The elections of 2019 and 2021. We're well protected by sophisticated mechanisms, and there is no basis to lack confidence in those results. These elexio the domain of these
elections of 2019 and 2021, or well protected by sophisticated mechanisms, and there is no basis to lack confidence in those results. At the same time, Canada must remain vigilant against this threat, and must work urgently to strengthen our capacity to detect, deter and counter this threat to our democracy. The recent
allegations of foreign interference and media reports have amplified public concern around these issues, and are a central component of my first report. They raise legitimate questions which deserve complete answers. Much of what has been reported has been based on limited and partial intelligence. That reporting has been made without the benefit of the full context provided by all relevant materials. Experienced intelligent professionals understand that individual pieces of intelligence must be viewed with considerable skepticism. It is extremely rare to draw conclusions, much less take action from a single Intelligence Report. Each piece of intelligence is a brushstroke to paint a broader picture, only upon seeing the full picture with the benefit of all relevant intelligence. Can one conclude that much of the reported intelligence has been misconstrued and media reports presumably because of this lack of context in these instances, in some cases, the materials I reviewed tell a very different story. And what has been reported to date. foreign interference is not usually embodied in screen, one off pieces of intelligence. It cannot be dealt with on a one off look what I found basis. The limited leaked intelligence and subsequent reporting have led to misapprehensions relating to incidents that are alleged to have occurred in the 2019 and 2021 elections. Moreover, I have found no examples of ministers, the Prime Minister, or their offices, knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence advice or recommendations on the issues I have investigated related to the 2019 and 2021 elections. However, I did find that there are significant and unacceptable gaps in the machinery of government. They all send your moss on Desaad
intelligence is decentralized, and in many instances not well communicated. It is not properly filtered filtered to key decision makers and the accountability mechanisms in place are not sufficient. This is not just a problem at the political level. The information flow between the security agencies and the departments they serve, is also not well tracked. These are all serious impediments to the efficient management of information and reviews.
Another a central piece of my mandate and a requirement of this first report was to determine if a separate public inquiry or public process is required to investigate foreign interference in our democracy. There have been widespread calls for a public inquiry from media, opposition parties, and Parliament through a motion passed in the House of Commons. When I began this process, I thought I would come to the same conclusion that I would recommend a public inquiry. Well, it would have been an easy choice. It would not be the correct one. When on ket public distinct,
a separate public inquiry will simply not deliver the level of transparency and urgency Canadians expect. The intelligence I have reviewed is and must remain secret. As a result, the reality is any credible public inquiry would not be public at all.
inquiry will simply not deliver the level of transparency and urgency. Canadians expect the intelligence I have reviewed is and must remain secret. As a result, the reality is any credible public enquiry would not be public at all. In contrast, by conducting a thorough review of my conclusions and recommendations, our intelligence oversight committees and sikap answer, have the opportunity and the duty to help restore Canadians trust in our democratic institutions. That said, a public process is warranted to address the parts of my mandate that are not classified. Canadians rightly have questions and and deserve to be engaged fully in my work. In the next stage of my mandate, I will conduct public hearings to hear from Canadians about the numerous policy questions my work is raised. Select compliant raw, this audience public.
Importantly, and this will include public hearings to learn from diaspora community members and experts in national security and International Relations. During this process, Canadians will also have the opportunity to hear firsthand from senior national security officials in public.
The second phase of my work I intend to tackle a number of critical issues. This includes concerns of the Asper communities and individuals about foreign interference. I will investigate the challenge of using classified intelligence in law enforcement and how it might be addressed I will review the role and structure of NZ comp and whether it can be strengthened. I will suggest amendments to the CSIS act that might assist in fighting foreign interference. I will investigate various issues with the machinery of government including processes for funneling intelligence to top officials, more effective tracking protocols and clear lines of responsibility. I will also review the merits of a government led process for declassification of information to enhance transparency and look at the case for National Security Committee of cabinet and I will examine the issue of how the government deals with threats against elected officials. Canadians need to understand the threat this issue presents and the mechanisms needed to address it. Je voudrais concur.
