In last week’s newsletter we dealt with the actual report
The political fallout of the NISCOP started the moment David McGuinty presented the report to the public. Paragraph 164 reads in part:
Unfortunately, the Committee has also seen troubling intelligence that some Parliamentarians are, in the words of the intelligence services, “semi-witting or witting” participants in the efforts of foreign states to interfere in our politics.
The section continues to describe the ways in which foreign interference:
The communication with a foreign embassy before or during a political campaign to obtain support from community groups or businesses which the diplomatic missions promise to quietly mobilize in a candidate’s favour
Accepting knowingly or through willful blindness funds or benefits from foreign missions or their proxies which have been layered or otherwise disguised to conceal their source.
Providing foreign diplomatic officials with privileged information on the work or opinions of fellow Parliamentary colleagues or Parliamentary business to the advantage of the foreign state; and,
Providing information learned in confidence from the government to a known intelligence officer of a foreign state.
The committee believes as many as 11 Members of Parliament have been allegedly engaging in these behaviors. The first problem is naming them. In theory, someone could rise in the house and name them under Parliamentary Privilege, thereby giving Canadians’ transparency.
However, the House has risen for the summer break, leaving them unidentified, which is political problem number one. Nobody seems to want to name them or can agree on the procedure to do so, or even if they should. Because essentially these are criminal charges. A right to a fair trial is also guaranteed Canadians. Would naming them compromise potential criminal proceedings?
NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, and Elizabeth May have both read the unredacted report, and shared conflicting opinions. May brushed it aside, and Singh said it was more serious than he thought. But apparently not serious enough to break his agreement with the Liberals. Bloc Quebecois leader Yves-Francois Blanchet has said he would get the top secret security clearance, but is no hurry to read the report.
Prime Minister Trudeau has seen the report, and likely knows their identities but isn’t saying a word. And Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre hasn’t even agreed to get his top secret clearance, saying that he doesn’t want his hands tied as to what to do with them. I argued they already were tied in last week’s newsletter. Regardless of who says anything, this is one piece of information we really should know.
The Conservatives themselves present another political problem. The report surrounds Poilievre’s leadership with enough concerning questions. How deep did the foreign involvement go in the last leadership campaign? Did any of it come from his supporters? How does the involvement affect the results? There should be answers to these questions before moving onto the next federal election.
Tangled up with that is political problem number three: The question of a minority government. The Liberals are the party with the most seats at 155 seats, the most of all the parties. The Conservatives come next with 118, followed by the Bloc with 32, NDP with 24, Green Party with 2, and three independents. The NDP are in what amounts to a power-sharing agreement with the Liberals in exchange for measures like dental care, and Pharmacare. The Liberals have fulfilled their end of the bargain, meaning for the NDP it is on a case by case basis. If the NDP were to vote with the Conservatives, Bloc, and Green Party on a confidence motion, we could get an federal election. It’s the case of “everyone knows someone did something wrong, but nobody is willing to say what, or who did it.”
Yes Bill C-70 establishing a “Foreign Influence Transparency Registry has been passed, and the Trudeau government deserves its share of the credit. But is it too little too late? The report talks about measures within the Privy Council office that did not get any funding until 2022. Meanwhile, the activities detailed in the first chapters take years, even decades to cultivate a proxy. Why not act sooner? Why wait for the problem to get this bad? And How high does the current mess go?
The Trust Factor
The trust factor plays big in this now, on two levels. The first, and most important level is voter trust. In a survey on Canadians’ trust in its institutions federal Parliament comes in second last with 36.7%. In an era more concerned with soundbites, and photo ops, it makes sense. But still how are Canadians going to trust any campaigning federal politicians this time around. Canadian voters are too polite to ask incumbents if they are one of the alleged 11 MP’s, so the question will be left to hover underneath the surface.
Eleven Members of Parliament have been accused of what amounts to treason. How do the other 327 MP’s feel about serving in the chamber with colleagues that allegedly seek to undermine the country’s will? I’d imagine not very good. It could create the ultimate toxic workplace. The damage done when you’re working on issues that may need to remain secret, and can’t trust your colleague could severely damage the country. It’s better to do something now, than be forced into action later.