Challenge classified designations, commit to public interest

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/05/2023 (879 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In the rush to condemn him, many have decided David Johnston — special rapporteur looking into allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian elections — only had two options at his disposal.

Call a public inquiry or don’t.

Last week, Johnston recommended against such an inquiry — a verdict that prompted political leaders and news organizations to allege a government cover-up.

However, lost in the hyperbolic condemnation, is Johnston likely had other options at his disposal that might have satisfied more critics and served the public interest.

First, some background.

Following a flurry of media reports detailing various Chinese-sponsored plots to mess with the 2019 and 2021 federal elections, in March, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called in Johnston, a former governor general and a widely respected Ottawa opinion leader.

After reviewing secret intelligence reports and comparing them to media reports, Johnston reported there was no evidence to substantiate concerns the Trudeau government had ignored threats or advice from national security agencies.

However, because his findings were all based on classified intelligence reports, Johnston concluded there was no possibility of holding a public inquiry.

Many, including Tory Leader Pierre Poilievre, dismissed Johnston’s verdict because he is a close friend of Trudeau’s. News organizations criticized by Johnston were furious at his suggestions they had not properly done their jobs.

However, amid the outrage, the No. 1 option Johnston and his detractors have ignored is to challenge the classified designation of the reports he claims are preventing a public inquiry.

Of all the worrisome assumptions — and there are many — the greatest has to be the idea it was valid to classify these materials as secret.

Let’s remember, there are quite a few details out in public forums. Two allegations in particular have been so well-reported there might be no reason to keep intelligence reports under wraps.

The first involves allegations Liberal MP Han Dong asked a Chinese diplomat in February 2021 to delay the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor — two Canadians imprisoned by Chinese officials on trumped-up espionage charges — because it would hurt the Tories in an upcoming election.

The second was the allegation Chinese officials sent money to seven Liberal and four Conservative candidates in the 2019 federal election.

Johnston claimed neither allegation was supported by the intelligence reports. To back up this assessment, he assembled a detailed “annex” of reports and has offered to show them to Trudeau, cabinet ministers, senior government officials and opposition leaders who get the appropriate security clearance.

Offering to show these reports to others suggests Johnston is confident in his conclusions. But it seems incredibly short-sighted not to investigate the possibility of declassifying some of this material so it can be fully examined in a public forum.

Even though most nations keep a tight lid on their intelligence, many democracies have protocols to review and assess the status of classified information.

Even though most nations keep a tight lid on their intelligence, many democracies have protocols to review and assess the status of classified information.

The United States, for example, allows for the declassification of intelligence reports that are “in the public interest.” However, there is no formal definition of the public interest, so the agency that created the materials has full discretion to keep them secret.

Ironically, the Canadian government has recently been involved in an initiative to develop new parameters for the declassification of previously secret intelligence information. Although most of the efforts focus on older files, the Public Safety Canada describes this initiative as a way to give the public “a better understanding of activities undertaken by the NSI (National Security and Intelligence) community.”

Right now, isn’t that pretty much what Canadians need most?

There are lots of valid reasons to keep truly sensitive intelligence away from a public forum. There may be concerns around the identity of intelligence assets or unsubstantiated allegations against individuals that may, on their own, prove to be defamatory.

In April, the world witnessed the fallout from highly secret Pentagon documents that revealed U.S. intelligence-gathering operations, including the existence of human assets in the Russian defence ministry. Some of the leaked documents had details of weaknesses in Ukrainian air and ground defences.

That kind of information, leaked in a haphazard fashion, arguably put lives at risk.

Johnston cannot escape history, which contains instances when governments classified certain information merely to cover-up its own incompetence or extralegal activities.

Would the same hold true for the reports Johnston has seen but can’t reveal? Perhaps, but we shouldn’t just assume that. National security officials need to prove releasing these materials presents a clear risk.

Johnston cannot escape history, which contains instances when governments classified certain information merely to cover-up its own incompetence or extralegal activities. The most famous of these instances was the 1971 Pentagon Papers, which revealed the extent to which the U.S. government had lied about its activities in Vietnam.

The good news is even though Johnston did not avail himself of this third option, the prime minister certainly still could.

All it takes is a willingness to challenge national security officials and a commitment to the public interest.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.