I want to conclude by thanking my team who has worked tirelessly over these past two months to review mountains of evidence and intelligence while also conducting a wide area array excuse me of interviews
carried by October of this year, with a particular focus on providing recommendations to address the serious gaps identified in this report. And improve Canada's capacity to detect, deter and combat foreign interference. So thank you all for your time and attention this afternoon. I would be happy to take your questions.
Thank you. Merci. We'll start with Campbell Clark Globe and Mail and sweet that n carne de Blanc, Chanel demonia.
Good afternoon, Mr. Johnson. You've recommended a process going forward or review of your findings by two bodies and hearings that you would hold on the process the things you found about miscommunication of intelligence, mishandling of intelligence, but you've heard the criticism from the opposition and others about your appointment about your role based on your relationship with Mr. Troodos family. So why are you the person to lead those hearings going forward rather than a judge and independent judge who could hold hearings in camera or in public?
Well, let me respond by stating basic facts. First of all, my friendship with the current prime minister. When our children five are ages seven to 12, we add a condo at the foot of bone Traum long I knew Mr. Trudeau, his father. He had a country home about 50 kilometers away in Val Moran on I think, five occasions over several years, he had his three sons came and parked their car and our parking lot outside her condo. And we skied on one of those five occasions or so. He had to leave early to get back to Montreal and on that occasion, I drove the three sons over to their mother's home, country home, which was about 10 kilometers present those of the so called neighborhoods. My friendship with the current prime minister was based only on a few skiing expeditions with my children. He was a student at McGill or as I was principal, and amongst about 20,000 students, I would see him from time to time in that period of time, until he became a liberal Member of Parliament, and I was governor general. I had no meetings with Mr. Trudeau Minister Justin Trudeau. I had no letters that I can recall no telephone calls. The only occasion I recall meeting him and that period of 40 years was at the funeral of his father, which my wife and I attended. So there was no interaction with respect to the current prime minister of a friendly con, other than the respect I have for a graduate of McGill University. And my only real contact occurred when he became an elected member of parliament and I held the office of Governor General. Those are the facts, the so called friendship and the scheme. With respect to my connection to the Trudeau Foundation, I've been a general manager of universities for 27 years. Very interested in any scholarship program. The Trudeau foundation one was very important because it provided scholarships for graduate students in the humanities and social sciences a rather neglected area. My contact with the Trudeau Foundation was this. In about a year after I finished being Governor General, late in 2018, I was invited to become a member of the association of the foundation, which is like shareholders in a company which meet meet once a year with the responsibilities to receive an annual report to approve the financial statements to appoint auditors and to elect the board of directors. My contact was simply that I think I attended four of the annual general meetings, perhaps five via zoom, the one which took place in Ottawa, I think I was there for about an hour and a half. And I had other appointments. I did make donations since I think the other members of that association not the Board of Directors not involved in decision making. The alleged get the gift that is under controversy was 2014 2015. I joined in 2018. I think over the course of four or five years, donations were of the order of three or $400 a year would be less than 1% of the donations my wife and I make regularly to number of scholarship funds that we support across the country. The third fact is this. I've been fortunate in my public life to have served as chair of or member of advisory committee or task forces and probably two to three dozen different occasions over those years, with appointments by prime ministers, premiers, several ministers and none of those previous education has my impartiality or integrity. Ever been questioned? This is the first time that has happened. And let me simply say that's very troubling for me, because this kind of baseless set of accusations, diminishes trust and Republicans tutions and detours people who are publicly minded are quite prepared to take on public service responsibility, Task Force and so on. There's a chill on that. And that's very troubling.
You addressed the question of whether your criticisms about whether you're in conflict but not the question about whether a judge could do a better job here. sworn in hearing testimony in private or in public sorry. And also you have recommended review by two bodies anti cop and Sarah that opposition critics have already rejected as sort of under the control of government because their reports and their access to information is vetted by the government.
