Critics are hammering David Johnston, but his most serious wounds are self-inflicted

It’s tradition, some might say politeness, that when a witness appears before a parliamentary committee, MPs welcome the witness. They shake hands and thank them for coming.

So perhaps it was a sign of things to come — or perhaps a sign of declining times — when all but one Conservative (Wellington—Halton Hills MP Michael Chong) bypassed the custom Tuesday when David Johnston, the former governor general and the government’s current independent special rapporteur on foreign interference, appeared before the procedure and house affairs committee.

Johnston was asked to testify for three hours, purportedly for a study on whether the government breached Chong’s privilege by failing to inform him, and other MPs like him, of Chinese efforts to intimidate them.

But it took two hours before an MP asked Johnston about that.

In fact, there were no Conservative questions about foreign interference until after Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell, from Pickering—Uxbridge, noted three Tory MPs had their chance to quiz Johnston and none dealt with the general subject matter.

O’Connell pointed out Conservative MP Michael Barrett, of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, had instead posted video footage of himself on social media asking Johnston questions about his perceived conflict of interest with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for what she speculated were efforts to “help fundraise, or stoke fears and conspiracy theories around (Johnston’s) nonpartisanship.”

The Conservatives spent the first part of the hearing aggressively peppering Johnston with questions about the nature of his relationship with Trudeau. Brantford-Brant MP Larry Brock wouldn’t let the 81-year-old Johnston finish his sentences. At one point, six words into Johnston’s answer, Block cut him off saying his time was limited (though that didn’t stop him from asking a two-and-a-half minute question).

If there were any doubts MPs are more concerned with scoring partisan points than they are about addressing the country’s vulnerability to foreign interference, they were laid to rest this week.

But Johnston did himself no favours either. His answers helped further the case for a public inquiry and raised more concerns that he is ill suited to take on a more expansive public role.

First, Johnston could not, or would not, recognize that he does not have the trust of parliamentarians, and through them a majority of Canadians. While the Liberal government appointed Johnston and gave him a mandate, the House of Commons last week voted 174 to 150 to ask him to step aside. As a former governor general, who could have been called upon to decide the fate of the government, and as the author of a book on trust and its importance for the rule of law and democracy, his refusal to respect the will of the House is bewildering.

Second, Johnston showed us that he doesn’t understand or want to understand the consequences of a perception of a conflict of interest between himself and the prime minister. He continued Tuesday to fuel that perception with comments such as “I was a friend of the father” (the former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau) while insisting “I do not see a conflict.”

Third, Johnston deflated one of his strongest arguments against a public inquiry by acknowledging he drafted his first report with information that was accurate at the time but may have since changed. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh asked Johnston why he wrote in his report that online misinformation “could not be traced to a state-sponsored source” while former Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole told the House of Commons last week that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told him that a foreign state did amplify misinformation on social media. Johnston replied: “the evidence that we had before us, that permitted us to come to the conclusion … was what was available to us at that time.”

In his report last month, Johnston said he was confident a public inquiry was not needed because it would reveal no new information. On page four, he wrote: “First, I have been able to review all the relevant facts over the past two months.” Clearly, this is no longer true. (It’s doubtful it was ever true, as Johnston had less than nine weeks to pore through all the information gathered for him.) A public inquiry commissioner would have months, likely years, to look over documents as well as have the ability to subpoena witnesses, take evidence under oath and request documents.

Fourth, Johnston’s inability or unwillingness to provide clear answers may lead people to believe he did not do his due diligence. Under questioning from NDP Vancouver East MP Jenny Kwan, Johnston would not say whether he had inquired into why an early version of an intelligence memo dealing into Chinese attempts to interfere in a Liberal party nomination race was changed.

Last month, Johnston concluded there were no examples of the prime minister or his ministers knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence or recommendations related to foreign interference. Now, the special rapporteur wants to move on to self-assigned public hearings next month, hoping to answer questions of how foreign interference affects Canadians and how it gets detected and deterred, with an eye toward strengthening Canada’s capacity.

It is a far less catchy topic than whether Trudeau failed to curb Chinese actions because it benefited the Liberal party — and one reason why opposition MPs are refusing to let go of their criticism of Johnston and his report.

But it doesn’t mean they don’t have a point.

Althia Raj is an Ottawa-based national politics columnist for the Star. Follow her on Twitter: @althiaraj