Canadians should know if they are being asked to vote for suspected traitors

Article content

Last week's Bombshell report from the National Security Intelligence Committee (NSICOP) on foreign interference offered parliamentarians of all political stripes another opportunity to put aside their partisan differences and defend the sanctity of Canadian democracy and our national right to ab-determination and to defend the sanctity of Canadian democracy and our national right to ab-determination and to defend the sanctity of Canadian democracy and our national right to ab-determination determination and to defend the sanctity of Canadian democracy and our national right to ab-determination and to defend the sanctity of Canadian democracy and our national right to ab-determination and to defend the Holy .

Instead, our political leaders have given wildly different accountings of the scope of the problem and continue to offer excuses for why voters should not be equipped with as much information as possible when they go to the polls during the next elections.

Article content

NSICOP's 84-page report confirmed much of what we already knew from media reports and previous investigations – information that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberals have continually tried to downplay and discredit.

But the Committee also stated at length that it “sees disturbing intelligence that some parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, 'participants in or with the efforts of foreign states to intervene in our politics.'

Examples include: working with foreign actors to gain support from minority communities; “knowingly or willfully accept funds or benefits from foreign missions or their agents”; “Provide foreign diplomatic officials with inside information on the work or opinions of parliamentary colleagues”; Directing foreign actors to “misinfluence Parliament” to benefit a foreign government; and “providing information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer.”

These are serious accusations – which the committee calls “profoundly unethical,” “contrary to the oaths and solemn affirmations that parliamentarians take to conduct themselves in the best interests of Canada” and potentially “illegal.” .

Article content

Article content

But the NSICOP report was redacted to protect classified information, so Canadians don't have the opportunity to make informed decisions about the seriousness of the accusations or whether they continue to trust their local MPs.

Unfortunately, those who have seen the unexpelled version of the report have offered diametrically opposed accounts of the seriousness of the allegations and whether it is even possible to release a list of names.

Green Leader Elizabeth May, the first opposition party leader to read the report, rejected the accusations, saying she “doesn't worry about anyone in the House of Commons” and “there “There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty.” in Canada.”

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, however, had the opposite reaction. He said there are “a number of MPs who have knowingly provided aid to foreign governments” and their “behavior appears absolutely criminal and should be prosecuted.” He even went so far as to call them “traitors to the country.”

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre decided not to take the necessary security clearance to read the report, instead insisting that the government release the list of names or order the foreign interference inquiry to review the information classified and publish “factual findings” on each case.

Article content

Similar to previous Liberal attempts to discredit media reports of foreign interference causing unreliable leaks, Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc suggested the report “missed the necessary caveats” and threw out the doubts the idea that there is a perfect list of names that are completely reliable and this should be released to the public. »

Last week, he told the House Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security that it was up to RCMP and Crown prosecutors to decide whether “charges should be laid” but suggested that is not possible because the report is based on “unverified intelligence information.”

And in any case, as NSICOP acknowledged, the allegations are “unlikely to lead to criminal charges” because Canada has not developed a robust system for using classified information as evidence before courts. But this only shows the government's unwillingness to take the necessary steps to protect our democracy.

In November, many legal experts and national security experts were encouraged by the successful prosecution of Cameron Ortis, a former RCMP officer convicted under the Security of Information Act. If the government believes that our legal system is not up to the task of holding potentially traitorous parliamentarians equally accountable, it is up to Ottawa to fix the problem.

Article content

Most importantly, while we agree that every Canadian has the right to due process, this same standard does not apply to the world of electoral politics.

At the very least, Canadians need clear assurance that the parties involved are taking the matter seriously and taking appropriate steps to clean up the mess they have allowed to be passed on to each other. So far nothing. This makes releasing names a strong and logical option, which would give voters the information they need to cast judgment at the polls.

Canadians have every right to know whether their elected officials have been accused of inappropriate behavior – particularly behavior that suggests they may be working in the interests of a foreign power, rather than their constituents, or the nation in his outfit.

If MPs believe the allegations raised against them are unfounded or lack “context”, they should also have the right to challenge them in the court of public opinion.

We understand that releasing the names of accused parliamentarians and the details of their alleged transgressions would risk disclosing sensitive details about how our intelligence agencies collected the information.

But that danger is likely outweighed by the need to send a clear message to Canadian politicians that their oath of allegiance to king and country will be taken seriously and foreign adversaries who attempt to influence our democracy will not stand unchallenged.

National post

Article content