With respect to who might lead a public inquiry, that person or persons would have the same fundamental problem that we and our team have had. That one cannot deal with these allegations with respect to negligence or managing things to provide partisan advantage without a full consideration of all of the information including classified information, and that can't be made public. So I don't know whether another person would have any greater ability with respect to experience. I'm a lawyer Professor of Law for some 4555 years and I guess I'd had some responsibility for making judgments, different kinds, and one will have to stand on that. Just give me the second part of your question again. And it's important spending some time on those bodies. And succop was created in 2017 as a response to this growing foreign influence effect. And it's made up of four parliamentarians from the governing party, two from the opposition party to conservatives, one from the New Democratic Party and one from the white tablecloth and one independent senator. And they had been at work with their staff since 2017. And their job is to review, among other things, foreign influence in our elections that are other democratic processes and protect them. They report to the prime minister the report goes to Parliament, and that is the body that has an important the important oversight function with respect to how we manage this danger of foreign influence. That body has been charged with the Prime Minister to review the same terms of reference mandate that I have and we have, I have invited that body to take my report along with the confidential annex, and to review it with great care also suggested that they work closely with insert which I'll come in in a moment, and that the three the leaders of the three major opposition parties be invited to take top secret clearance and join in viewing that material and coming to whatever conclusions they want to within this club. That's Parliament functioning as it should, with an oversight rule. That's where it belongs. Not with a retired judge and not with a professor of law in some years. That's where parliament has to function. In Sera, the National Security independent review agency is an executive agency, with experts on foreign intelligence among other things. It's appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, in consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties and the leaders in the Senate. So that's a collaborative appointment. Its job is to review the activities of all the agents of securities and intelligence and any particular matter that deals with things like foreign influence that body to is an oversight body of Parliament. That's the kind of body that should be functioning to oversee these things. Chaired by a former judge especially Thank you Sheila. Chaired by a former judge, a dean of law, a law professor, a former National Security investment advisors, intelligence adviser, and an entrepreneur, the makeup of that particular committee that was created in 2019. Both of those committees provide their reports to Parliament. And both of those committees have a fundamental responsibility and oversight role, which is very precious. And that's the kind of oversight that we should be using, I think to deal with these matters.
And currently, the pumps are not the most, no. Okay. That's it.
I'm a colleague of Kathleen's. I'd like to begin by having us summarize the first question so get back to your links with Mr. Trudeau and why you're the right person to conduct this inquiry. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? I'll repeat it in French please. Could you tell us why what your links are with Mr. Trudeau? Yes. The connections with Mr. Trudeau repeat that in French and why you're the right person for this job. Okay. The facts are very simple. When he was young. Maybe he was 12. And he and his two brothers, you know, we have five daughters around the same age. We had a condo in Trump law, where we'd go skiing on the weekends. I knew his father. His father had a house in Val Monterey about 50 kilometers from drawn below where we had our condo right at the foot of the mountain. And 100 meters from the Ski Hill. Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Trudeau would park his car on our driveway for a day of skiing maybe five times over two or three years. That's the contact I had with the current prime minister. After that he was a student at McGill where I was the principal. So I knew him as a student but not a personal connection. Since that time at McGill. I have not had any meeting or exchange of letters or phone calls or any contact with the current Prime Minister except at his father's funeral. The other contact once he was elected as a member of the Liberal Party, and then became prime minister, I had contact with him as Governor General, but that's all. The point is that for 40 years, I had no contact with Justin Trudeau not as a friend, that those are the facts. Thank you. My second question is the only person
that the
only person in the whole report who attributes any malice to you is the one who leaked the information. So there's somebody in security circles who's leaking information. And this person should be identified and perhaps pursued with all due diligence. unnecessary energy is probably because of these leaks, that we're here today. Investigating foreign interference, which is necessary in your view. So indeed, we have to investigate this it's a serious matter. But without that person, we might not be here. Do you think that the person who did this leak in some way is contributing to the success or maybe I'd say the defense of Canada's national interests
but if I understand your question properties evil compound about the guest,
I understand your question properly. Is it possible for a single per person to make all these revelations Absolutely not. That's why I have a team. We
