From committee to inquiry, with little to show

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/06/2024 (487 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The beauty of this particular game of political football is that no one really knows where the ball is or who’s in play. Or, at least, when they actually do know more details than the general public, they’ve made commitments not to disclose them.

We’re referring, of course, to the report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP), which last week released a heavily redacted report saying that there are unnamed federal politicians who have been colluding with other countries, along with interference in federal leadership campaigns by foreign nations, including the People’s Republic of China and India.

The report was both eye-opening and fundamentally disappointing — it says that some politicians are sharing information with foreign nations for personal gain, but then (for accurate and defensible reasons) didn’t identify anyone. Among other things, identifying politicians involved could put the sources and methods that Canadian intelligence agencies have used to collect information at risk.

The Bloc Quebecois presented a motion to Parliament to ask an inquiry already studying foreign interference in Canadian elections to broaden its mandate and investigate the concerns. That inquiry, lead by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue, already has the security tools and clearances necessary to handle the task.

The Conservative Party — whose leader, by choice, doesn’t have the security clearance necessary to view the unredacted report — has called for a list of the names of politicians implicated in the report, as well as further investigation.

Green Party co-Leader Elizabeth May, who does have the necessary security clearance and has read the report, says the report includes no such list.

“There is no list of MPs who have shown disloyalty to Canada,” May told reporters.

The most likely scenario is that the report has included some names, but has primarily used redactions to remove identifying details that could be pieced together and used to identify particular federal politicians. May also said she was “vastly relieved” after reading the full report, and says one former parliamentarian should be fully investigated.

No matter: the Conservatives are still using the report — and its apparently non-existent list — to campaign on social media. “Canadians have a right to know the truth about these shocking allegations. Justin Trudeau must release the names and provide the full unredacted information so these allegations can be investigated independently.”

The social media postings come complete with a link where you can provide your personal information to the Tory information bank — and, eventually, leads you to a spot where you can provide a donation.

Other federal parties?

Well, the NDP wants a further inquiry as well — but don’t want it to just look at which federal politicians have been implicated, but also at what, if any, foreign machinations might have benefited Tory leadership candidates.

The Liberals have said they would support the BQ motion as well, meaning the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and BQ were all supporting the motion going into Parliament on Tuesday.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Wednesdays

A weekly dispatch from the head of the Free Press newsroom.

Sign up for Paul Samyn | Editor's Note

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

So where are we?

Well, we’re lurching towards a reasonable effort at a haphazard (and probably expensive) solution. If the vote takes place as scheduled and as expected (it’s set for after the deadline for this piece), the report from a committee will go to an inquiry, and the political scrimmage will probably cool off until the next report is produced.

The real question is whether Justice Marie-Josée Hogue’s inquiry, if it accepts an expanded mandate, will end up with a more satisfying conclusion than the NSICOP committee did.

Frankly, the same issues will remain: intelligence agencies will continue to hold their sources close, and not want to risk assets to obtain one-time criminal charges or convictions.

And round, and round.