Some cracks in the Liberals’ stonewalling over China’s election meddling are finally opening up, creating at least the hope of some light being brought to bear on Beijing’s interference in two successive federal campaigns.
The resignation of former governor-general David Johnston as special rapporteur fatally undermined the not-an-inquiry approach that the Liberals had hoped to skate by with. Now, the government says it is open to a public inquiry, and could the opposition leaders please figure out how that could happen?
Perhaps that proposal, floated by Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc on Saturday, is an olive branch extended in good faith. Perhaps, and much more likely, Mr. LeBlanc and the Liberals hope that the opposition parties will rip that branch to shreds, and be unable to agree upon the particulars of a public inquiry. That is a real danger, as is the flip side. If the opposition parties do hash out a framework, the government discards that proposal at its peril.
Each party leader faces his own moment of truth.
The stakes are the most obvious, and the smallest, for Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet. He needs to demonstrate that the Bloc can play a constructive role in the House. So far, he appears willing to do so, telling reporters this week that his goal is to reach a consensus on the details of a public inquiry. He sensibly noted that the person, or persons, heading an inquiry should determine what information remains classified.
The calculus is more complicated for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, who for weeks has been a) harshly criticizing the government over its refusal to call a public inquiry and b) propping up that same government through a 14-month-old formal parliamentary alliance. Notably, Mr. Singh did not withdraw from that agreement when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invented the position of special rapporteur in early March rather than call a public inquiry.
The NDP Leader will not be able to avoid that choice this time around. If the Liberals refuse to call an inquiry – not a consultation, not a hearing, not a “public process,” as Mr. LeBlanc hinted – then Mr. Singh will need to axe his alliance. Otherwise, he will bear joint responsibility with the Liberals for the erosion of trust in the electoral system and for the continuing failure to remedy the institutional weaknesses that have enabled Beijing’s foreign interference.
Mr. Singh’s challenge is to be ready to break with the Liberals, but that of Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is the opposite: he needs to show Canadians that he can do more than simply lambaste the Liberals. To be sure, this is a government in need of lambasting on the question of foreign interference. The Conservatives have justifiably (if at times caustically) decried the Liberals’ resistance to calling a public inquiry.
But Mr. Poilievre needs to go further, and prove that his interest lies in a timely public inquiry, not in a protracted pillorying of the government. The Conservative Leader is giving early indications of such proof, saying that he has “no problem” with including China and Iran in the scope of an inquiry. His initial comments to reporters on the qualifications for an inquiry commissioner also seem reasonable: someone with no ties to the Trudeau Foundation, or problematic foreign regimes, and with a history of non-partisanship.
All three opposition leaders have rightly called for a tight time frame for an inquiry to ensure that any needed reforms are in place before the next election.
The question is, will Mr. Trudeau listen? It was telling that Mr. LeBlanc dissembled when asked directly on Saturday whether the government would agree to terms proposed by the opposition parties. “We have to see who they’re going to suggest, we have to see the terms of reference,” he said.
Meanwhile, Mr. LeBlanc several times voiced the Liberals’ desire for a “public process,” while notably failing to unequivocally commit to a public inquiry with subpoena powers. The Liberals cannot both insist that the onus is on the opposition to come up with a process and then simultaneously dismiss that effort.
That is the moment of truth for Mr. Trudeau. Will the Prime Minister, finally, realize that the integrity of the electoral system is of vital concern to all parties, not to mention all Canadians? And will he, at last, show that he understands that the country deserves clear answers to what the Liberals knew about foreign interference, when they knew it and most important, what they did about it?