basically the only person that's acting with some kind of malice in this in your report is the leaker from the CSIS and we're leakers, maybe and so, you know, in a way it's because of these leaks, though, that we're here and we're investigating on this issue, which is an important issue as you identified. So in a way is that leaker not contributing to our national interests in a way and is a very do something right, in a certain sense, even if we broke the law, because if it wasn't for leaks, we probably wouldn't be here. Well, I
want to be very clear that answer. Certainly, the attention that media have given to interference in our foreign election is important and is very useful at this time, because it's a very substantial danger. It's growing, and it needs to be combated. With respect to police. What I must say is that is something that challenges the entire trust in our system, of intelligence gathering, and communicating and moving on through the channels where I kind of be acted upon. If I'm the ordinary person sitting at home listening to this, and I consider that someone of someone's I presume a very well educated, join the intelligence service have counted. They take an oath to maintain secrecy. They are under obligation of the Security and Information Act, that they will not divulge what they learned. And when they choose to break that oath, that is wrong, and it's very damaging. It undermines our system built on trust of this information. It puts lives at danger. And it breaches our compact of trust with our five eyes allies are engaged in the same business and share information and in fact, allies around the world. So to my mind, that is most unfortunate. And it is a situation that jeopardizes how we go about our intelligence, and I can't speculate on the motives of who or what or how that happened.
Because every single activity can go direct. Good afternoon. You want to your conclusion suggests that there were no the minister, the Prime Minister, you could find no evidence that they failed to act but as I read your report, you're really referring to the six eight instances of leaks. And in fact, the case I'll put it to you could be made that the Prime Minister key ministers senior leadership did fail to act to address the systemic failings in information management. That you address going back to multiple NC cop reports. Judge reports that that was a failure by the political class, not the bureaucrats, not the system. They failed to manage the information better.
Let me say two things in response to your question number one, and we're looking at failures, appropriate action on foreign interference. We were tasked with the job of determining whether there was any negligence or conscious avoiding of dealing with those issues. For some political reasons. And we went through nine different cases the most perhaps prominent ones that was reported, and we did not find any evidence of that kind of negligence or acting in a partisan way. What we did find your second point is that we have a system is not working effectively not working as it should. And I don't think there's any surprise in that, as we've seen foreign influence growing quite dramatically with the focus on Russia in 2016. And look at what's happened in the United States with that, and then towards 2018, especially with the case of the two Michaels and so on, it became more Chinese interference, the two are very different. Russian is much more focused on destroying our democratic institutions. To Chinese interference is much more long term much more pervasive and much more sophisticated and using disinformation and other things. To protect what China regards as its special areas of protection, the so called Five poses. And we have not responded quickly and as effectively as we should, especially to this accelerating rise in digital information and so on. And our human ability to interact with coming at that level. So there's a gap in that we're no strangers to that. All of the Western democracies are. We have much to learn from one another. And we have much to do to address those failings of the machinery of government, which were very real. And in the second part of our report the next five months we have, we are worked very earnestly with the different agencies and in public hearings to address that and to try to be as constructive as we possibly can and to engage the other agencies that are engaged in the same thing, and to make it very open
to the public facts and I want to come back to this issue that my friends have raised about your resume and I take note of your impassioned defense of your own ability to be impartial and your long career of being impartial. But as you know, with a lot of conflict of interest type situations, it's the appearance it's the appearance of being beyond reproach. And so thinking about that, not the actual facts of the matter. Were you the right person to have been selected to do this? And are you certain you're the right person, to now lead the public process that there's no one else in the country who might be more beyond reproach and have maybe a very similar background and experience that you have?
No, I can't cast judgment on that on my competence or relative competence with others and yes, of course, there are. I think lots of people that you or I could identify who would be very capable of doing a comprehensive review. What I can say with respect to the allegations of an appearance of conflict of interest, I took the trouble of seeking a legal opinion from a retired Supreme Court Justice has justice Frank Iacobucci who is very clear that there's no conflict of interest with respect to the Trudeau obligation, so I have no doubt whatsoever that I had any conflict of interest, and no doubt at all. Speaking myself about my impartiality or my ability to bring my records such as it is for you to judge as to whether I'm capable of carrying out a impartial and inquiry based on integrity.
And any, anybody
who has any conclusion
you've concluded that there was no intentional ignorance. Mr. Trudeau was part or in that of any of his ministers
concluded that there was no like intentional ignorance, or even resulting to inaction from the Prime Minister from ministers. And it was more like communication problems, but how if so, how do you explain that many sources, an honest anonymously, turning to to media to say, to leak information, and there was also an open ed and the Globe and Mail where the source said, why she did that. And she said there was indeed inaction and ignorance of many large signs are so what can explain so multiple sources turn to media, if there was no inaction or ignorance intentional or not? Well, sort
of born Castro. It's an important question. The leaks are based on partial information. In some case documents that don't tell a full story. And what I've tried to emphasize in the area of intelligence one is dealing with different pieces of information. We use the analogy of painting a picture, it's a number of different brushstrokes, you must have most of their all them together before we get a picture, or a jigsaw puzzle. As you're putting pieces in place, until you finally get the pattern. And so those leaks were based on partial information. And in our investigation, in our review of nine different instances, based on open information and more particularly classified information, we came to the conclusion that there was not negligence on the part of any of the ministers and the Prime Minister nor malfeasance in the sense of attempting to twist this partisan advantage not at all. What there was, is a system that is not functioning effectively and how we manage that intelligence, how it crystallizes. into something that begins to be this is difficult, and then into some recommendation for action. Our system was not producing that in the way it should. And in defense, we're not alone in having that kind of difficulty. But we have much to do to be much more effective, much more professional, much more harmonized. And that's where we hope to spend a good deal of time including public hearings in the second part of our mandate.
Sorry, so this is not my follow up, but just to clarify. So these sources they are regular consumers of little pieces of information that you say so they can see the bigger picture. So in that context, my question was more why these people knowing the bigger picture or how how, how things work within and how this small pieces should be interpreted in the bigger picture. Why would these still go to media? But my follow up was more when you met with the Leader of the Opposition's that wanted to meet you where your your conclusions already drawn, and how did you take the inputs from them and did you change any parts of your report because we saw this morning, before leader of the Conservative saying he met with you he thought it was It wasn't useful, and it was a loss of time. He wrote, thank you
for that question. The first part of it was that leaks were not based on full information in turning all of the classified information as we read those leaks. And as we dealt with it, we came to the conclusion that there was a much fuller story that wasn't there. With respect to the comments of Mr. O'Toole. Here are the facts. We, as we were asked to do with our mandate and contacted the leaders of the opposition parties to seek their assistance, both materials and meetings. On four different occasions, we approached the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Polio. on four occasions we did not get a response to be prepared to meet with us on one occasion he sent a short reply that was not responding to the materials we needed. And as we came to the May 23 deadline for our report, wanting to hear from the Conservative Party and we did have the documents in which they set out allegations with respect to I think 11 Different writings and we consider that going back to late April early May. But around about May 23 was a deadline from our report we saw we saw a meeting and Mr. O'Toole responded quickly for a meeting and that was on this past Wednesday Sheila. A very helpful, lengthy meeting. Mr. Toole is a man for whom I have great respect. I know well, he's a former military man he's cleared for top secret clearance. So he's no stranger to military intelligence. And he presented with us a review of the matters covered in the media and some modeling elections and his view that in perhaps a minimum of four or a maximum of nine instances, constituencies results were affected by that. We took that material on a Wednesday. We did indicate that our report was a part of our report at that time had gone for translation because we're trying to deal with but it was not final we consider those materials with care. We responded to them with positions in our report and we set them out. And we followed with Mr. We differ in our conclusion with Mr. Tools conclusion that there was a tilt in those elections. In 49 cases and Elections Canada has found no interference so that was our conclusion which is different than Mr. ProTools. What he did Also present was his very earnest and well thought out concern for the machinery of government and handed Spears intelligence provided us with a great deal of advice and we are looking forward to hearing from Mr. O'Toole in our follow up hearings because he has a very important contribution to make from his position on how we do a better job and machinery of government. So that's the story of Mr. O'Toole.
Could you repeat shortly in Phoenicia, your response? To Mr. O'Toole?
Bread Ma? Very briefly, this will be a challenge for me but when we began our investigation and contacted the leaders of the three opposition parties, Mr. Singh the leader of the bloc mess with us. We did contact Mr. polyether four times, starting in the last week of April and up to three or four days before our deadline for the report. He did not answer on the last day he sent a collection of material
these were media reports. Then we met we contacted Mr. O'Toole for a meeting we saw Mr. oteil on the Friday. He gives me a lot of very wise advice and the documents that he was suggesting.
That there be between changes in four to 11. constituencies we reviewed that material and we concluded that there is no proof here for this assertion our report is being translated at the time and we reflected on Mr. We reflected Mr. O'Toole views in the final report Mr O'Toole to someone I greatly respect. He's a veteran with a top security clearance when he was in the military. He contributed a great deal or tribute to our mandate. The second part of my mandate about the machinery of government in the future. And then back
over here. I Rachel Aiello at CTV News. See, you've made clear that there are limitations on what a public process would accomplish. So can you explain how a public hearing is going to get Canadians closer to any answers and accountability in ways that an inquiry wouldn't? Or are you kind of moving away from the look under the hood and basically telling Canadians now, take my word for what I found there?
What we're saying is that a public inquiry into the questions of who knew what, what they did, at what time and what they did was it cannot be discussed in public because to understand that for you must deal with classified information. So the very process is not possible to get at things that you really want to get at that people want to get at. Moreover, even if one did that, in camera, that interrogation and so on looking at classified information you can't report it publicly. Because that's forbidden by the Security Information Act and it leads to all the perils I just spoke about, of danger of people's lives, undermining of our systems and breaching faith with our five I appointments. What we can do in public, and we can do it or another inquiry could do is to take information that is in the public realm, to examine our machinery of government for handling foreign intelligence, and come to some conclusions on how we can do better and it's very clear to me that we can do better, One only has to look at other jurisdictions around the world dealing with this very alarming and spreading system of foreign influence, to know that, that there are ways we can improve and we will undertake that over the course of next five months, and so competent sir will do so and I'm very anxious that Parliament performs its proper accountability and oversight function to say, we have a really serious problem here that's growing, and it deserves the careful thoughtful attention of parliament is the most important model. And
there seems to be suggestions that you know, there are elements of interference happening intelligence around that, but not evidence. I'm wondering what your thoughts are based on what you've looked at so far. Whether governments can do more to act obviously Canadians are wanting some sort of accountability or consequences for foreign actors. So what would you suggest the government do to show that they are being proactive to address allegations of interference when they arise?
You're very correct in your question, much more can be done. We set out in a section or report what has been done from about 2015 on with seven or eight different Institute's trying to improve trying to perfect trying to make things better. That's still falls short of where we should be. And it falls short because this foreign influence is growing. It's pernicious, pervasive, it's not easy to deal with. But we expect that in our final for next five months in the second part of a mandate to deal with precisely the question you've raised, we can attract the best intelligence of Canada in public hearings, where there will be an opportunity to see these things in the light of day and especially learn from what other jurisdictions have done in dealing with the same problem.
Coming down to about the last five minutes before a closing statement, I realize there are many of you in line perhaps if we could either go faster or stick to a single question we might get more in but I don't want to get into that debate. You can argue amongst yourselves,
Jim excuse for a maybe pomskies
I'm sorry, my answers tend to be long. I'm
taking your word for it. You said unser cough and Sarah will obviously check your work and pass judgment on your conclusions, but obviously Canadians will still end up having to take their word for it. Is there a problem here that Canadian voters will have to take the word of other sources and not be able to see this intelligence? Is there perhaps a problem here with over classification of information?
Well, yes, there is a problem and that reading can divulge everything that Canadians would like to know. Can we do more and being somewhat more transparent with what is classified or not? I think we can somewhat in some other jurisdictions have handled this transition of from intelligence to evidence with somewhat more nuanced rules and we have beginning with perhaps looking at the Security and Information Act, etc. So I think that can be done. But it can't give a complete answer to your good question. No, we cannot take all Canadians into full confidence, saying here's the classified information come to your own judgment with respect to whether we have the appropriate accountability mechanisms. That's parliament. We have two bodies. That were created by statute on in 2017 and 2019. I think, growing in their ability to take on this accountability response, if they're insufficient, that's part of his job to say, we must do better with our oversight mechanisms, who was the watchman of the watchmen and one should not be having a special interrogate tour or rapa tour to deal with that.
On Instacart, because you are putting a lot of emphasis on it. I believe in the report you do, raise some concerns with the politics and the partisanship that have arrived surrounded this issue. And succop is ultimately a political body made up of politicians do you have faith that it can put politics aside and get at this issue? Well, I
really hope that we can diminish the partisan activity. I mean, one only has to look south of the border to see how that has paralyzed a system of government. We can't allow that to happen in this country. This is a this is a precious country. US News and World Report. Does annual surveys are the most admired countries in the world. Canada's number one or in the top two or three places of Kitson that's blessed. That's precious. And, you know, our responsibility is to make this experiment inclusivity which is Canada work work effectively. And that's part of it. That's who we elect to govern us and provide appropriate systems. Can we do better on this particular system much better. We have much to learn to others and we must be conscious that we're dealing with something that is not a passing fad. This is serious stuff and these hostile actors have the real intention of bringing down our democratic institutions. And just look what's happened over the past 1520 years is we've seen the diminution of democracy, the reduction in the number of fully functioning democracies and the success in persuading countries on the cusp, that autocratic authoritarian governments are the way to deal with their problems. Democracy is challenged. That's not saying fundamental power of a challenge. And my heavens if any country in the world should be making democracy work, it's this country. Canada. And that's what we must get about.
Justin Ling, and then I believe, and then I believe it might be time for closing comments.
Great. You do really briefly with the question of hand dongs meeting at the Chinese Consulate enough to say that is inaccurate to say that he called for the prolonged attention of the to Michael's. But here's a guy who you conclude was the beneficiary unwittingly of Chinese interference meeting with a hostile foreign power but you don't say anything more about it. Can you give us any more details? Is that something that should be declassified? And does it strike to that question of trust that we don't know why he was meeting with the Chinese Consulate and not telling his government about it?
Thank you for that question. I'm going to the report. And the reason I'm going to the report is I must be careful about the two parts of my brain. One part of my brain has opened information and the other part has classified information and she'll you'll you'll watch carefully, but we'll go I think we should go to the report to deal with that questions at page 23. And forgive me but let me read exactly because you understand that dilemma have the PRC interfered with the nomination of hangdog as a Liberal Party candidate and Don Valley North global news? Is that the issue that you're raising?
Well, yeah, I mean, we know that he met with the consulate based on the intelligence you reviewed, but we don't know why.
Here's what we say. I've reviewed the intelligence relating to this allegation interviewed various officials. I can report the following irregularities were observed with Mr. dongs nomination in 2019. And there is well grounded suspicion that the irregularities were tied to the PRC, the People's Republic of China consulate in Toronto, with whom Mr. Don maintains relationships in reviewing the intelligence I did not find evidence that Mr. Dong was aware of the irregularities or the PRC is consulates 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 is a candidate for Don Valley north. This was not an unreasonable conclusion based on the intelligence available to the prime minister at the time. So that is our open report. We've had some more detail in our confidential report about that particular issue.
Okay, so the government has been very quiet forthcoming when there's been instances of Russian interference in this country. Based on what you just read. They were not forthcoming with the public or with the opposition parties about Chinese interference with the benefit of hindsight now, did the government err by not telling the public more specifically, what China was doing to influence our political sphere?
I don't think there was any conscious desire to suppress and to diminish this. I think it was clear that we have not acted as quickly and as thoroughly as we have as a threat that has been growing and the Chinese one is the one that came into prominence only in the last three or four years as Mr. Joyce of the national security. The National Security Intelligence Agency in the US says that Russian interference in the US came in like a hurricane. Five, six years ago, Chinese interference, interference came in like climate change. It's longer persistent, weary, widespread, and very damaging. I think it's it's clear that that we have not come to grips with the degree of Chinese foreign influence that does exist, and we have much work to do to do a better job of that. And yes, the responsibility lies with the government of the day to look at how we're dealing with this threat and whether we're meeting it effectively and I think as we say in terms of the machinery of government, we have a lot to improve.
We might have started a little late I know they're supposed to be five minutes for closing comments. We do have I believe radio Canada and Canadian Press. It would be very nice if you could take one question from each of them. But we have a deal on your time, but I would appreciate it. Thank you.
One more question. Each
character Mickey here with the Canadian Press, I guess, how bad is the current arrangement regarding the flow of information of intelligence? And do you expect her to recommend legislative changes?
We have serious issues to deal with. We set out in our report, a fairly considerable list of the things we were looking at. I would be very surprised if we don't see quite considerable changes, not because things are awful, but because things must constantly improve. And it won't come simply from us, although we'll have some we expect other reporters, particularly the two review parties to be doing precisely that. But I commend you to the portion of our report similar page numbers here. We're where we actually set out what has been done by where reforms nine or 10 initiatives for the past three or four years. But what much more common 54 and 55. Thank you.
Can I just have a quick follow up you said political parties ignored facts in favor of slogans. Does that include the Liberal Party as well? Again, you mentioned in the report political parties ignored facts in favor of slogans. Does that include the Liberal Party as well?
Can you give some examples in favor of slogans?
Facts in favor of slogans? Yes,
I'm not sure I don't know what that expression means. Facts and favorites was in the
report. It said political parties had ignored facts regarding, you know, intelligence and foreign interference and they basically politicizing the issue. Well, did the Liberal government do this as well?
Sure. What about political game size and the issue but I'm saying to be able to make accusations and so on, must have the full panoply of of information. And a number of instances that full panoply was not there
was what Mr. Johnson Kusano it it afternoon is till now on foreign interference like Australia,
information services are the short answer is I think, yes. That said, we recognize fully the difficulty that CSIS has in dealing with this business of keeping information classified, but at the same time in 40, Canadians, it's been heartening to see that particular over the past two or three years. With respect to the reports that they've been made. They're much more fulsome. The efforts to have public information systems are increasing. And in fact, the briefs to parliamentarians I think there were 49 in the most recent year on what are the threats to the Canadian Securities establishment has also worked very hard at trying to acquaint Canadians about the threat, but the harder question the point trace on para
generated model, the central point is that generally speaking, the public does not understand this threat. It's not our view. So we have a lot of work to do, especially with public communications. If you'll allow me a last question, no public inquiry, because it'd be too complicated because of intelligence. Now, you're going to have public consultations. How will it be useful? How it will be more than a PR exercise? Well, the first question is,
is a matter of who what when where? To answer that question, clearly. We used classified information it's impossible to put that out in the public
it's impossible to consider this whole matter transparently in the open, but we are going to attempt to do that in the second portion of our mandate. Exercise the public relations exercise.
No, I hope not. I hope it is just Ferriss.
Hope it will be a matter of considering the problems and recommending solutions with the experts we have in our country and we have a lot of experts. Thank you.
Thank you to them on Miss.
Thank you, everyone. Thank you for your attention and your patience. Unfortunately, I'm a professor and I talk too much.
I descended. Did you have any closing comments or no? I
think I've had everything I needed. Was there anything that I shouldn't do summary
not that anything except to say the professionalism that we encountered with all the people who helped Mr. Johnson in his work was excellent. We are blessed with with a public service that is very top notch.
